This Is For The Men Of This Board

[Outshined]

Hey, this is supposed to be a topic for the men on the board. It's been hijacked by womenfolk!

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Outshined@Nov 2 2004, 04:50 PM

Hey, this is supposed to be a topic for the men on the board. It's been hijacked by womenfolk!

Ok, I'll shut up and listen for awhile.... that will be one less "womenfolk"

But I can't make any promises.

[Outshined]

Hee hee! You know I'm just teasing...

[Spencer]

You feel it necessary to call me names Bat? Im sorry you have such little self control. Youre just mad at me because of how youre on mod status on this board and out to get a rise out of me.

I never once said Men should be able to TELL a woman what to do with her baby, however our opinions should be considered on a very important issue that effects both the woman and the mans future! If you cant see that then you have less inteligence then I ever thought you had.

[Setheus]

Everyone here who has children. Look at them. Watch them play. Then think, "What if I had chosen to flush your little developing body down the toilet because I wasn't "man " enough to take on the responsability of the CHOICE I MADE in the sack.

[DisRuptive1]

The rules are there in advance. If you don't want to get burned... don't play with fire!

Sometimes, during that one moment of selfishness (good points Jenda), we get cold and there is no other way to warm ourselves up then to light a fire (this is an analogy if you haven't figured it out).

however our opinions should be considered on a very important issue that effects both the woman and the mans future!

Usually this doesn't happen. A selfish woman (she was selfish before I even met her) decides that she wants a family, a kid, a husband, the whole shehbang. She wants to have the child anyways, and doesn't care about our opinions, she thinks we'll stick with her when she has the baby because since we're so good to her, we'll obviously do the right thing and stick with her.

Men in this situation (who don't want children), have no recourse other than to tell the woman that their dream of a family cannot happen at this point in time. They (the man) want children but not at this point in time and as long as the woman waits to have children, they will stick with them to the end. The man would also tell the woman that they will leave if the woman has a child, thereby preventing her from having her "family" (husband, wife, and child).

Should the woman have the child, her dreams of having a family at that point are ruined. No self-respecting man will take up a single mother! If he respects himself, he'll find and marry a fresh and clean woman with no "track record."

If the future father convinces the mother to have the abortion then he can take her to McDonald's, buy her an Egg Mcmuffin and dump her since he (if he respects himself) should be with someone that isn't so dangerous to be with (paying $400 a month for 18 years, can really harm a young man's future).

At least that's what I would do. Personally I don't want children. And I don't understand why people don't realize that they can be happy WITHOUT children.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 2 2004, 07:25 PM

The rules are there in advance. If you don't want to get burned... don't play with fire!

Sometimes, during that one moment of selfishness (good points Jenda), we get cold and there is no other way to warm ourselves up then to light a fire (this is an analogy if you haven't figured it out).

They made their beds so they have to lay in it. (analogy?)

Really, I respect your choice to not have children. As a partial insurance policy someone in your position might want to consider a vasectomy. If nothing else it proves your seriousness in not wanting children. If you consider marrying someone (if you are now single) and you still don't want children at that time, then it should be made clear to her. .

The example you gave above sounds like a woman trying to trick or to entrap a man into giving her a family. I believe that this does happen and I think that it is wrong. It also appears that a woman like that would also be using a man as a meal ticket. This is a very desperate woman and if you see her RUN!

[Lindy]

DisR~

Sad that their are women in the world who try to play games using a child as a pawn. Saddest for the child involved when the outcome of the fairy tale ending never materializes and the women regrets the life she played with.

For those guys who don't want children, that's their choice...some have very good reasons.... a vasectomy does sound like a good answer. For those others who don't want children "just yet".... 4 words.... keep your pants up. There can't be a consequential choice made if the "problem" doesn't exist. Women shouldn't have to shoulder the responsibility of making the choice, if the choice stays in the "Fruit of the (loins) Looms"

sorry outshined.....

too....... opinionated....could....not.....stop..........myself

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 2 2004, 06:25 PM

No self-respecting man will take up a single mother! If he respects himself, he'll find and marry a fresh and clean woman with no "track record."

Of course you are referring to the rare man who, himself, is fresh and clean with no "track record" I hope. Certainly you aren't inferring hypocrisy here, right?

[DisRuptive1]

Men need to stay away from single mothers for reasons I've mentioned before. Young women without children are prized more as mates rather than most mothers. There are a few mothers that are probably worth going after, but none the less, men should stay away from single mothers because there is probably some guy out there paying for her kid. Some guy obviously got her pregnant and she decided to not abort. If you start doing things with her and hanging with HER child, precedent has already occurred in Wisconsin (I believe) and California where a male who was dating a mother was forced to pay child support for the child since he had taken a fatherly role to the child, although had never married or ask to marry the mother.

The main reason to stay away from mothers: you already know her stance on abortion.

SHE WON'T HAVE ONE!

This last election an initiative was placed on the ballet which would add an additional .25% to sales tax, making it an even 8% here in Southern California. The extra money gained would go to help children's hospitals, you know the hospitals that are filled with the most pathetic children in the area (pathetic meaning sickest). Anyways, only 13% of the voters said yes to this. The remaining 87% said (through their vote) that an additional penny per every 4 dollars they spend on non-food items is too much money to spend on children even if they are ill and sick and dieing and in constant pain and agony.

Now, would you vote yes on a measure which raised the taxes like that where the money went to help out single mothers by giving them free clothing and food and other things which a child needs? Obviously not, or at least 87% of you wouldn't. So why do you think it's ok for a man to pay a woman money each month to help raise a child? Oh wait, I know why. It's because you're parents and you'd want a free handout if you were the only one supporting your child.

I've seem to moved this thread in a different direcition than it started but I'm pretty sure everyone has had their say on abortion.

[Winnie G]

Have you read some of the posts there full of stereotypes case in point.

{Clean woman with no "track record."}

It always falls on to the women to be above reproach.

Virgin men are the brunt of jokes from 14 on. (In the real world)

I posed the question because men of the board seem more passionate over this subject then women, then fill their posts with stereotypes.

I use to say to my sons don’t go out in the world expecting a virgin to wait for you if your out screwing around. I have a child who learned that the hard way.

I feel for men who get tied in to messes and then have that choice made for them.

That’s what happens when you party naked.

[shanstress70]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 5 2004, 02:15 AM

So why do you think it's ok for a man to pay a woman money each month to help raise a child? Oh wait, I know why. It's because you're parents and you'd want a free handout if you were the only one supporting your child.

Because he couldn't keep his freakin' pants up! Myself as a taxpayer didn't father that child, so why should it be my responsibility to raise it? Come on!

[Guest curvette]

I have an idea! Why don't we take ALL that tax money in S. Cal, and use it to snip the nubbies off of any guy who wants to have sex, but is unwilling to pay child support? (in the unfortunate event that a child should result from his sexual adventures.) Otherwise, keep the zipper up, or at least keep a glove on it! This blaming the woman is simply pathetic. Be a man, and take some responsibility! No woman can get in your pants if you don't let her!

[Setheus]

Having an abortion is the WOMAN's choice....not the man's because it is HER body right? So if the father wants the child and the mother does not and gets an abortion the father is SOL? Then why if you turn it around and the mother wants the child but the father doesn't he is FORCED to pay child support? Why does the woman have a way out but not the father?

Why can a mother get away with nothing less than murder but the father can be fined and jailed for nothing less and nothing more than neglect?

Please somone explain this to me.

PS I also think that men and women who put themselves in this situation are both equally stupid. And should have "kept their pants on"

[Ray]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 5 2004, 11:21 AM

Having an abortion is the WOMAN's choice....not the man's because it is HER body right? So if the father wants the child and the mother does not and gets an abortion the father is SOL?    Then why if you turn it around and the mother wants the child but the father doesn't he is FORCED to pay child support?  Why does the woman have a way out but not the father?

Why can a mother get away with nothing less than murder but the father can be fined and jailed for nothing less and nothing more than neglect?

Please somone explain this to me.

PS  I also think that men and women who put themselves in this situation are both equally stupid.  And should have "kept their pants on"

Women are not held legally responsible for the death of their unborn child because people have failed to convince legislators that they should define abortion as a form of murder.

Men are held legally responsible for child support when a mother gives birth to a child because both parents are held legally responsible to provide for that child. At least I think that’s right. Has anyone ever heard of a case where a father took care of a child in his separate home and the mother was held legally responsible for child support?

Anyway, in any case, things are the way they are because of law or a lack of law. And that is why we should seek good people to enact and uphold good laws.

[Setheus]

Ok then what about this. And mabey Proud Duck and help me here....

According the the great state of Texas (where I am from) in the Texas Penal Code Artical 1.07 (26) & (26). There are two definitions of "Individual" one old and one newly passed. Hence two #26's.....

(26) "individual" means a human being who has been born AND is alive.

(26) Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an UNBORN child at EVERY stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

And the definition of "Harm" is..

(25) "Harm" means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.

In Texas if a pregnant woman uses illegal drugs she can be prosecuted for "endangering a child" and/or "delivery of a controlled substance to a minor".

{NOW}

How can a woman be accountable for drugs that "Harm" an "Individual" but when she opps to have that Individual killed for her screw up she is not held accountable for that "murder"?

Texas Penal Code Art. 19.02

Murder

"A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally OR knowingly causes the death of an INDIVIDUAL;

(2) intends to cause the serious bodily injury and commints an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an INDIVIDUAL;"...

Also, here are two elements of "Capital Murder"...

19.03

A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under section 19.02 AND:

(3)the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

(8) the person murders an INDIVIDUAL under the age of 6yrs.

Don't these fit with abortion clinics? A woman pays a doctor to abort her baby..ie she "emplys another to commit the murder for remuneration"to an individual "under the age of 6yrs.

[Setheus]

Now how is abortion not murder? I'm confused

[Faerie]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 2 2004, 09:25 PM

Personally I don't want children. And I don't understand why people don't realize that they can be happy WITHOUT children.

I propose we take up a fund for Disruptive and bat's vasectomies. THANK THE HEAVENS you two don't want children.

[Ray]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 5 2004, 12:40 PM

Ok then what about this. And mabey Proud Duck and help me here....

According the the great state of Texas (where I am from) in the Texas Penal Code Artical 1.07 (26) & (26). There are two definitions of "Individual" one old and one newly passed. Hence two #26's.....

(26) "individual" means a human being who has been born AND is alive.

(26) Individual" means a human being who is alive, including an UNBORN child at EVERY stage of gestation from fertilization until birth.

And the definition of "Harm" is..

(25) "Harm" means anything reasonably regarded as loss, disadvantage, or injury, including harm to another person in whose welfare the person affected is interested.

In Texas if a pregnant woman uses illegal drugs she can be prosecuted for "endangering a child" and/or "delivery of a controlled substance to a minor".

{NOW}

How can a woman be accountable for drugs that "Harm" an "Individual" but when she opps to have that Individual killed for her screw up she is not held accountable for that "murder"?

Texas Penal Code Art. 19.02

Murder

"A person commits an offense if he:

(1) intentionally OR knowingly causes the death of an INDIVIDUAL;

(2) intends to cause the serious bodily injury and commints an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an INDIVIDUAL;"...

Also, here are two elements of "Capital Murder"...

19.03

A person commits an offense if the person commits murder as defined under section 19.02 AND:

(3)the person commits the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration or employs another to commit the murder for remuneration or the promise of remuneration;

(8) the person murders an INDIVIDUAL under the age of 6yrs.

Don't these fit with abortion clinics? A woman pays a doctor to abort her baby..ie she "emplys another to commit the murder for remuneration"to an individual "under the age of 6yrs.

Maybe we simply need more District Attorney's to bring abortion cases to trial?

Btw, I hear that one of our newly elected Governor's in the land plans on bringing more abortion cases to trial, focusing primarily on the doctors who provide abortions. Maybe we are moving in the right direction after all.

[DisRuptive1]

I don't want children for reasons I haven't mentioned, it's not a responsibility issue.

Hey now, why is it men that get blamed for not keeping our pants up? The women involved didn't keep theirs up either so why not blame them too? And "keeping your pants up" doesn't help you to get rid of the reason you pulled them down in the first place (that is it doesn't help you to get off).

ABSTINENCE DOESN'T WORK, PEOPLE!!!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Setheus@Nov 5 2004, 11:21 AM

Having an abortion is the WOMAN's choice....not the man's because it is HER body right?

Well, that's the theory, yes. I've never understood it though because our bodies really are the incubator for the baby, not the baby itself. However, my opinion is neither here nor there. The law defines a baby as a baby outside the womb. This is why abortion is legal. Until the baby is born, it's legally considered part of the woman's body. This is why it gets fuzzy during events such as homicides when the victim is a very pregnant woman and the baby dies as well. Is it a double homicide? Usually, yes. And yet a woman is free to abort the baby at any time during the pregnancy. And yet, if a fetus is given all the rights of a born baby, that opens the door to all kinds of problems. For instance, if my doctor advises me to be on bed rest or else I risk the chance of miscarrying, and yet I have to work to support the family I already have and I miscarry--I could face negligent homicide or manslaughter charges. Every miscarriage would be suspect. Most women miscarry a number of times without ever even knowing they were pregnant. Abortion is a very, very complex issue. Once the child is born though, it ceases to be so complex. The baby is a full human being and needs support from both mother and father. Some of you guys act like all the money is going to the woman (and I'm sure there are some cases where that happens), but it costs money to raise a child and both parents have to shoulder that burden.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Ray@Nov 5 2004, 02:23 PM

Maybe we simply need more District Attorney's to bring abortion cases to trial?

Btw, I hear that one of our newly elected Governor's in the land plans on bringing more abortion cases to trial, focusing primarily on the doctors who provide abortions. Maybe we are moving in the right direction after all.

How can you bring someone to trial for something that isn't illegal?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 5 2004, 03:53 PM

Hey now, why is it men that get blamed for not keeping our pants up? The women involved didn't keep theirs up either so why not blame them too?

The woman has equal responsibility, but you want to give her ALL the responsibility. We're talking about a CHILD for heaven's sake--not the Goodyear Blimp! You're the one wondering why a poor seduced man has to pay for the child he helped create. You make a child, you pay for it. It's so simple. If you care enough about a woman to impregnate her, I would hope you would care enough about her to help support the child you made TOGETHER.

[Ray]

Originally posted by curvette+Nov 5 2004, 04:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Nov 5 2004, 04:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Ray@Nov 5 2004, 02:23 PM

Maybe we simply need more District Attorney's to bring abortion cases to trial?

Btw, I hear that one of our newly elected Governor's in the land plans on bringing more abortion cases to trial, focusing primarily on the doctors who provide abortions.  Maybe we are moving in the right direction after all.

How can you bring someone to trial for something that isn't illegal?

According to Setheus last post, or the one before that, I think it could be argued that abortion is illegal. At least in the state of Texas.

[Ray]

Originally posted by DisRuptive1@Nov 5 2004, 03:53 PM

I don't want children for reasons I haven't mentioned, it's not a responsibility issue.

Hey now, why is it men that get blamed for not keeping our pants up?  The women involved didn't keep theirs up either so why not blame them too?  And "keeping your pants up" doesn't help you to get rid of the reason you pulled them down in the first place (that is it doesn't help you to get off).

ABSTINENCE DOESN'T WORK, PEOPLE!!!

Heh, yes it does. Abstinence has been scientically proven to be 100% effective in every case. Are you going to start arguing with scientists now?