Discussion » Nonsense » What rights should the father have if his unmarrie

  • Wicked Witch
  • Reply from Minger is flagged as not relevant.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    In America, tort law rarely imposes a duty of care upon any person in regard to a situation over which the person is not responsible. Thus, (in)actors are not bound to help a baby they find drowning in a pool, nor are they bound to perform CPR on the victim of a car crash that they did not cause.

    However, tort law frequently imposes a duty upon people who through their own actions (even though non-negligent) place another in a precarious position requiring care. Thus, a car driver who while exercising all due care hits a bird that bounces off his windshield and into the eye of a passing cyclist, causing the cyclist to crash into a fire hydrant and skin his knee, should provide first aid or escort the cyclist to a hospital.

    Under the theory that the woman and man who engaged in sexual intercourse are both responsible for the existence of the fetus and its dependency on the woman for life support, at first blush neither of them should have the right to terminate the life support in accordance with tort law.

    But, since FETI AREN'T PEOPLE and, according to University of Michigan law professor and bat-shit crazy virulently feminist legal scholar Katharine Mackinnon, any time two people have heterosexual intercourse the man is raping the woman, the woman should have the right not to provide life support aid to the fetus, also in accordance with tort law.

    Further, since according to Mackinnon the woman was by default not a willing participant in the sex, the man is wholly responsibility for the woman's status as a temporary life-support for the fetus, and thus he has the responsibility to take measures to restore the woman to her former condition, including but not limited to paying for the abortion.

    Anyone have trouble following that? If so, please castrate yourself posthaste.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    According local laws of Guangzhou, Father has the rights to make a Fetus Soup to recover the 气 spent on his fetus.

  • Simen Wangberg

    "According local laws of Guangzhou, Father has the rights to make a Fetus Soup to recover the 气 spent on his fetus."

    You know, I can't defeat that logic, honestly.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    The Catholic can go to hell,

    and

    The anti-abortion group can go murder itself.

    There isn't a damn bit of logic or policy that supports religious hypocrites having any say in what a woman does with her fetus.

  • Simen Wangberg

    "Does the baby have any say about deciding to end his or her life?"

    No. Babies can't talk.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The question itself is invalid because one is not a father until there is a baby and he is contributing to its well-being. He is a pre-father of a pre-baby, or fetus. A fetus is not a person, and a pre-father is not even really a thing, because the expectant mother does all the work. To coerce her into doing that work is nothing short of slavery. Simply put, a dude has no right to decide what happens inside his ladypal's reproductive organs.

    Christianity has been historically inconsistent in defining personhood. Responsibility for unborn life was once thought to begin at quickening, meaning the moment the mother feels movement from the fetus. First trimester abortions would've been a-ok with medieval Catholics. Coincidentally, women and doctors both have some very compelling reasons to perform abortions before that particular arbitrary personhood deadline -- pro-lifeline, whatever -- so there isn't even any sense in restricting late term abortions, especially in cases where there is a threat to the life of the mother, severe congenital defects, or the father-to-be becomes absent.

  • Sonja Lund
  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Dando your argument is old fashioned pre-1970 era. You are referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade

    arguments for life beginning at conception based on religions thousands of years old

    Nevermind that would be post-1970, but you seem to have fogotten what I said about medieval Catholic law and its eerie similarities to the viability requirement. Or maybe you just didn't read, lol.

    Roe v. Wade,which held that a mother may abort her pregnancy in the first trimester

    The Roe v. Wade decision has been modified several times since. The trimester framework was tossed out in 1989 and the viability requirement was reaffirmed. That's something you might want to note if you want to make the case that my understanding of this issue is outdated.

    However, today we are in a age where we are seeing photo's of the fetus a lot clearer as a baby at a younger age..

    ZOMG if a photo looks exactly like a baby, does that mean the photo is a person, too?

    A major unstated goal of the pro-life movement is to continually fail to meet the unreasonable demands of angry crosstitutes so as to maintain a coherent group of single-issues voters in rural America who will reliably elect Republicans. Republicans, who want to make cuts to foster care, adoption services, family planning services, Head Start, WIC, etc. Republicans, who are de-funding Planned Parenthood, of which only 9% of its services are related to abortion counseling, and which prevents far more abortions than it provides. Republicans, who love the death penalty and maintaining a defense budget wildly out of proportion with the national budget.

    Pro-life, right?

    No.

    There is no pro-life. There is pro-choice and anti-choice. Yeah. Forced abortions are just as outrageous as forcing women into reproductive slavery.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with personal autonomy, as in the case of abortion and assisted suicide, it is conservative. In cases where the pro-life ethic conflicts with government policy, as in the case of the death penalty and war, it is liberal.

    Since I presume we're all in favor of small government, let's just go ahead and flip those around, eh? I'm pro life rather than pro forcing women to have babies they don't want and can't afford in order to keep them out of the work force, so I think personal autonomy should govern. That is kind of the essence of life, it's it? Where government choices are concerned though, it makes sense to lean on the side of life, since there's no harm in limiting the power of government to kill people.

    As that closet lawyer Dandy noted, Roe v. Wade is not the law. It's just that when the Court overruled it they called it clarification.

    In many countries where abortion is illegal except in cases where the pregnancy threatens the woman's life, a woman must nonetheless obtain her husband's consent.

    Is that your goal? Hooray for the dark ages!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Having a baby is the easy part. Paying for it for 20 odd years is the hard part. It should be up to whoever's gonna be paying the bills.

    It wasn't too long ago in human history that death during childbirth was commonplace. And since the laws obligating a man to pay if he decides to leave are very flimsy and very selectively enforced, I think it's pretty safe to say that women as a class shoulder most of the burden in raising kids.

    Go guzzle Sanlu until you're pissing rocks, fuckface. You might develop some kind of idea of what childbirth is like.

  • 随便叫兽
  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued)

    Having a baby is the easy part. Paying for it for 20 odd years is the hard part. It should be up to whoever's gonna be paying the bills

    alt text

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Dando makes a good point, as usual.

    Wicked, I read the paragraph. What the fuck was your point? You were noting that some backasswards countries require a woman to get permission from someone she had sex with in order to have an abortion in order to illustrate how incredibly fucking backwards such a restriction would be? Or because you think it would be acceptable to make women further subservient to men than they already are.

    Thank jesus we live in a country where abortion is mandatory.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Wicked, the basis of your critique appears to be that there are religious people who oppose women's choice to abortion. We're not going to agree, because the basis of my argument is logical. People / countries who base their policies on religious nonsense are not people who I'm going to see eye to eye with, because they are batshit crazy.

  • Reply from 随便叫兽 is flagged as not relevant.

  • Reply from 随便叫兽 is flagged as not relevant.

  • Reply from 随便叫兽 is flagged as not relevant.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I am not sure why you are taking this so personal

    The topic is abortion. Of course it's personal. She's a woman.

    I suspect the undercurrent of the WLiBJ gang.

    I suspect butthurt.

    You stated that a father does not have any rights [over a woman's reproductive organs]! That is entirely your opinion and you stated that very clearly in your first post.

    On the contrary, she stated it rather matter-of-factly. Men don't have rights over a woman's reproductive organs. That is not merely an opinion. It is the law.

    On my part the question still remained for public discussion just because you have stated a father does not have any rights that does not mean the discussion is closed.

    That's, like, your opinion, man.

    I was simply pointing out to the forum that there are many aspects about abortion, religion, law, pro-life and not just your narrow minded point of view.

    Today you learned that the Roman Catholic Church is even more conservative than Islam when it comes to reproductive rights.

    As far as I am concerned nobody has raised any pertinent answers to the question the 'rights of a father'?

    I guess you won't take 'no' for an answer?

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    I like the idea of a religious exception to attempted abortion bans in cases where the fetus will develop into a severely disabled person. Implicit in this exception is the belief that disabled people are not deserving of life. Do I lose the argument if I compare the anti-abortion hypocrites to Nazis?

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Of course. All vaginas' matter is personal for you.

    Irising, since you continue to keep your little feud with Dando so public, would you perhaps care to enlighten us all on what it's about? Maybe we'll join you in chastising him. Maybe not.

    Obviously this thread isn't going ot be useful for anything else. It's just religion versus reason. The two things are not compatible.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Nazis

    Okay. Now the thread is over.

    Religion has a reasoning all its own, and even from a spiritual perspective we find reason to acknowledge the reality of abortion, accept its consequences, and impose no sanctions upon women who choose that course of action. It is a matter too personal for the law to meddle in.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Irising, the word is 'chastise'. What Minger is trying to say is that you might actually be drumming up sympathy for me with this kind of shit, especially when you snap at everybody who asks you what I did wrong. Easy question. You just have to narrow it down to the really heinous things. Failing that, you make me look like a mere victim of crazybitchitis.

    Here, now? I mean, come on! What the fuck is this shit? A WLIB talk show paternity test?

    Maury: Dando Z is not the father.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Once a child is born, the father is are responsible for child support - however he has no say / choice whatsoever in whether or not the fetus inside the woman he impregnated will be allowed to develop into a child. This, to me, seems somewhat unequal.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Maybe that's because an unequal proportion of the fetus resides within the other person for nine months.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Maybe that's because an unequal proportion of the fetus resides within the other person for nine months.

    Your point would be pertient, were it not for the fact that child support payments last for much, much longer than 9 months. Perhaps if the father had to pay for the entirity of 9 months financial support for a living baby after its birth, that would be "fair"; it may even be fair if the man had to pay a kind of additional "service fee" to the woman carrying the baby for this time, however I would debate that the difference (between 9 months gestation period vs 18 years of child support payments) is not balanced simply by the fact that the mother carries the child for 9 months before birth.

    The man has NO CHOICE legally speaking as to whether or not the mother of a fetus/baby maintains or aborts the pregnancy - because of this, I personally feel that manditory child support payments being what they are today are basically "not fair" (because fathers have no say in the continuation or termination of a pregnancy). I believe that in modern countries with rule of law and a social welfare system, all legal pregnancies should be SIGNED OFF BY BOTH PARTIES. The cost of any pregnancy termination should be shared equally by both parties.

    I would also maintain that among the types of people that need child support and claim child support from fathers, very often, not all of that "child support" money is actually spent on the child.

    Alex I respect your point of view, however at what point does a person stop referring to a human life as a fetus?

    Hmm... a very good question but nothing to do with your OP. It is extremely difficult to answer as I am sure you know. I will reserve my judgement on the specifics; but my method for judging the appropriateness of the acceptable post conception time limit on abortions would be related to a combination of human suffering and endangerment.

    Bateman (who I suspect is Scott) I believe made a good point about the Violinist, that being there is a difference between taking a life and deciding not to maintain it. I dont believe so much in the right to live, rather I believe in the right to not have life taken from us.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    This is weird, I kind of agree with Alex. Maybe it's because I'm delirious with severe food poisoning. I feel something like two years of the woman's salary would be an appropriate limit for unwilling paternal contribution in a case where a woman unilaterally decides to bring a fetus to term. I think for myself at least that would be sufficient compensation for nine months of pregnancy. You know, if I had a uterus and stuff.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @OP, Nearly everybody upstairs answered that a man has no rights if his girlfriend wants an abortion. You marked much of what they said as irrelevant and said none of it was pertinent, but only because you disagreed with it. Nevermind that when we're specifically talking about legal rights, the question is not even a matter of opinion, but fact. The religious facts speak against you, too.

    And now you're encouraging an emotionally unstable girl to continue with her histrionics because for you, hurting my reputation is more important than protecting hers. Your lack of moral priorities has never been more obvious.

    @Minger,

    I feel something like two years of the woman's salary would be an appropriate limit for unwilling paternal contribution in a case where a woman unilaterally decides to bring a fetus to term.

    And what if she decides to take the child to term because she fears being stigmatized by her community for getting an abortion, but she still doesn't want contact with the biological father? I think placing a hard limit on child support contributions would compel her to get an abortion. Suddenly she has less choice in the matter. That's troubling.

    I don't think there's anything at all unfair about demanding child support for twenty years when you consider the opportunity costs of pregnancy, which add up to a whole lot more than just lost wages and medical costs, especially if it interrupts one's education. Preventing pregnancy is primarily the man's responsibility, anyway, because condoms go on the dick.

    Life isn't fair. Before the law even comes into the equation, women bear the greater share of the biological burden and suffer the worst of the social stigma of human reproduction. So pardon the fuck out of me if I seem so dismissive of "men's rights" whining and say that part of ensuring equality is recognizing and affirmatively responding to existent inequality.

    Let's get back to the original premise: The woman wants an abortion. The man wants a child. Perhaps as a compromise, he can pay for the transplantation of the placenta into his own body.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Let's get back to the original premise: The woman wants an abortion. The man wants a child. Perhaps as a compromise, he can pay for the transplantation of the placenta into his own body.

    Yeah, I like this option.

    what if she decides to take the child to term because she fears being stigmatized by her community for getting an abortion

    Then she should move out of the American South, unless we want to accept Mackinnon's theory that all heterosex is rape.

    One of the reasons I'm more receptive to the arguments of men who don't want to pay child support for an unwanted baby is that I don't have sex with anyone who doesn't agree ahead of time to get an abortion in case the condom breaks and the semen hits the fan. Ever. Perhaps I'm projecting too much forethought onto the actions of others, but I think this is reasonable even for people who haven't discussed contingencies before drunkenly banging each other without condoms.

    I don't think women should be forced to get abortions (outside of China, where I fully support the Party in everything it does), but if women choose not to abort fetuses, and they choose to raise babies themselves instead of selling or eating them, then I think they should accept the responsibility of their actions as well. Maybe I'm biased because I think that bringing the fetus to term is a terrible choice, but that's because it is a terrible choice. Having a baby will irreparably impact a woman's life, and she can make that terrible choice if she wants, but she shouldn't be able to force it on others.

    The woman isn't exactly willingly pregnant, so my figure is basically what money I would insist on to go through being pregnant and giving birth, given that I don't want that. After the whole pregnancy ordeal, the man and woman are basically on equal footing (except that one likes kids), and both should be treated equally.

    Preventing pregnancy is primarily the man's responsibility, anyway . . . .

    That's really something we should stop perpetuating. Of course it's the man's responsibility, but it's also the woman's responsibility, and females have to stop being so fucking stupid as to let their fucking awful boyfriends make the decision. Females need to go out and buy birth control, and insist that their boyfriends use condoms every time, and be clear that they'll report the boyfriends for rape if they penetrate without rubber.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I'm not ready to reject Mackinnon's theory. It's technically impossible for women to give affirmative consent to sexings because they cannot make decisions for themselves.

    Nah, but srsly.

    I fucking hate babies, too (if my breeder friends are reading, I'm sorry). But it is foolish to deny that there are factors in the social environment that encourage women to make babies that they might not be able to take care of, just like there are factors in the social environment that encourage women to terminate pregnancies. Like I said, I'm every bit as appalled by forced abortions as I am appalled by anti-abortion measures. Let no one say I am philosophically inconsistent when it comes to reproductive choices.

    And while the scenario might imply foolishness on the part of the community or perhaps even the woman, it's nonetheless society that has to deal with the consequences. Ergo, support programs.

    Birth control has undesirable side-effects, and like I said, women already bear the greater share of the sociobiological burden. Compared to that, holding men responsible for condom usage is not extremely onerous.

    I believe that AIDS sufferers have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon for intentionally and maliciously trying to infect others. Apply the same reasoning to invasive sperm. If you don't like that, consider the penis as a chemical company that pollutes the woman's vaginal environment. The half-life of a zygote is actually more like 50 years. Paying 20 years of child support is getting off lucky.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    And now you're encouraging an emotionally unstable girl to continue with her histrionics because for you, hurting my reputation is more important than protecting hers. Your lack of moral priorities has never been more obvious.

    from whats been posted there is no evidence of emotional instability. I think BW is simply afraid of being outed for something even W than his usual fare of golden shower beastiality. Ho hum. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain etc. BW, you have no reputation to hurt and the girl in question has nothing to lose by making a mockery of you - so I say long live irising. The only thing obvious here is BWs fear of exposure.

    And what if she decides to take the child to term because she fears being stigmatized by her community for getting an abortion, but she still doesn't want contact with the biological father?

    Then that is either 1.) her fault for fearing being stigmatized or 2.) the community's fault for stigmatizing her. Separate issues.

    I think placing a hard limit on child support contributions would compel her to get an abortion. Suddenly she has less choice in the matter.

    Illogical. She has exactly the same amount of choice in the matter. You can not write legislation to account for people living in batshit crazy or stupid communities. If you did so then legislation itself would be batshit crazy, and indeed is in many cases for this exact reason. NO PROVISION should be given just for the fact that a women might feel "pressured by her community" not to have an abortion - because the choice is still hers. Again, these are separate social issues which require different legislation. She doesnt suddenly have "less choice" in the matter.

    I don't think there's anything at all unfair about demanding child support for twenty years when you consider the opportunity costs of pregnancy, which add up to a whole lot more than just lost wages and medical costs, especially if it interrupts one's education.

    ....add up to a whole lot, perhaps - but not 20 years child support!! and again, if you are talking about lost wages and medical costs and interrupting education - THAT WAS ALL THE WOMAN'S CHOICE. How can she choose to interrupt her own education, job, income etc WHEN SHE HAS THE CHOICE not to, then claim it is the mans responsibility to pay for 20 years of child support. Your logic contradicts itself depending on which way the wind is blowing Dando.

    Preventing pregnancy is primarily the man's responsibility, anyway

    Oh BS it's 50/50, even a 10 year old could tell you that Dando.

    because condoms go on the dick

    Newsflash - Condoms are not the only way of preventing pregnancy!!

    So pardon the fuck out of me if I seem so dismissive of "men's rights" whining and say that part of ensuring equality is recognizing and affirmatively responding to existent inequality.

    I'm starting to think you are a bearded lesbian.

    But it is foolish to deny that there are factors in the social environment that encourage women to make babies that they might not be able to take care of,

    Wait, you mean like compulsary child support payments from dad? lol

    Birth control has undesirable side-effects

    Not really. Certainly not really when compared to the undesirables of an unwanted pregnancy. Also, condoms can break, the pill doesnt break.

    report the boyfriends for rape if they penetrate without rubber.

    Dumbest thing ive ever heard, trivializes rape also.

  • Virgil W
    Virgil W wrote:

    Sadshitz

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Let no one say I am philosophically inconsistent when it comes to reproductive choices.

    Me too. Mandatory post-natal abortions for all! Nothing inconsistent about that.

    Birth control has undesirable side-effects, and like I said, women already bear the greater share of the sociobiological burden. Compared to that, holding men responsible for condom usage is not extremely onerous.

    Yeah, hormonal birth control and IUD's are both not great if you're one of the people who got cancer from them, and I'm perfectly willing to believe that some of them are still dangerous. That's not a reason for the woman not to make sure that any penis she sits on is tightly wrapped in latex though, unless you're ready to acknowledge that women can't make choices for themselves and need men to beat / rape some sense into them. Side note: watch Tyranosaur. That's what the world was like before feminism.

    You bringing up the legal arguments and expectin something other than for me to tell you to go to lawl school? You already wrote the problem with the AIDS comparison--the intent has to be to infect others. Asshole Serial Rapist With AIDS doesn't get convicted of attempted murder, because he's only trying to rape and he doesn't care if the women get AIDS or not. Thus, Spermy Sperminator isn't responsible for paternity unless his intent in bangin' was to impregnate the woman, rather than indifference as to whether or not he impregnates her.

    The negligent polluter comparison probably also loses out because of comparative negligence. If there's a chemical plant in zone C (heavy pollutant economic zone), and family from zone A (actually a pretty decent place to live zone) moves in and dies from cancer, the estate loses the wrongful death suit because of the family's comparative negligence in moving into an obviously disgusting awful polluting zone. So yeah, Spermy is negligent, but so is Preggy, and she shouldn't have legal recourse.

    Is it hypocritical of my to oppose mandatory abortion principle, but support kicking people in the stomach in practice?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The easiest, cheapest, safest, healthiest means of preventing pregnancy is for the man to wear a condom. It ain't rocket science. That was precisely the copy I used in my Advertising final, with a shitty Photoshoop of the space shuttle at lift off, wrapped in a jimmy hat. The latex condom is the superlative contraception, and the proper execution of applying the condom to the penis is totally in the man's hands unless the lady does that thing with her mouth that I like.

    Expecting every woman to know how to do that is a bit much, though. You do realize some people still make love in the dark, right? They shouldn't breed, but they do, through bland repetition. I favor extending the law to protect the equal choice opportunities of women in the most marginal of circumstances. Or whatever. Think of the pure love of your mother. Goddamn.

    Asshole Serial Rapist might have plausible deniability of his infected status, but Spermy Sperminator cannot plausibly deny his ability to fertilize an egg. The test of Spermy Sperminator's intent is whether or not he's wearing a condom. Unless he doesn't know how is babby formed.

    (Really, I think the primate that invented masturbation and recreational intercourse was the first hacker evolutionary.)

    Likewise, I've granted that in the sperm-as-pollution scenario we have to assume a certain amount of negligence from both parties, but I think the man putting a cap on a pipe that leaks chemicals is such a small gesture compared to the woman modifying her vaginal ecosystem, which was already there. I don't buy into the essentialist assumption of active masculinity and passive femininity, but I understand that most humans take it for granted, so sometimes I regrettably operate within that paradigm. But trust me ladies. I'm taking the patriarchy down from the inside. Of its pooper.

    I hate to repeat myself, but before the law even enters the matter, women already shoulder nearly all of the sociobiological burdens for reproduction. Unlike men, women do not have the choice to just walk away before it even becomes a human with persistent demands she is expected to obey. If the law seems to unfairly favor women, that's because sociobiology -- not to mention every institution other than the law -- overwhelmingly favors men. And no one may dare accuse me of infantilizing women, as that wisecrack about women not making decisions for themselves was really just a dick way of saying that their decisions are as much informed by an irrational society as by their rational individual needs. Tapping into the ethical collective consciousness is an ability that those of us with the biologically aberrant Y chromosome -- and the rape, war, and baldness that comes with it -- utterly lack. Essentially speaking.

    So begins the buggernaut apuckerlips of transhumanist feminism. Hear the wailing of meatbags as their penetrating analytical insights are enveloped, dissected and deconstructed by Our New Gynoid Mistresses. I warned you, faggots.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    @Dando, you really are a jabbering imbecile arnt you?

    As I tried to tell you earlier (but you just wouldnt listen), condoms are not by any stretch of the imagination the best means of contraceptive. Why you keep trying to insist that they are is beyond me, perhaps it was a combination of your brainwashing as a child and durex's clever marketing. Anyway, you're wrong again (not really a surprise).

    Behold information presented by your very own homeland's famous "Planned Parenthood" organization.

    Planned Parenthood Contraceptive Effectiveness Chart

    Now please stop whittering on about condoms, whos primary purpose is to prevent the transmission of STDs (a different topic) and which actually rank roughly equal with the "pull out and pray" method in terms of reliably preventing pregnancy. Being the internet educated sage that you are, you should know that the enormous funding behind the promotion of condoms was largely due to the HIV/AIDS scare.

    alt text

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Unlike men, women do not have the choice to just walk away before it even becomes a human with persistent demands she is expected to obey.

    Yes they do have the choice. Which is what this whole thread is about! They have the morning after pill, other methods plus a plethora of other means to prevent any pregnancy in the first place.

    If the law seems to unfairly favor women, that's because sociobiology -- not to mention every institution other than the law -- overwhelmingly favors men.

    Name one, in a developed (non third world, non sharia law) country. Either way, no one writes laws to "make up for 'unfairness' " in other areas of society.

    And no one may dare accuse me of infantilizing women, as that wisecrack about women not making decisions for themselves was really just a dick way of saying that their decisions are as much informed by an irrational society as by their rational individual needs.

    So are men's. What is your point?

    Hear the wailing of meatbags as their penetrating analytical insights are enveloped, dissected and deconstructed by Our New Gynoid Mistresses. I warned you, faggots.

    You have it so twisted that you have forgotten a very simple premise.... men go to war for the benefit of their women and children. If you think that women are going to deconstruct the current human status quo and rebuild it in a way where war is obsolete and there is no competition over resource....well...youre batshit crazy. PS women love war and seeing their men triumphantly trouncing an opponent. In fact, almost nothing gets them hotter. You wouldnt know this however having never trounced much more than an ant...and even that would have been a struggle for you.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    I'm taking the patriarchy down from the inside.

    First I thought you were a self hating beta, then I thought.....delta. Now I'm convinced you're a bearded lesbian.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    which actually rank roughly equal with the "pull out and pray" method in terms of reliably preventing pregnancy

    This is about as stupid an assertion as back when some guy showed up and told everyone to use the cycle method as the best method of contraceptive and only whores had AIDS. I think we sodomized him to death with an AIDS-broom for spreading such harmful nonsense.

    Condoms work. To warp the statistics to make it appear otherwise, you have to let disabled infants do the research. These researchers conclude that condoms are 80% effective in a sample where 100% of participants use condoms 80% of the time. Where a couple put a new, non-expired condom on the penis before having sex, and keep it on until after the penis is done being near the vagina, women tend not to get pregnant. . . . .Just like the pill, they basically only don't work when you don't use them.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    This is about as stupid an assertion as back when some guy showed up and told everyone to use the cycle method as the best method of contraceptive and only whores had AIDS.

    Minger, youre a dubass. Either you are blind or you cant read:

    alt text

    Blame the planned parenthood organization of the USA, not the messenger.

    Condoms work. To warp the statistics to make it appear otherwise, you have to let disabled infants do the research....

    Or the planned parenthood org of the USA....

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    But the stats aren't from Planned Parenthood, you fucking moron.

    implying condoms aren't the best form of contraception

    Pick one (1) superior form of contraception and prepare your anus, Alex, 'cuz besides being a racist, you've apparently ventured into full retard territory. No single form of contraception is as broadly apprickable as the latex condom. Or do you think that surgical sterilization is actually a viable option for most men and women?

    Use some common sense. Every other form of birth control on that chart requires more preparation (not to mention medical expertise) than walking to the fucking 7-11 and buying a box of rubbers.

    Abort yourself.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Rubbers that go on the man's penis to prevent him from polluting a lady's fun times cavity and causing an environmental catastrophe: pregnancy. Every other kind of sexy funs other than penis-in-vagina heterosex is free from this risk. Only a spermy penis can cause it. So guess who should be paying for the 20 years of clean up?

    QED, dickfags.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha ... while we are on the subject of contraception, and I got this silly idea from the spammer (hence the "silly" part) ... one could always use pig intestine, because it is natural so it should cause no allergic reaction ...

    Speaking of responsibilities, or "rights", the original question seems to be obscure enough to confuse us with an undefined premise.

    What rights should the father have if his unmarried girlfriend wants an abortion?

    Tara ... oh ... it is just so sweet ... not sure if he is listening though ...

    bravo! (or is it pavlova?) ...

    And by the way ...

    On a different note, morning-after pill, if taken more frequently than, say 3 times a year, does much more harm to the body than any regular contraceptive method. Regular pills could help with dysmenorrhea but might have other side-effects. Patch is recommended for its very notable convenience.

    ^ ... dont mean to priv, or too much anyway, but you are using some kind of protection, right?

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    (continued) ... somehow, this GIF reminded me of two people on this thread ...

    alt text

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Ingerling, the only "shit" I said or did to you was to cut off contact and actively avoid social contact with you for reasons that become increasingly obvious the more insistent you become. That was months ago. Deal with it. You're going back to Korea anyway.

    Unless I got you pregnant. Then you're well within your rights to give it to me with both barrels.

    If it's something else, feel free to crucify me over in this thread.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahaha ... you "asked" me about ONE single GIF with a PM, a wall messgae and forum? Was it really necessary?

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... you were made because you thought that GIF was about you, and now you are mad because it does not concern you?

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahaha ... that's for them to know, but not for you to find out :)

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... ahhh ... for the record, this GIF is NOT about you ... ahhhh ...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    (continued) ... ahhh ... for the record, this GIF is NOT about you ... ahhhh ...

    @Dingdang has correctly observed that I baited @^ into pedantically saying something very fucking stupid about contraceptives. But leave it to @Ingerling to think everything is about her.

    I said:

    The easiest, cheapest, safest, healthiest means of preventing pregnancy is for the man to wear a condom... The latex condom is the superlative contraception.

    Which is unequivocally true, and the reason that preventing pregnancies ought to be primarily the man's responsibility, because otherwise it's mainly just women who have to deal with the consequences. And that's why dudes who knock chicks up should expect to take care of the kid for 20 years.

    I did not say the condom is 100% effective, or deny that there are some circumstances in which other birth control methods might be more effective. But they won't be as easy to use, cheap, safe, or healthy as using a condom every time. Furthermore, the matter at hand is whose responsibility it should be to support the child until adulthood. I can't believe someone would be so stupid as to say that the woman might be negligent for not getting her tubes tied, especially considering that a vasectomy is many times easier, cheaper, safer, and healthier. It doesn't even require surgery now. They can just inject glue into your vas defrens every couple of years.

    tl;dr, ^ advocates compulsory vasectomies.

    Your move, jizz magnet.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Minger, youre a dubass. Either you are blind or you cant read:

    The mentally disabled child calling the kettle black?

    Assertion: Alex's face is a festering penis-hole

    Alex: But that's not true! Look here, my face is clearly just a shit pile.

    Proof of the inaccuracy of Alex's defense: I wrote the assertion above. Therefore, either Alex is blind or cant [sic] read. Or must I put the assertion in a jpeg and display it as image rather than text?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    2012[br] still questioning effectiveness of condoms

    alt text

    Hormonal birth control (pill, IUD, implant, injection)

    1. easier? maybe (varies)
    2. cheaper? no
    3. safer? no
    4. healthier? no (tampering with hormone levels might cause weight gain, mood swings, and problems menstruating; estrogen-rich piss pollutes the water table)

    Vasectomy (male sterilization)

    1. easier? yes (no scalpel required)
    2. cheaper? no (but far cheaper than tubal ligation!)
    3. safer? no
    4. healthier? maybe

    (see also: Vasagel)

    Tubal ligation (female sterilization)

    1. easier? no
    2. cheaper? no
    3. safer? no
    4. healthier? no

    (Surgical complications are far more common with tubal ligation than with vasectomy, and the former procedure is far more invasive, painful, and time-consuming)

    Male Condom

    1. easy? yes
    2. cheap? yes
    3. safe? yes
    4. healthy? yes

    The only comparative advantages that other forms of birth control have is a marginally higher rate of effectiveness, to which there are diminishing returns which fail to overcome the comparative disadvantages discussed above.

    Alternatives not considered: male condom, diaphragm, coitus interruptus, sodomy

    Anyhoo, ^ thinks men shouldn't have to pay child support because it's the dumb bitch's fault for expecting him to wear a condom, which he doesn't like because they don't make condoms shaped like a silly straw. Seeing as the next best option for preventing pregnancy is vasectomy, I don't think this changes a fucking thing, other than the way many dudes are sitting in their computer chairs right now.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    I baited @^ into pedantically saying something very fucking stupid about contraceptives.

    The bearded lesbian is taking RL credit for something that happened only in his imagination. Cute and lulzy but at the same time, sad and unfortunate. Like an internet education.

    Please show me my very fucking stupid comment about contraceptives. BW, you are simply blinded by AIDs scare condom marketing and parroting gov sanctioned infomercials - whilst in reality knowing fuck all about contraception. Its cute and try-hardy. But ultimately failz.

    I condone your condoning of condoms, they help prevent the spread of STDs, however they simply are not as effective a means of contraception as the pill, or any of the above methods. So...go cry about that FACT.

    I will reiterate, the planned parenthood association of america ranks condoms as being as effective as the "withdrawal" method in terms of contraceptive effectiveness. No need to get butthurt at me for that fact, why dont you instead write a strongly worded letter (in your case email) to your local congressman mentioning how butthurt you are about this? Perhaps he could offer to skew the scientific data for you to better match your twisted world view and protect you from more butthurt! Either that or you can go cry alone or jump off a tall building, but don't drag me into it!

    @Minger - Im glad that you eventually got the jist of what I was saying, but am disappointed that you needed big red arrows and highlighting for it. Oh well, blame your mum for dropping you on your misshapen head too many times.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    Shasha, I wasn't referring to two years salary as a kind of support payment. I meant it as a kinds of compensation for nine months of unwanted pregnancy and childbirth, in recognition of the idea that for some women abortion might not be a viable choice. After that fetus-carrying period is equalized, I can't think of any reason that any father who made it clear that he wasn't interested in having the child before the mother decided to have it should have any further obligation. Of course this would go for the mother as well if the father was the one who wanted it and she didn't. Actually, Since both parties are to blame for the pregnancy, the compensation amount should be split in half, and should only compensate for half the horror of pregnancy and child birth.

    Anyway, we should all listen to Shasha because she's the only one who can get pregnant (rather than because she basically agrees with me, although statistically speaking that's a good idea).

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    Hahahahahaha ... Minger and Shasha (did I just make you two sound like a couple?) ... only if such cases are always that clear-cut, but when in reality, many of these cases are often not simply "rationale", also involves more than just the "sperm donor" and "egg donor", hence it gets monstrously complicated ...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @^,

    Please show me my very fucking stupid comment about contraceptives. BW, you are simply blinded by AIDs scare condom marketing and parroting gov sanctioned infomercials - whilst in reality knowing fuck all about contraception.

    Here:

    the planned parenthood association of america ranks condoms as being as effective as the "withdrawal" method in terms of contraceptive effectiveness.

    Planned Parenthood Federation of America did not. Now you're simply making shit up. I think there's a reason -- besides your technical incompetence -- that your screenshot resolutions are distorted beyond readability. It's that you're a fucking liar.

    But have it your way: Condoms are "merely" the best form of safe sex and an acceptable alternative to vasectomy, the actual best form of birth control, because you don't like condoms and do not consider STD prevention to be a compelling advantage. For the rest of us, the failure rate of condoms is within an acceptable range, and STD prevention remains a major priority. But I guess some men just want to see the world burn, with non-specific urinary tract infections and the clap and what not.

    So, vasectomy > condom.

    Happy now?

    And yet, as both procedures primarily concern men, my original assertion remains unchanged: dudes have executive authority over -- and therefore are legally liable for -- pregnancy prevention, because women bear an overwhelmingly disproportionate share of the sociobiological burdens. Failing in those very simple duties, men who impregnate women are liable to support the child into adulthood and cannot compel the woman to get an abortion.

    From there, I will get back to dealing with posters who know that condoms are better than pulling out:

    After that fetus-carrying period is equalized, I can't think of any reason that any father who made it clear that he wasn't interested in having the child before the mother decided to have it should have any further obligation.

    If he wasn't interested, how did his sperm end up in her cunt?

    If a dude isn't interested in having children, but is interested in penis-in-vagina funs despite the well-known danger of pregnancy, then he should wear condoms or get a vasectomy. Women are alienated from the means of contraception; the female-oriented contraceptive options are demonstrably inferior. The execution of the best contraceptive technologies are subject to men, therefore they are primarily responsible for environmental mishaps.

    Sometimes people cave to social or emotional pressures before they crumble beneath the weight of economic hardship. The rest of us still have to share oxygen with the bastard and deal with the consequences, which can be marked during this era of austerity, as the budgets of educational institutions and government support programs are being eroded by people who think war is more crucial to the survival of the human species, like ^.

    On the contrary, I think gold-digging is more crucial to the survival of the species.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    If he wasn't interested, how did his sperm end up in her cunt?

    Auno, maybe the condom broke? I've heard that can happen with some old damaged or expired rubbers. Or maybe they didn't use one, because some fucktard told them that pulling-out was just as safe, or because the man was confident in the woman's promise that she would get an abortion if shit went south. I don't think you've shown a good reason that women aren't equally responsible for their birth control (including condom use) as men, except perhaps paternalism (I'll buy that one, but to admit to it you'd have to stop being a feminist). Women are in fact capable of saying when they don't want to have sex, and in theory they could also say when they don't want to have it without a condom.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    whine cry *Planned Parenthood Federation of America did not stomps feet.

    You mean this Planned Parenthood Federation of America? - http://www.plannedparenthood.org

    Lol.......Yes they did! :

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm

    Now you're simply making shit up.

    Haha..No, I am not :

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm

    It's that you're a fucking liar.

    ROFL...no, I am not :

    http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control/birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm

    U failz again BW. Go cry into your beard.

    But have it your way: Condoms are "merely" the best form of safe sex

    Now you are starting to get it! applause

    and an acceptable alternative to vasectomy, the actual best form of birth control,

    .....best equal with 3 other methods which you conveniently omit (because they didnt suit your purpose) all of which rely on women - two of which (IUDs and Implants) are totally reversable and non permanent. STUDY THE CHART AGAIN U DIDNT DO IT RITE.

    because you don't like condoms and do not consider STD prevention to be a compelling advantage.

    I love that condoms protect me from STDs. If I were in a long term relationship with someone and I really didnt want her to get pregnant however, I would not rely on condoms.

    For the rest of us, the failure rate of condoms is within an acceptable range

    Failure of something as important as this is not acceptable to me, though undoubtably was acceptable to your mom who could have taken a lesson from the planned partenthood federation of america before comitting her vaginal error to an internet upbringing - lulz. Are you butthurt because of dads unwillingness to pay child support - which in turn meant that mom left you to the internet to be raised and educated? ...thats what this is all about itsnt it!!? You secretly wish you had been shot into a condom, dont you? Aww....poor BW.

    STD prevention remains a major priority.

    Yes, which is what condoms are good for. But this is a discussion about contraception, and you have derailed it to be about your love of rubber. As I pointed out earlier. Im glad you have come around to admitting this.

    But I guess some men just want to see the world burn,

    Yes... im "The Joker" and you're Alfred. Let me guess....Scott is Batman? (Bateman)

    Go find a strange and rare mushroom to make love to. They live down wells and wont say no to a BW.

    P.S. You're a true gent for airing your DL in public.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    maybe the condom broke? I've heard that can happen with some old damaged or expired rubbers.

    Happens with shiny new ones too..everyone with a mansized cock and a penchant for fucking knows this (hence yours and BW's ignorance of this matter has already been accounted for).

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    。。。

    (continued) ... it makes one wonder ... hahahaha ...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    There's nothing paternalistic about acknowledging that the best reproductive technologies are innately phallocentric, @Minger, and I'm furthermore encouraging women to dupe men into getting them pregnant. Such a woman must be demonstrably clever, perhaps lawyerly, and while I think the value of the genetics is overstated, I nonetheless think that she should be allowed to memetically pass on that cleverness to the child and NOT be forced into other reproductive arrangements by an unwilling baby daddy.

    Anti-choice laws can't get rid of abortion. They just make it unsafe. Compulsory abortion does not get rid of unplanned pregnancies. It just means those who are born end up neglectfully stupid. And we still gotta deal with the consequences.

    Such as people who only look at pictures instead of reading:

    implying vasectomy isn't reversible

    滚。

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    implying

    Lawl, another one of the old Dando special "misquote your adversary" tactics? We both know that no one implied vasectomy isnt reversible. We also know that you insisted several times that there are better contraceptive options for men available, and that they had increased contraceptive effectiveness over female contraceptive options. This was lulzily wrong - women have both IUD and Implant options available to them, which are both reversible and offer the best level of contraceptive effectiveness - and so you got butthurt, lol, end of story.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Oh? I don't realize we were talking about any irreversible forms of birth control, other than tubal ligation, and that you're even considering it as an option is incontrovertible proof that you're a misogynist, as it's a painfully invasive surgery with many risks of complications beyond comparison with vasectomy, which can now be performed by injection every few years. Sound familiar? And that's without flooding the endocrine system with synthetic hormones, as is the case with the female options you so ignorantly and irresponsibly believe are equally appropriate for all women.

    tl;dr, vasectomy + condom is the easiest, cheapest, healthiest, safest, and without a doubt the most effective methods of birth control. That's guy stuff. Therefore, dudes might have to pay child support if their sperm finds itself inside a vagina.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    and that you're even considering it as an option is incontrovertible proof that you're a misogynist

    Lol, so im a misogynist for pointing out that there are ways women can control whether or not they can get pregnant? hahaha its you that sounds like a butthurt religious fanatic, all mad because women can take control of their lives. Its called progress Dando, get over it.

    with vasectomy, which can now be performed by injection every few years

    There is no such thing as a vasectomy "performed by injection" which is incontrovertible proof that you are an ill educated ignoramus (apparently the internet doesnt cover all scholastic bases, who would have guessed..). See what i did there? ;) You are thinking of RISUG though so you get half a point because im feeling generous. Why, however you still think that the onus is on the man to have these procedures performed is still beyond me when there are plenty of female options which are not as you claim deadly and complicated.

    without flooding the endocrine system with synthetic hormones

    Being quite ignorant of the subject, you are confusing the pill and the morning after pill. The morning after pill "floods" the endocrine system with synthetic hormones to induce menstruation, the pill however does not "flood" anything and simply regulates hormonal levels so as to prevent fertilized eggs from binding with the uterine wall.

    vasectomy + condom is the blah blah...

    Im touched that you have finally taken the chart onboard, yet saddened that you continue down the path of doublethink and willful ignorance. You have seen the categories that each of the contraceptive methods have been placed in by The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and after initially screaming and ranting that this info wasnt from The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, you have had to grudgingly admit defeat and accept that vasectomy (male) plus sterilization (female) IUD (female) and an implant (female) all in truth have the highest rates of contraceptive effectiveness. THREE OF THESE ARE ADMINISTERED TO FEMALES, TWO OF THESE THREE ARE REVERSIBLE, HOWEVER THE MALE OPTION, VASECTOMY, IS NOT REVERSIBLE. Im sorry, but these facts render most of what you have said on this thread about as useful and pertinent as dogshit on a sidewalk. Just goes to show you shouldnt leave your kid to be raised by the internet.

    Vasectomy yourself.

  • Minger
    Minger wrote:

    the pill however does not "flood" anything and simply regulates hormonal levels so as to prevent fertilized eggs from binding with the uterine wall.

    . . .

    THE MALE OPTION, VASECTOMY, IS NOT REVERSIBLE.

    I just have one question: do you know you're lying?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    @Minger, lol, No. I know im telling the truth, and am clearly far more knowledgeable about this subject than either you or the other troll hack wannabe-educated-but-relied-on-the-net footbullet failz that infest this site - I have just one question for you - do you know how ignorant you are?

    Vasectomies are not designed to be reversible. SOMETIMES, highly skilled microsurgeons are able to restore part of post op vasectomy recipients' fertility, but it is a developing art and one which is by no means reliable or safe. Ill just quote wikipedia for your dumb ass:

    Although vasectomy is considered a permanent form of contraception, advances in microsurgery have improved the success of vasectomy reversal procedures. The procedures remain technically demanding and expensive, and may not restore the pre-vasectomy condition.

    I would add - may not restore ANY of the pre-vasectomy fertility. I don't expect you to understand this, however, because you are obviously a nincompoop.

    The birth control pill remains the best and most widely available form of contraception known to man.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The Pill is in the same arbitrary category (not "ranking" as you had erroneously stated) as condoms and the withdrawal method. I will also remind you yet again that the data you cited did not come from Planned Parenthood, but from the WHO. Of course, that means the condom failure rate you're alluding to includes data from a bunch of African Jesuits who staple condoms to religious pamphlets.

    Moreover, to say that the pill is more widely available than condoms is flat out wrong. But notice he did say "known to man." Still unknown to this near-man, despite my mentioning it no less than three times in this thread, is the technique known as reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance, or RISUG, which is only slightly different from a vasectomy, equally effective, completely reversible, and costs less than the syringe used to administer it.

    But it's only for dudes. I wonder why. Maybe it's because preventing sperm from entering a vagina is a lot easier than reprogramming a woman's endocrine system with synthetic hormones.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    The Pill is in the same arbitrary category (not "ranking" as you had erroneously stated) as condoms and the withdrawal method.

    Lol....No it isn't you doofus - look again. Also, it isnt arbitrary - yet again I must remind you that they are RANKED based on contraceptive effectiveness, there is nothing arbitrary about it.

    Moreover, to say that the pill is more widely available than condoms is flat out wrong.

    Please...we are talking about civilized nations and societies. Sure, out in the backwoods somewhere there might be a place that has condoms but not the pill. This would exclude, however, the whole of north america, central america, south america, europe, russia, china, india, japan, australia and pretty much every other place you've heard of; with the exception of a few remote asian, middle eastern and african settlements, there may be some in south america too, but whatever. You're basically splitting hairs because you have lost the debate - where you laughably claimed condoms to be the best form of contraception. BW, something you need to learn is:

    Don't shoot the messenger that informs you of your ignorance; he's doing you a favor!

    By doing so you're just loosing another footbullet.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ...

    I know im telling the truth, and am clearly far more knowledgeable about this subject than either you or the other troll hack wannabe-educated-but-relied-on-the-net footbullet failz that infest this site

    ... whoever, and whoever, take note ...

    Vasectomies are not designed to be reversible.

    ... but it is also not 100% fool proof ... need to check the stats ...

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    The birth control pill remains the best and most widely available form of contraception known to [civilized] man.

    Still wrong. Condoms are OTC. The Pill ain't, and oughtn't be. It's easier, safer, cheaper, and healthier to prevent pregnancy by not allowing the sperm to enter the vagina, instead of drastically altering a woman's endocrine system with synthetic hormones.

    Please continue with what has to be the most ridiculous argument against child support, ever.

  • Simen Wangberg

    I'm pretty sure there are Biblical quotations that condemn people who eat coochie, but you do it anyway...supposedly. Pics or it didn't happen and all that.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Still wrong.

    Nope.

    Condoms are OTC. The Pill ain't,

    Wrong

    and oughtn't be.

    Wrong

    drastically altering a woman's endocrine system with synthetic hormones.

    Its not drastic.

    Please continue with what has to be the most ridiculous argument against child support, ever.

    Not an argument against child suppport.

  • 叮噹叔叔 (令狐叮噹)

    ...

    (continued) ... heehee ... looks at what is supposedly a very serious discussion has turned into?

    For me, because of my religious beliefs, abortion is NOT an option.

    My guess is that your parents had that same "problem"?

    Please continue with what has to be the most ridiculous argument against child support, ever

    Hahahahaha ... you know you did not have to say "please", right?

  • Simen Stensvoll

    The best option to birth control= Dando & Alex F**king be together = the peace

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc