Laws behind pregnancy.

[MrsSassyPants]

I am not saying ban him bc I don't agree with him expletive, I'm saying ban him bc he has been here two days and look at the shit he is starting.  Remember this was in the introductions until mod moved it.  He reminds eerily of JanSnyder.

And second of all,  I am not exatly trying to win any awards with my opinions. In his original intro he never mentioned "marriage". That came up somewhere else in this circus. If the woman can sleep at night knowing that she is charging an innocent man for a child produced from whoring around, may she burn in hell.

[Mermaid]

he's called me an idiot several times. But whatever.

I don't think I am even close to being an idiot. I may have sand in my vegina but I am no idiot.

[MrsSassyPants]

My point exactly mermaid. He is serving no good purpose here.  Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but could someone elaborate on sand in vagina?

[Mermaid]

Judging from his responses, he's only here to troll, not to make a point.

[MrsSassyPants]

So alex, when you look in the mirror do you see a troll looking back at you?  If anyone has any pictures, please post.

[Aroura33]

Judging from his responses, he's only here to troll, not to make a point.

I'm no troll sniffing expert, but this guy smells more like genuine misogynist-moron than troll to me.  The part where I sais his posts were insulting, and his response was:

But that doesn't mean that you have pointed out list one post which is offensive or crazy
it might be in bad grammar, but offensive?
and please if you are offended by word vegina then build an ark,seal on five oceans and wait until humans die out 8-[

reads more as dumb as rocks than troll to me.  he is mistranslating offensive and insulting, as if they meant the same thing, which is more stupid than troll. (also, his unique spelling of vagina is worth many lols!)  I guess he could be playing the stupid troll?  I don't know, lol.

It's too bad too.  Although we've had similar topics, I do think it is one that has not recently been talked about here, and would be an interesting discussion if OP wasn't stinking the thread up.

Also, I've had sand in my vagina before...not fun!   Worst part of playing at the beach!
Not sure what that has to do with this thread though.....  :rollin:

[aitm]

If you kids are going to play with your poop, you're going to get shit on your fingers.

[MrsSassyPants]

Well staff, that's why your here :). To clean up our messes.  :) and we love you for it.

[the_antithesis]

If you kids are going to play with your poop, you're going to get shit on your fingers.

*sniffs fingers*

[surly74]

I am not saying ban him bc I don't agree with him expletive, I'm saying ban him bc he has been here two days and look at the shit he is starting.  Remember this was in the introductions until mod moved it.  He reminds me eerily of JanSnyder.

your first post about banning didn't say anything about these reasons. you looked like you wanted him banned because of his stances. be more clear next time when crying to the mods.

[surly74]

My point exactly mermaid. He is serving no good purpose here.  Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but could someone elaborate on sand in vagina?

so if he left would this be a good topic to continue? Plu made some interesting points which most have ignored.

[Mermaid]

Also, I've had sand in my vagina before...not fun!   Worst part of playing at the beach!

This does not sound pleasant. And the reason I won't have sex on the beach without some serious vigilance. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow. Ow.

That being said, this is actually an interesting topic that does bear discussion. Too bad that jerkwad is constantly steamrolling over people's discussions. It makes me reluctant to participate in a rational discussion about it.

[Mermaid]

My point exactly mermaid. He is serving no good purpose here.  Maybe I'm just a dumbass, but could someone elaborate on sand in vagina?

so if he left would this be a good topic to continue? Plu made some interesting points which most have ignored.

I think so, yes.

[MrsSassyPants]

Someone get this guy some cheese.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This is indeed a complicated issue with lots of nuance.  Abortion has been a game changer in the traditional balance between the sexes and proper provisions for children.

Let's go back to the days before abortion.  Well, there's no such thing so let's go back to the days before safe and legal abortion.

If an accidental pregnancy occurred, often the man would be forced to marry the woman.  It would be the famous "shotgun wedding" because illegitimacy was still frowned on in those days.  But that's a side issue.

The issue is that she will carry to term, then he should pay child support.  So far nobody disagree on this point.  This is in the olden days, not today.

Now add a second issue.  She could choose to adopt the kid out.  Now she is no longer responsible for the kid, and he is also no longer responsible for the kid.  He can hope she adopts the kid out.  She still has to go through the whole ordeal of pregnancy, so he should help with that.  But that's not the issue of the adoption because it is already getting tricky.

First, does he get any say in adopting the kid out?  It is partly his after all.  I've read cases where biological dads discover (a few years later) that there was a kid that was adopted out and they tried to gain legal and physical custody of their own child.  The biological mother neglected to tell the biological father about the kid.  Sometimes the bio dad wins, sometimes the bio dad loses.  Now that we've added the adoption option we now have to deal with the rights of the man, whether we like it or not.

Often when the subjects of child support and abortion are mixed in the same thread, there are people who refuse to discuss the issue of men having any rights.  But we're not up to abortion yet, only adoption.  So does the man have any rights when the man wants the child and the woman wants to adopt it out?  What about if she fails to tell him about the child?

Ok, the issue has become more thorny.  Now the issue can become very complicated.  Abortion removes the eventual kid from the discussion in a way that adoption doesn't.

In the military I was taught that responsibility for a decision should be equal to power to make the decision.  If the colonel makes a stupid decision that screws everything up, it isn't the private who gets blamed.  Well, not really but that's the theory.  Also if a colonel makes a brilliant decision that makes everything better, it isn't the private who gets the credit.  That is both reality and theory.  Despite some kinks in implementation it is a good theory.

With abortion, that decision is 100% hers.  Yes, he participated in every step before that, but she has the last decision and 100% of the decision making power for that last decision.  By military principles she therefore should have 100% responsibility for that decision.  That is what makes abortion such a game changer.

Given her full authority for the final decision (although he had some authority on the decisions leading up to the final decision), what amount of responsibility should each party have?