Women Getting Paid Child Support (Derail from: I get foods stamps)

[Derec]

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the conservative push to eliminate sex-ed in schools, affordable birth control, women's reproductive health care, child care options, etc. Yep, it is 10,000,000% all this woman's own fault.

As opposed to 0% fault you want to assign her. By the way, female (and female only!) contraceptives are 100% covered by Obamacare.

 

[RavenSky]

Which, of course, has nothing whatsoever to do with the conservative push to eliminate sex-ed in schools, affordable birth control, women's reproductive health care, child care options, etc. Yep, it is 10,000,000% all this woman's own fault.

As opposed to 0% fault you want to assign her. By the way, female (and female only!) contraceptives are 100% covered by Obamacare.

Kindly do not assign assumption to me that I have not stated for myself. Also kindly stop trying to derail yet another thread with your anti-women rhetoric, especially on the back on one of my posts.

As for ObamaCare, it has only been in effect since January 1, 2014. When were her children born? Moreover, depending on what state she lives in, ACA may cover 0% of anything because the Republican Governors have chosen not to allow its benefits to that state's citizens... which simply supports my original point, thank you.

 

[Derec]

Kindly do not assign assumption to me that I have not stated for myself.

So what portion of the blame do you assign her?

Also kindly stop trying to derail yet another thread with your anti-women rhetoric, especially on the back on one of my posts.

So you spewing standard "war on women" nonsense is not a derail, but me challenging it by pointing out that women are actually privileged, not disadvantaged, by current laws is? What strange logic is that?

As for ObamaCare, it has only been in effect since January 1, 2014. When were her children born?

No idea. Neither do you have any idea what she knew about how babies are made when she made those babies or what kind of sex ed she had in school, yet you offered lack of sex ed as an excuse (as if there weren't other ways to inform oneself).

Moreover, depending on what state she lives in, ACA may cover 0% of anything because the Republican Governors have chosen not to allow its benefits to that state's citizens.. which simply supports my original point, thank you.

No, it doesn't. There is no state where ACA "covers 0% of anything" as there are federal exchanges. The only thing not available in many states is Medicaid expansion.

 

[Playball40]

So what portion of the blame do you assign her?

Also kindly stop trying to derail yet another thread with your anti-women rhetoric, especially on the back on one of my posts.

So you spewing standard "war on women" nonsense is not a derail, but me challenging it by pointing out that women are actually privileged, not disadvantaged, by current laws is? What strange logic is that?

As for ObamaCare, it has only been in effect since January 1, 2014. When were her children born?

No idea. Neither do you have any idea what she knew about how babies are made when she made those babies or what kind of sex ed she had in school, yet you offered lack of sex ed as an excuse (as if there weren't other ways to inform oneself).

Moreover, depending on what state she lives in, ACA may cover 0% of anything because the Republican Governors have chosen not to allow its benefits to that state's citizens.. which simply supports my original point, thank you.

No, it doesn't. There is no state where ACA "covers 0% of anything" as there are federal exchanges. The only thing not available in many states is Medicaid expansion.

And if you're too poor to qualify for coverage on the exchanges in a state that refused Medicaid expansion? What then? That's like saying women have access to Planned Parenthood facilities if there is one remaining open anywhere in the US. It's nonsense.

 

[laughing dog]

In Australia, like most of the free world, there are some women who may have up to four kids, all by different fathers. The first and second, easily accidental, but above that, it then becomes questionable.

Is there a real point here?

 

[laughing dog]

You're blaming men for her stupidity.

You need to learn the facts of life. It usually takes a sperm and an egg to get a fetus. The sperm comes from the man. The egg comes from woman. How is getting pregnant based on the stupidity of only the woman?

Furthermore, how is expecting men to be responsible for their actions blaming them? Remember the context was a poster implicitly placing the responsibility solely on women.

 

[Toni]

Men should use condoms and greater discretion when selecting their sex partners. I think that's the real take away.

Why don't you change your name to cereD?

You're as rabidly blame-the-man as he is blame-the-woman.

You're blaming men for her stupidity.

Maybe you should just admit your sympathies with the Taliban as regards women?

Actually, I wrote that half tongue in cheek but only half. I know my audience here. Which apparently absolves men from any legal, moral or financial responsibility for any progeny which result from sex acts they willingly take part in.

On the other hand, if a woman gives birth without a man's express consent, she's irresponsible. Of course, she's also not allowed to obtain an abortion without the express consent of men. Of corse she also bears the entire financial responsibility not to mention the physical effects of birth control.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why don't you change your name to cereD?

You're as rabidly blame-the-man as he is blame-the-woman.

You're blaming men for her stupidity.

Maybe you should just admit your sympathies with the Taliban as regards women?

Actually, I wrote that half tongue in cheek but only half. I know my audience here. Which apparently absolves men from any legal, moral or financial responsibility for any progeny which result from sex acts they willingly take part in.

On the other hand, if a woman gives birth without a man's express consent, she's irresponsible. Of course, she's also not allowed to obtain an abortion without the express consent of men. Of corse she also bears the entire financial responsibility not to mention the physical effects of birth control.

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Maybe you should just admit your sympathies with the Taliban as regards women?

Actually, I wrote that half tongue in cheek but only half. I know my audience here. Which apparently absolves men from any legal, moral or financial responsibility for any progeny which result from sex acts they willingly take part in.

On the other hand, if a woman gives birth without a man's express consent, she's irresponsible. Of course, she's also not allowed to obtain an abortion without the express consent of men. Of corse she also bears the entire financial responsibility not to mention the physical effects of birth control.

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

 

[Toni]

Maybe you should just admit your sympathies with the Taliban as regards women?

Actually, I wrote that half tongue in cheek but only half. I know my audience here. Which apparently absolves men from any legal, moral or financial responsibility for any progeny which result from sex acts they willingly take part in.

On the other hand, if a woman gives birth without a man's express consent, she's irresponsible. Of course, she's also not allowed to obtain an abortion without the express consent of men. Of corse she also bears the entire financial responsibility not to mention the physical effects of birth control.

Save it for the religious right.

I did.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

We have zero idea who agreed whether or not the children were a mutual decision. You are making assumptions.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

You're saying that she needs a man's permission to have a child. Which is the same damn thing, actually. She must have a man's decision to make any decision about her own body that he might not agree with.

Men should not be sticking their dicks into women if they can't afford to support any resulting child.

Wait! Oh, no! That cannot be right! It is ALWAYS the responsibility of a woman to be obedient to whatever a man wants at any given moment and if she can't handle that, then she can at least be convenient by bearing the entire responsibility of birth control, reproduction, sex, and any resulting children--unless the man has given his permission for her to go ahead and do whatever it is that he wants.

Men, of course, have the right to as much responsibility and consequence free sex as they can possibly get.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

I'm not arguing that she has no responsibility. I'm arguing that they BOTH have responsibility. He's not off the hook because he's a dick or because he has one.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

You're saying that she needs a man's permission to have a child. Which is the same damn thing, actually. She must have a man's decision to make any decision about her own body that he might not agree with.

Wait. What? Explain this please. He just said the opposite. Or do you mean a man had to decide to have sex with her? She could just go to a sperm bank, no?

Seems to me that aside from rape, they are equally responsible for her getting pregnant. And then she has the added decision of whether or not to have an abortion. So she is making more choice here than he is, and her final choice trumps his attempt to have a baby, so she should be held more responsible, no? Holing her responsible for her own actions and decisions is not the same as "she needs a man's permission". She can have the bay or not have the babe, so long as she accepts the consequences. It is entirely and solely her choice. That should come with some responsibility, should it not?

How's this for an analogy? She is president with a veto and he is a legislator that helped her draft the bill.

 

[Toni]

You're saying that she needs a man's permission to have a child. Which is the same damn thing, actually. She must have a man's decision to make any decision about her own body that he might not agree with.

Wait. What? Explain this please. He just said the opposite. Or do you mean a man had to decide to have sex with her? She could just go to a sperm bank, no?

What he's saying is that if a woman makes any decision a man does not agree with, she's on her own. In other words: without his permission, for all practical purposes.

We are not discussing the circumstance under which a woman makes the deliberate--and expensive--choice to conceive by sperm donor, presumably intending to raise the child on her own. Although many women do conceive via sperm donation with the express mutual intent to raise that child with her spouse or partner. Although the principle is the same: two people create a child together and both are equally responsible. Of course if the child is carried by the woman, she bears the entire physical risk and burden-- which will effect her for the rest of her life. His contribution is over in seconds.

Seems to me that aside from rape, they are equally responsible for her getting pregnant. And then she has the added decision of whether or not to have an abortion. So she is making more choice here than he is, and her final choice trumps his attempt to have a baby, so she should be held more responsible, no?

No.

Holing her responsible for her own actions and decisions is not the same as "she needs a man's permission". She can have the bay or not have the babe, so long as she accepts the consequences. It is entirely and solely her choice. That should come with some responsibility, should it not?

From a biological standpoint only, the male 'contribution' ends at conception. However, responsibility does not. For either of them.

If she decides to carry the child or to terminate--with or without his consent or cooperation which, in practical terms amounts to permission, she bears physical and economic and social risks the father will never bear.

They both bear equal responsibility for providing for the physical, emotional, social, and economical needs of any child resulting from a consensual sex act.

How's this for an analogy? She is president with a veto and he is a legislator that helped her draft the bill.

Not apt.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

It's her choice.

He's responsible for the cost of the abortion. If she chooses a more expensive option that's her problem.

 

[laughing dog]

It's her choice.

He's responsible for the cost of the abortion. If she chooses a more expensive option that's her problem.

Why? She did not necessarily choose to become pregnant. What if an abortion is not available or viable?

 

[RavenSky]

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

It's her choice.

He's responsible for the cost of the abortion. If she chooses a more expensive option that's her problem.

Wrong. The CHILD is equally his responsibility

 

[Toni]

Save it for the religious right.

While I do think it's her responsibility that's because it's her choice whether to carry or abort. Responsibility for the outcome of a decision should rest with the person making the decision.

I am not saying she needs a man's consent to have a child. I'm saying she shouldn't have a child when she's not in a position to support a child. I am not saying she needs anyone permission to have an abortion.

Perhaps you did not learn basic biology, but women do not produce children without some action--and certain inaction on the part of men.

And it doesn't take some action and inaction on her part to have a child???

So men have no responsibility for their reproductive choices?

It's her choice.

He's responsible for the cost of the abortion. If she chooses a more expensive option that's her problem.

The law in every single state disagrees with you as does any thinking person.

 

[Derec]

The law in every single state disagrees with you

The law is an ass. There are myriad of absurdities in child support law, like how the courts don't care if a man has to be homeless because of the high payments, as long as the woman gets paid. They do not care if the woman is a cheating slut and the child is not even his. The fact that the law doesn't consider the fact that a woman can decide whether to carry out a pregnancy while a man's decision stops at the moment of ejaculation is just one more of the many asinine things about child support laws.

as does any thinking person.

Here's where you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. The CHILD is equally his responsibility

It should not be. Responsibility should be related to what kind of choice one had in the outcome. Women have much more of a choice, therefore women should be much more responsible for the children they choose to have than men who do not have that choice. That does not apply for wanted pregnancies for couples but does when a woman wants a child but her boyfriend doesn't or if she simply never tells the father about the pregnancy (current law says she can collect back child support even if she tells him years later which is complete BS).

 

[RavenSky]

The law is an ass. There are myriad of absurdities in child support law, like how the courts don't care if a man has to be homeless because of the high payments, as long as the woman gets paid. They do not care if the woman is a cheating slut and the child is not even his. The fact that the law doesn't consider the fact that a woman can decide whether to carry out a pregnancy while a man's decision stops at the moment of ejaculation is just one more of the many asinine things about child support laws.

as does any thinking person.

Here's where you are wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

Wrong. The CHILD is equally his responsibility

It should not be. Responsibility should be related to what kind of choice one had in the outcome. Women have much more of a choice, therefore women should be much more responsible for the children they choose to have than men who do not have that choice.

The CHILD is his, therefore he is equally responsible for it. Don't want kids? Get snipped.

 

[Derec]

The CHILD is his, therefore he is equally responsible for it. Don't want kids? Get snipped.

Again, the CHOICE wasn't equally his, therefore the RESPONSIBILITY should not be equally his.

Funny how feminists lose the pro-choice logic when it comes to child support, which favors women greatly.

 

[Toni]

The law is an ass. There are myriad of absurdities in child support law, like how the courts don't care if a man has to be homeless because of the high payments, as long as the woman gets paid. They do not care if the woman is a cheating slut and the child is not even his. The fact that the law doesn't consider the fact that a woman can decide whether to carry out a pregnancy while a man's decision stops at the moment of ejaculation is just one more of the many asinine things about child support laws.

as does any thinking person.

Here's where you are wrong.

No, ^^here^^is where you prove my point.

Wrong. The CHILD is equally his responsibility

It should not be. Responsibility should be related to what kind of choice one had in the outcome. Women have much more of a choice, therefore women should be much more responsible for the children they choose to have than men who do not have that choice. That does not apply for wanted pregnancies for couples but does when a woman wants a child but her boyfriend doesn't or if she simply never tells the father about the pregnancy (current law says she can collect back child support even if she tells him years later which is complete BS).

Yes, derec, we are all aware that in your world view that only what a man wants is important and that women are all lying, cheating sluts.

How's that working out for you?