pickabeau1:

Thanks however I wish things could go on back to d way they were
Once the foetus was made to be a clump of cells or clots it became a disaster

Throughout history widespread abortion has always been akin to degradation of societal values though it serves a purpose

However that is a moral position.

Legally abortion has no ethical, spiritual implications... Its even deemed safer than childbirth

but it still has psychological, mental and physical implications that may be very difficult or impossible to recover from.

Did this really Happen?

Unfair doesn't begin to describe it

So he was made to pay for his kindness. Wow.
Did he appeal the ruling?

CityNG:

I was in class with someone from the state of Washington who had a real horror story.

He met a girl in a club and they hit it off. He took her out a few times and met her kids. Being a good guy he helped her set up a birthday party for one of the kids.

They broke up a few months later, mind you the guy never lived with the woman.

She sued for child support and got it because the Judge felt that he acted as a father figure for the children - from just one birthday party and a 3 month relationship.

And the US is littered with stories like this with Fathers paying child support on children which DNA has proven are not theirs but the system doesn't care, they want the federal matching grant.

I try to never judge a person until I walked in their shoes so when I advise my friends never to date a single mother there's a reason behind it. It's not the mothers themselves but the protected financial class that the government gives them.

Mondisweets: but it still has psychological, mental and physical implications that may be very difficult or impossible to recover from.

Prochoicers n abortion advocates call that sentiments

cococandy:
Did this really Happen?

Unfair doesn't begin to describe it

So he was made to pay for his kindness. Wow.
Did he appeal the ruling?

Why u dey open eye.....

That's the consequences of praising unbridled irresponsibility

They have destroyed marriage

They have deified abortion

They have ruined men's financially

They stopped men from seeing their own child

Now u r saying its unfair?... Very rich from u

Mondisweets: you do know that if a woman was on other pills such as antibiotics the emergency contraceptives might not work? this is something a lot of people are not aware of . if you are clearly in capable of being a dad why dont u abstain from sex, thats what a responsible man would do

and this is why there are about 20 different birth control methods for a woman to choose from. if she cannot go the full nine yards to have an abortion, why not use any of the 20 methods. a man has just 2(condom & vasectomy) and you still heap the responsibility on him?

when would women start taking responsibility for their own actions? he should abstain from sex and the woman shouldn't? unless you are telling me that every time a woman lies down to have sex, she is doing it to have a baby then what you wrote above is null & void.

Yes of course I praise unbridled irresponsibility.
And I support men paying for kids that are not theirs.
Do you want add anything else?

Keep making your assumptions.

pickabeau1:


Why u dey open eye.....

That's the consequences of praising unbridled irresponsibility

They have destroyed marriage

They have deified abortion

They have ruined men's financially

They stopped men from seeing their own child

Now u r saying its unfair?... Very rich from u

coogar:

and this is why there are about 20 different birth control methods for a woman to choose from. if she cannot go the full nine yards to have an abortion, why not use any of the 20 methods. a man has just 2(condom & vasectomy) and you still heap the responsibility on him?

when would women start taking responsibility for their own actions? he should abstain from sex and the woman shouldn't? unless you are telling me that every time a woman lies down to have sex, she is doing it to have a baby then what you wrote above is null & void.

im pretty sure the woman would have done that by giving birth to the child they both created. Feeding and putting that child through school

My friend use your common sense if men abstain who will make women have sex with?

Unless you are telling me that every man doesn't know that condoms break then what you wrote is null and void

cococandy:
Yes of course I praise unbridled irresponsibility.
And I support men paying for kids that are not theirs.
Do you want add anything else?

Keep making your assumptions.

Not you...

Mondisweets: im pretty sure the woman would have done that by giving birth to the child they both created. Feeding and putting that child through school Unless you are telling me that every man doesn't know that condoms break then what you wrote is null and void

birthing the child has a purpose - to collect money in child support from her partner. that's not responsibility - that's leeching!

My friend use your common sense if men abstain who will make women have sex with?

if women close their legs, whose child would they carry? the decision to have sex lies with the woman unless in a case of räpe! if a man has stated she's not good enough to be the mother of his kids, why did she fück him?

Unless you are telling me that every man doesn't know that condoms break then what you wrote is null and void

control measures can still be applied by the woman after the condom breaks. a man's control ceases to exist from that point. so what was the woman doing to prevent an unwanted baby for up to 9 months? picking her nose?

I don't know any reasonable person who would either.

Maybe like someone on this thread said,it's a racket that earns the govt money.
I don't know how true that statement is but if critically examined,there may be some truth to it.
Because it definitely beats reasons. Why should that man pay for kids that are not his? Poor guy

There's more to that story. And maybe someone somewhere is benefiting from all that.

BTW I don't think judges should be above sanction. That one needs his license(or whatever) suspended for awhile.

pickabeau1:

Not you...

cococandy: I don't know any reasonable person who would either.

Maybe like someone on this thread said,it's a racket that earns the govt money.
I don't know how true that statement is but if critically examined,there may be some truth to it.
Because it definitely beats reasons. Why should that man pay for kids that are not his? Poor guy

There's more to that story. And maybe someone somewhere is benefiting from all that.

BTW I don't think judged should be above sanction. That one needs his license(or whatever) suspended for awhile.

it's a widespread practise all over the developed nations, it's not an isolated case. hundreds of thousands of non biological fathers are paying child support for children they did not sire - why do you think we are saying the scheme should be completely scrapped?

cococandy: I don't know any reasonable person who would either.

Maybe like someone on this thread said,it's a racket that earns the govt money.
I don't know how true that statement is but if critically examined,there may be some truth to it.
Because it definitely beats reasons. Why should that man pay for kids that are not his? Poor guy

There's more to that story. And maybe someone somewhere is benefiting from all that.

BTW I don't think judged should be above sanction. That one needs his license(or whatever) suspended for awhile.

Reasonable?..u make me laff

Find out how the racket was born and those who pushed this legislation through

You are missing the forest for the trees

That man is one of millions...

The judge is also working within the system

Who made the system.

Enlighten yourself

I know where you're driving at.
I won't indulge you.


If it's any consolation,it's your fellow men treating yous thus unfair. What won't human do for money while pretending to care about little children?

pickabeau1:

Reasonable?..u make me laff

Find out how the racket was born and those who pushed this legislation through

You are missing the forest for the trees

That man is one of millions...

The judge is also working within the system

Who made the system.

Enlighten yourself

coogar:

birthing the child has a purpose - to collect money in child support from her partner. that's not responsibility - that's leeching!

you really making it hard for me not to insult you with your nonsenscial posts! How is it leeching if the money will be used on the child! So the child is now leeching his/her father abi

if women close their legs, whose child would they carry? the decision to have sex lies with the woman unless in a case of räpe! if a man has stated she's not good enough to be the mother of his kids, why did she fück him?

If you know that she is a woman who has a vagina and a womb and she is capable of getting pregnant why have sexxx with her? So now women are the ones who can decide on having or not having sex alone? When u remove her clothes and opening her legs, is that not also giving consent to fvck her?

control measures can still be applied by the woman after the condom breaks. a man's control ceases to exist from that point. so what was the woman doing to prevent an unwanted baby for up to 9 months? picking her nose?

please when your daughter gets pregnant and her bf wants her to put her life at risk simply because he doesn't want to buy diapers and baby milk, come back and say this rubbish you are saying now

Unless you are telling me every man tells every woman that he sleeps with explicitly that she is only there for sexuaaal gratification and nothing else. Only then can he be excused from dealing with the consequences that result after those 2mins of pleasure!

The moment you open a woman's legs and have sex with her, u give consent to whatever results after that. Unless u slept with her not knowing that a woman can get pregnant

cococandy: I don't know any reasonable person who would either.

Maybe like someone on this thread said,it's a racket that earns the govt money.
I don't know how true that statement is but if critically examined,there may be some truth to it.
Because it definitely beats reasons. Why should that man pay for kids that are not his? Poor guy

There's more to that story. And maybe someone somewhere is benefiting from all that.

BTW I don't think judges should be above sanction. That one needs his license(or whatever) suspended for awhile.

Ermm.. That case is just one in a thousand. So far anyone is a woman in those cases, she's the "victim", and the man is "Freddy Krueger". So many fathers paying child support for kids that aren't theirs; so far they make a substantial income, the court orders them to pay.

And I've never seen a feminist stand up against this; when the movement is about equal gender right; most of them actually love that innocent men are being leeched upon.

Same goes to räpe cases too. Police don't even bother to investigate anymore. So far the women is the first to report the räpe, she's the victim. So many innocent men have gone to prison wrongly.

Coogar remember that Nigerian student's alleged räpe case?

coogar:

it's a widespread practise all over the developed nations, it's not an isolated case. hundreds of thousands of non biological fathers are paying child support for children they did not sire - why do you think we are saying the scheme should be completely scrapped?

There's some merit to this POV
But what about the demerits?

Me I believe in fairness and if the whole scheme is scrapped,some innocent kids will suffer.

I can't pretend to know the law in the west,but isn't there somewhere it states explicitly that the fathers should pay for their kids only? Or is there a big loophole that allows the judges to manipulate cases as they wish.

If that's so,my advice will be for the young men to be very careful and if possible fight that aspect of the law. Where are the legislators?
It's not only women that get to fight for their rights.

Like the case of that young man I just read now,if I was him I'll appeal that ruling.
If more young men paying for kids that aren't theirs stood up to fight it,it'll surely become unpopular and on it's way out.
Dating someone and being nice to her kids doesn't make you responsible for them.

That's very unfair.
If you haven't seen any feminist stand against it?
Well Now you have.

BABE!:


Ermm.. That case is just one in a thousand. So far anyone is a woman in those cases, she's the "victim", and the man is "Freddy Krueger". So many fathers paying child support for kids that aren't theirs; so far they make a substantial income, the court orders them to pay.

And I've never seen a feminist stand up against this; when the movement is about equal gender right; most of them actually love that innocent men are being leeched upon.

Same goes to rape cases too. Police don't even bother to investigate anymore. So far the women is the first to report the räpe, she's the victim. So many innocent men have gone to prison wrongly.

Coogar remember that Nigerian student's alleged räpe case?

cococandy: I know where you're driving at.
I won't indulge you.


If it's any consolation,it's your fellow men treating yous thus unfair. What won't human do for money while pretending to care about little children?

Hahahaa..
nay... You are the one being indulged with your unwillingness to confront the issues and keep your head in the sand

So now u see that society should be better off and not one gender.

Humanism...

Mondisweets:


please when your daughter gets pregnant and her bf wants her to put her life at risk simply because he doesn't want to buy diapers and baby milk, come back and say this rubbish you are

Studies show that a woman is 14 times more likely to die from child birth compared to having an abortion. Should we then stop giving birth to avoid risking our lives?

Mondisweets: you really making it hard for me not to insult you with your nonsenscial posts! How is it leeching if the money will be used on the child! So the child is now leeching his/her father abi

you can start the insult if you wish - i am very versatile in that realm. it is leeching because majority of these women premeditate the sex act. it's not about the child, it's about the money from the child support they will be collecting from the men who are mostly very rich. it's a woman's get-out-of-poverty card.

please when your daughter gets pregnant and her bf wants her to put her life at risk simply because he doesn't want to buy diapers and baby milk, come back and say this rubbish you are saying now

that is if she tells me about it. in the country i reside, a teenager can get an abortion & the doctors cannot reveal the information to the parents unless the girl involved wish it so. it's called privacy. besides, birthing a child is 14 times riskier to cause death than abortion. you are the one arguing with an mgbeke-tinted lens here.

Unless you are telling me every man tells every woman that he sleeps with explicitly that she is only there for sexuaaal gratification and nothing else. Only then can he be excused from only consequences that result after those 2mins of pleasure!

what else is she there for? since they are unmarried yet then the sex is for recreation, not for procreation. any woman that doesn't know that is most likely a rêtard. if i want a baby by any woman, the first step for me is to marry her immediately. without marriage, sex is a recreational activity! if she doesn't agree, she should close her legs.

cococandy:
There's some merit to this POV
But what about the demerits?

Me I believe in fairness and if the whole scheme is scrapped,some innocent kids will suffer.

I can't pretend to know the law in the west,but isn't there somewhere it states explicitly that the fathers should pay for their kids only? Or is their a big loophole that allows the judges to manipulate cases as they wish.

If that's so,my advice will be for the young men to be very careful and if possible fight that aspect of the law. Where are the legislators?
It's not only women that get to fight for their rights.

Like the case of that young man I just read now,if I was him I'll appeal that ruling.
If more young men paying for kids that aren't theirs stood up to fight it,it'll surely become unpopular and on it's way out.
Dating someone and being nice to her kids doesn't make you responsible for them.

The part in bolded is funny....that the law made for women could be open to abuse? LOL

What?!...a self professed feminist asking men to fight for rights

What will I not see on NL ;

Coogar..u see what I'm seeing

cococandy: That's very unfair.
If you haven't seen any feminist stand against it?
Well Now you have.

You? Feminist?

You're one of those clueless females I mentioned yesterday. Nothing more.

BABE!:


Studies show that a woman is 14 times more likely to die from child birth compared to having an abortion. [b] Should we then stop giving birth to avoid risking our lives?[/n]

what exactly are you trying to say?

And who is more likely to have difficulties having children in the future? The one who gives birth or the one has abortions?

Who is more likely to have mental disorders that would affect her for the rest of her life, the one who gives birth the one who has abortions?

carefreewannabe: A child's well-being has the utmost priority so the father and the mother need to take care of that child whether they wanted it or not.

It is that simple.

thank you!

BABE!:


You? Feminist?

You're one of those clueless females I mentioned yesterday. Nothing more.

Damn. . u evil....

Mondisweets: thank you!

LIKEWISE

cococandy:
There's some merit to this POV
But what about the demerits?

Me I believe in fairness and if the whole scheme is scrapped,some innocent kids will suffer.

it should be scrapped!
if women know there's no money to be made from child support, they will make saner choices. of course, we are not talking about deadbeat dads who married & divorced and ran out of the marriage. we are talking about unmarried folks and in the extreme cases of paternity fraud.

I can't pretend to know the law in the west,but isn't there somewhere it states explicitly that the fathers should pay for their kids only? Or is there a big loophole that allows the judges to manipulate cases as they wish.

If that's so,my advice will be for the young men to be very careful and if possible fight that aspect of the law. Where are the legislators?
It's not only women that get to fight for their rights.

Like the case of that young man I just read now,if I was him I'll appeal that ruling.

appeal which ruling? feminism brought equitable doctrine of estoppel into the equation. that doctrine states the court may hold that because i acted like a parent and permitted the child to rely upon me even though i'm a "stranger" to the child, i have adopted the biological or "real" parent's duty.

in other words, if i befriend a babymama and i was playing a fatherly role throughout our relationship, i could be held to keep providing child support for the child since the little boy has been made to rely on me. a very brilliant law except that it doesn't get enforced when a woman befriends a babyfather.

feminism is about equality? of course it is.

If more young men paying for kids that aren't theirs stood up to fight it,it'll surely become unpopular and on it's way out.
Dating someone and being nice to her kids doesn't make you responsible for them.

fight for what?
whenever men gather to hold these meetings about the sufferings they are experiencing from their partners, feminists go there and disrupt the meetings.

Mondisweets: what exactly are you trying to say?

And who is more likely to have difficulties having children in the future? The one who gives birth or the one has abortions?

Who is more likely to have mental disorders that would affect her for the rest of her life, the one who gives birth the one who has abortions?

I am trying to say, you, mondisweet, are 14 times more likely to die from child birth than abortion.

There's a high risk of me dying from a car crash or hitting a pedestrian, should I then stop driving? What must be done, must be done.

Mental disorder ? Affect her for the rest of her life? That's sensationalism. The pros of aborting a fatherless child outweigh the cons.

pickabeau1:

Hahahaa..
nay... You are the one being indulged with your unwillingness to confront the issues and keep your head in the sand

So now u see that society should be better off and not one gender.

Humanism...

I confront issues as they affect me, that's why you see me not talk too much about the west and their gender equality laws. I can't argue with someone who lives there and experiences it first hand.

The thing is instead of complaining that one gender has a movement dedicated to it's betterment,you should be very glad that you don't need one such movement in this part of the world where men are kings and the women are struggling to breathe.
(well unless you're now living in the west where one is being made to believe that men are oppressed)
If that's case pls accept my sympathy.



Here's what I think. Women's right activists made it possible for the law to take care of kids abandoned with their mothers by their fathers.
Maybe there are loopholes in the law which allows individual judges to manipulate it at will.

What's the solution?
Instead of scrapping it and making innocent kids suffer alike,it should be reviewed and made to apply to only the men who the kids are theirs biologically.
If some of these judges are men,it begs the question why?
Is this about caring for the kids or more about the money?

coogar:

you can start the insult if you wish - i am very versatile in that realm. it is leeching because majority of these women premeditate the sex act. it's not about the child, it's about the money from the child support they will be collecting from the men who are mostly very rich. it's a woman's get-out-of-poverty card.

so if you know that there are psychotic women that premeditate it, why are you stupid enough to have sex with them?

that is if she tells me about it. in the country i reside, a teenager can get an abortion & the doctors cannot reveal the information to the parents unless the girl involved wish it so. it's called privacy. besides, birthing a child is 14 times riskier to cause death than abortion. you are the one arguing with an mgbeke-tinted lens here.

and she is likely to have mental, physical and psychological effects that will affect her wellbeing and health for the rest of her life, if she goes for the abortion. There is a chance that she might die during the abortion procedure itself.

what else is she there for? since they are unmarried yet then the sex is for recreation, not for procreation. any woman that doesn't know that is most likely a rêtard. if i want a baby by any woman, the first step for me is to marry her immediately. without marriage, sex is a recreational activity! if she doesn't agree, she should close her legs.

you do know that many women in relationships and those who are married are still raped by their partners or spouses because these "retards" refused to open their legs willingly?