Double standard on abortion and child support

That has nothing to do with the post of mine you quoted. My post is still accurate and your statistics did nothing to prove otherwise.

"""Please take absolute JOY in the fact that many men just walk away , free as a bird , with no life long damage to their bodies and no money lost! That is a FACT.... I guess we're even""".

 

What special privileges??

 

Source Please.

Showing the truthfullness of your claim.

Thank You.

Ryobi

 

Women can walk away too by having an abortion.

 

Did I state otherwise? No, I didn't....try not to be so blinded by your concern for men that you lose the ability to read correctly.

 

The source? The fact that laws had to be made to keep men from getting away leaving their children to rely on the state to take care of them.

And , please, don't insinuate no man has EVER walked away ...even you have to admit that just isn't true.

FACT:the fact that many men just walk away , free as a bird , with no life long damage to their bodies and no money lost! That is a FACT

 

so what is the difference when one parent wants to be a dead beat and both do.... nothing.... they are both equally as much a dead beat as the other....

only if they both agree to be deadbeats they call it giving the baby away for 'adoption' and neither party is financially responsible ever again, even if they later meat the child down the road

.

 

you said
"Your argument is that allowing fathers to abandon their unwanted children is fair.

It isn't. You're wrong. "

I am saying that it's no different if one parent wants nothign to do with the child then it is if BOTH parents want noghing to do with the child, yet if only one wants that, they still have to financially support the child, if both want that, neither has to support the child financially

 

"Meating" children is generally frowned upon these days. However delicious they may be.

 

I would like a source for your claim that "many men just walk away, free as a bird,"

Thank You

Ryobi

 

Why are you attacking me on such a personal level? Other than this one issue we'd probably agree on everything.

I understand it's a heated debate but jeeze...

 

I apologize for it and I guess we will never agree on this issue mainly because I honestly don't care if one little thing is unfair to men.... I can't even pretend to care since I know so much of history and how this world has treated women.

 

In other words, Fox Hastings believes males should be punished today for what feminists believe other males did before they were born. That's what feminism is all about, hate. Feminism is a politically correct supremacist hate movement, just as the KKK was once a politicaly correct supremacist hate movement.

 

We don't even begin to touch the sides of the implications of the past treatment of women. Redress takes time. The process is still going on.

Some of those who'd rather return to the 50s treatment of women have a grubby arsenal of comparing feminists to the KKK and Nazis and other claptrap. But the process continues in spite of the dunderheads.

I remember ryobi posting one time his mother was a feminist. Karma, I guess.

I understand where you're coming from. We have a way to go. Continue the good fight.

 

Cool. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one and just let it go. =)

 

Yes I did.

I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

I guess a way of simplifying and dumbing down what he's saying is, if it's not okay for one parent to sign away their parental rights and not pay for a child they don't want, why should it be ok for both parents to sign away their parental rights and not pay for a child they both don't want? Why is one more acceptable than the other?

 

That's very poor use of English.

In the first case, the child is brought up by their parents. Both parents must help support their child. A child should be supported by both parents whenever possible.

In the second case, the child is brought up by their adoptive parents. The adoptive parents assume all responsibility for the child in exactly the same way as if it was their natural child.

So the same thing applies. Both of the adoptive parents have to support the child whenever possible.

 

It made perfect sense to me. I feel as though you continually remark on people's English speaking abilities in order to insult them though.

Why MUST both parents help support a child biologically related to them? At least why do you think this? Considering the fact that there are plenty of outlets for parents to remove their parental rights...hmm.

You seem to be under the impression that every child put up for adoption actually gets adopted. That is not the case considering the give or take 500,000 kids in the adoption and foster care system, supported by, guess who, the tax payers!

 

I don't constantly do it. Only when the question is a muddle. I'm sure it sounds fine to you, but your point wasn't very well expressed.

Only if both parents agree. I believe children should have the right to stay with their parents whenever possible. If one of their parents doesn't want the child but the other does, then the child stays with the parent who wants him and loves him.
Most of the time that's his mother, but not always. Mothers don't abandon their children as much as fathers.

That's why you think the system is unfair. Imagine for one moment actually telling your child to his face that you don't love him, you don't want him and are not prepared to spend one penny on putting a roof over his head and feeding and clothing him - not to mention the whole host of stuff absent fathers don't need to do or pay for - caring for him when he's ill, organising his dental treatment and his schooling. Taking him swimming and to the beach. That's just for starters. A father has no obligation to buy his child a birthday present or even send him a greetings card. To attend school functions or watch him graduate. A father doesn't legally need to do that.

A father is not legally obliged to act the part of a father.

Which is why fathers should help support their children whenever they can. Why should the man next door do it through his taxes, because the father has decided he doesn't want to do it himself

You're defeating your own argument.

 

Neither party should have any responsibility at all. If they both consent to have sex at any given level of contraception, what's the problem? They're adults, they can assess the risk for themselves.

The only issue arises when one party gives misleading information.

 

So do you think it should be illegal for parents to sign away their parental rights in an adoption/foster care setting since tax payers must fund it?

 

Why must taxpayers fund it?

 

I don't know, why do they?

 

You tell me, It's your claim.