Announcement

**GePap** · March 13, 2006, 21:33

I guess NYE does not consider the countless hours she has to put in to feed, clothe, and protect the child as counting, or the bulk of her salary she must spend, if she is able to have a salary given the immense time cost of raising a child....

**Mrs. Tuberski** · March 13, 2006, 21:33

and then you are also saying the said constrction worker can be free to continue to pollenate as he wishes right?

**GePap** · March 13, 2006, 21:34

Originally posted by notyoueither
And the choice to have the child is entirely hers. If she can't afford it, she should not have it or keep it.

If the man doesn;t want a child or can;t afford it, he should keep his penis safely insde his pants.

Seeking to keep it on the cruel prospect that some construction worker will be there to help pay for it against his will, when his next cash job is merely a skip from town away is not the answer to caring for unwanted children.

Cruel? What about the working woman no longer abl to work? Yeah, her life is all roses...

**Apocalypse** · March 13, 2006, 21:37

And why can't a woman who had a kid recently work? Anyway, she can easily just have it be adopted and remove his problem, which is why it shouldn't be debated.

**notyoueither** · March 13, 2006, 21:38

Originally posted by GePap
I guess NYE does not consider the countless hours she has to put in to feed, clothe, and protect the child as counting, or the bulk of her salary she must spend, if she is able to have a salary given the immense time cost of raising a child....

I guess you are assuming only women rear and care for children.

Come back to us when your attitudes have advanced from the 1950's, OK?

**Mrs. Tuberski** · March 13, 2006, 21:40

I have said this is a mans way of seeking reckless behavior. Not being held responsible for his actions.

**GePap** · March 13, 2006, 21:40

Originally posted by Apocalypse
And why can't a woman who had a kid recently work? Anyway, she can easily just have it be adopted and remove his problem, which is why it shouldn't be debated.

And as has been already argued and stated, if the woman gives the child up for adoption, then the man is also absolved, and the child is cared for.

The question is why the woman, who already spent 9 months with the fetus inside of her, should be forced to abandon her genetic progeny because the other genetic donor has decided they don't want to bear responsibility for their actions?

**notyoueither** · March 13, 2006, 21:40

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
and then you are also saying the said constrction worker can be free to continue to pollenate as he wishes right?

Hey. If he can find women stupid enough to do it, why not?

By your own standard, she has a choice!

By the current standard of law and society, she has many choices, and men have very few.

**notyoueither** · March 13, 2006, 21:42

Originally posted by Mrs. Tuberski
I have said this is a mans way of seeking reckless behavior. Not being held responsible for his actions.

How about being held as responisble as women are?

Except nope, he has no say in abortion or not.

He does get a choice when it comes to adoption, assuming a women who wanted to give birth and then put up for adoption would righly declare the father. What do you think the odds of that are?

**GePap** · March 13, 2006, 21:42

Originally posted by notyoueither

I guess you are assuming only women rear and care for children.

Come back to us when your attitudes have advanced from the 1950's, OK?

Hello!

If the men for whose "equality" you are fighting for don't even want to support their child with some money, they sure as HELL won't be doing anything to take care of the child.

Those men who rear children are not the issue, as they obviously have chosen to be responsible for their actions.

You are fighting for the irreponsible ones, so don't try to bring the responsible ones into your arguement. They only serve to undermine your point.

**Apocalypse** · March 13, 2006, 21:43

Originally posted by GePap
And as has been already argued and stated, if the woman gives the child up for adoption, then the man is also absolved, and the child is cared for.

The question is why the woman, who already spent 9 months with the fetus inside of her, should be forced to abandon her genetic progeny because the other genetic donor has decided they don't want to bear responsibility for their actions?

Maybe the adoption is what is best for the kid though.

**GePap** · March 13, 2006, 21:43

Originally posted by notyoueither

How about being held as responisble as women are?

Except nope, he has no say in abortion or not.

He does get a choice when it comes to adoption, assuming a women who wanted to give birth and then put up for adoption would righly declare the father. What do you think the odds of that are?

If he cared so much, then one assumes the man knows the woman is pregnant and knows how to find her, and thus make his claim, if he wanted the child.

**MRT144** · March 13, 2006, 21:44

i like how NYE is finding solutions to problems that creates bigger problems.

**notyoueither** · March 13, 2006, 21:44

And, I might point out, that you are attributing behaviour to men that you do not even consider for women.

We call that sexist.

Oops. Women can be as irresponsible as they please, they are one short trip to the clinic away from being relieved of any responsibility.

OK. Carry on.

**notyoueither** · March 13, 2006, 21:45

Originally posted by MRT144
i like how NYE is finding solutions to problems that creates bigger problems.

Aha.

OK.

State the larger problems.

Announcement

Men Want Say in Unplanned Pregnancy!

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment