« First « Previous Comments 324 - 335 of 335 Search these comments
Harm to the children they create and to society that must deal with the systemic inter-generational poverty and crime that results from irresponsible reproduction.
And how do you determine this before they've had children? Based on wealth and income?
The exact same way Child Protective Services determines this after children are born. Same standards. It's already being done for children post-birth. The exact same thign can be done pre-birth.
If you want to argue that Child Protective Services should be disbanded and the state should never be able to take children away from unfit parents, then grow a pair of balls and argue that. You'll lose that argument though.
Do you really believe that people will allow you to decide who can and who can't have children?
Who the fuck said I would be deciding. I said that Child Protective Services would license parents based on whether or not they are fit parents using the same standards they use right now for deciding whether or not children need to be taken away from their parents for their own protection. The only criteria I'm adding is a basic financial solvency test requiring that the parents aren't receiving any kind of financial aid because if they need financial aid to support themselves or their children, then they are not ready to have children. If you can't pay rent or your mortgage, you can't afford a child. Children are expensive, and you do not have the right to inflict abject poverty on them.
Just so that you can save some dumbfuck who can't use a condom (or the taxpayers) a few bucks needed to provide for their children.
First off, asshole, you're assuming that's the case. Some pregnancies do occur even when condoms are used.
More importantly, you just revealed your real motivations, and they are not noble. You don't give a shit about people or the children. You only care about punishing men who have had recreational sex. This is why your position is evil. You do not seek to decrease suffering or improve the lots of children. You seek to inflict suffering on men because they had some pleasure in life. You are sick.
Man, I can't believe Dan seems to be less batshit crazy than you
Disagreeing with your opinions is not insanity. Not having consistent, non-contradicting reasons for believing something is.
There is nothing I have ever written that in any way constitutes any form of craziness. Every fact I've presented has either been true, or in rare cases, immediately refuted once I learned it was inaccurate. I may not be perfect, but I'm damn close because I play devil's advocate with every idea I have. I've attacked my ideas far better than you ever could, and I do that before I present them to anyone. This is why I can hold my ground. If I cannot justify a belief against all challenges, then I do not accept the belief.
If only more people did this.
Another reason that parenting should be licensed.
But hey, the right to get your stupid genetic code in the pool of over 7 billion genetic instances is way more important than preventing shit like this.
Dan, keep writing; I'm slowly coming around to the idea that birth licensing based on genetic code screening has its merits.
@Patrick
why do you think it was a trap after a man enjoy during sex?
do you think a woman will get pregnant just because a trap?
I think it was just an excuse men to escape responsibility.
do you think that unmarried men who have sex can not make a woman pregnant without a trap ..
whether a woman who is pregnant for 9 months without a husband it easy? when men just need to work to make money, a woman must bring a growing belly wherever she went.
do you still think that if a man did the sister or your mother or your daughter?
you right have the right man.
but I think it's different with human rights, because the man should not think like animals.
do not treat women like sex doll that's used only when desired and removed whenever men want.
Do you think women should have higher rights than men?
Only with regards to abortion because the physical constraints of reality prevents complete equality in that matter. However, that is the only exception. In all other things, including the right to not opt in to legal parenthood, there should be absolute equality under law for both genders. To say otherwise is, by definition, sexist.
If only more people did this.
More people should do this.
Furthermore, I challenge ch_tah2 or anyone else to provide even a single example of me saying something batshit crazy on PatNet. I've made 25,828 comments and 1,906 posts, so finding crazy should be damn easy if it exists. Yet I doubt anyone could produce a single example. I can easily defend everything that I've stated except for the few things I retracted when presented with valid counter-evidence. Hey, nobody's perfect, and changing one's mind in light of new evidence is always perfectly valid.
Do you think women should have higher rights than men?
@Patrick
should be same bcoz im just know about human rights..no one being higher than another. but bcoz of selfish many people feel they are is number one.
why you should make a comparison between men's right and women's right?
why not ask ourselves about our obligations before demanding about rights?
when a men hv sex before marriage..and his women got pregnant..do you think both of them hv rights to kill their child?
so i think dont you said about trap..bcoz no one force them to hv one night sex.
why you should make a comparison between men's right and women's right?
Because men and women should have the same legal rights, but they do not. Women have more rights.
Obligations also come with rights. To have only obligations but no rights is to be a slave.
do you think both of them hv rights to kill their child?
Any right that the woman has, the man should also have.
We could debate the morality of abortion in general, but that is a separate issue. My own opinion is that an embryo is not a child. I do not see a problem with abortion before any brain has developed.
« First « Previous Comments 324 - 335 of 335 Search these comments
Let's call it the affirmative consent law, requiring men to give affirmative consent to paternity.
This would achieve equality with a woman's "her body her choice" right to ignore the man's request for an abortion or to give the child up for adoption. Rights which only women have.
If she has the right to refuse responsibility for the baby, he should also have the right to refuse responsibility for the baby. In recognition of the biological reality that it is the woman who physically has to have the abortion, if she wants to abort, the man should have to pay the entire financial cost of the abortion.
Married men should be assumed by the fact of marriage to have given their consent to financial support for legitimate biological paternity.
It is not fair that a woman should have the right to entrap a man with one night sex, obligating him to 20 years or more of financial liability, when she has the right to simply opt out of the same situation via abortion or giving up the baby for adoption. Without a man's affirmative consent to paternity, it's rape.
#politics