financial/male 'abortion' rights?

Hikari Kisugi said:
It is an absurb concept.
I will not have any financial or legal responsibilies for my actions.
State where else in life this occurs?

I am not responsible for murder because i got a document signed to say the knife wound to the chest wouldn't be responsible, but the **** wound to the **** is obvious exempt as i fancied a shag... but had the lawyer to tell me to not bother to rubber up, or get the snip, just use white paper and one, as thats the best idea.
Click to expand...

But you say you are pro choice.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
It is an absurb concept.
I will not have any financial or legal responsibilies for my actions.
State where else in life this occurs?
Click to expand...

so again you're trotting out an argument that could equally be used against actual abortion

yet paradoxically you're in favour of abortion and seem to have some sort of double standard here

why is it absurd - it is pretty logical, a woman already has this option and it isn't for a man to tell her what to do with her body but we could distinguish the financial side from the physical side and give both parties the option to chose there

seemingly it isn't absurd for a woman to make that choice but seemingly for a man to do so is wrong and your arguments for it being wrong so far are ones that could equally apply against a woman too
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
I'll be ******* disappointed if we don't make Jeremy Vine on Monday.
Me arguing you shouldn't stick you **** in financially stupid, and Dolph arguing his piece of paper makes an actual human disappear.
Click to expand...

Great strawman, that's not my argument at all. The fact that you are already resorting to such nonsense shows how poor your position is.

The fact is that your argument has zero consistency you claim to be pro choice, then go and list just about every pro life position against abortion when it comes to giving a man a choice about accepting a pregnancy. It's nonsense.
 
TallPaul1878 said:
Okay. I've no problems with a guy who wants to try and get a woman to sign some form of pre-sexual agreement.

Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Why would it be pre-sexual? It would be up to 24 weeks, of we were going for total equality,

I would happily agree to reducing it to more like 13 weeks, though.
 
Dolph said:
Why would it be pre-sexual? It would be up to 24 weeks, of we were going for total equality,

I would happily agree to reducing it to more like 13 weeks, though.
Click to expand...

I think it's only fair and moral that a man let's it be known to a woman that he has no interest in financially supporting a child should she fall pregnant.

Doing that after the incident is disingenuous.
 
What positions against abortion?
All i said was your piece of paper won't stand jack **** of a chance unless you prove it was resigned every single time you had sex, without any hint of inebriation, prior to the copulation, with full informed consent upon the decision.

Seriously.
This is how the law works now.
One form signed at some date in advance without full and thorough disclosure at the time of the event means nothing.

So no financial abortions are an atrocious idea. They won't work. They won't be enforced.

Killing the kid later with pills or a knife. That works, and happens. Better for the kid.
Still double verified vacectomy is a much better way of ensuring no kids. Shame half the developing world wouldn't catch on to the idea,
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
No. There is nothing in this world equal.
Why the **** should the state end up having to pay because a bunch of toffs and chavs decided to sign a form by their lawyer to let them sperm everywhere without consequence.
Planet is full, and filling with undesirable.
Financial constraints are one of the things stopping that in western society, ****** if i will let lawyers ruin it further.
Click to expand...

Just as an additional on this, you do realise that child support payments have no impact on benefit entitlement?

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/f...maintenance/child-maintenance-where-to-start/

It makes literally no difference to the state entitlements either way.
 
Interesting question, and I have to say that Dolph has nailed it. I'm fairly anti-abortion in my beliefs, but I do tend to keep my thoughts to myself, as I understand they're unpopular opinions and who am I to argue, but if we're talking about *choice* then surely a man must be able to have the choice to wash his hands of the child and walk away? Otherwise things aren't really equal between men and women.

Also, women go on and on these days about "not needing a man" to help raise a child, so what's the harm if they're single mothers without financial help from the father?
 
TallPaul1878 said:
I think it's only fair and moral that a man let's it be known to a woman that he has no interest in financially supporting a child should she fall pregnant.

Doing that after the incident is disingenuous.
Click to expand...

Do you advocate women having to outline their choice on pregnancy termination prior to sex as well?

As I said, we have a baseline for what is acceptable already...
 
Dolph said:
Why would it be pre-sexual? It would be up to 24 weeks, of we were going for total equality,

I would happily agree to reducing it to more like 13 weeks, though.
Click to expand...


And **** that, as a tax payer, i am not going to fund your 13 week decision to not be arsed, nope nope nope.
Take some responsibilities with your rights. Pay for your seed, because i can't be arsed. Adoption included.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
What positions against abortion?
All i said was your piece of paper won't stand jack **** of a chance unless you prove it was resigned every single time you had sex, without any hint of inebriation, prior to the copulation, with full informed consent upon the decision.

Seriously.
This is how the law works now.
One form signed at some date in advance without full and thorough disclosure at the time of the event means nothing.

So no financial abortions are an atrocious idea. They won't work. They won't be enforced.

Killing the kid later with pills or a knife. That works, and happens. Better for the kid.
Still double verified vacectomy is a much better way of ensuring no kids. Shame half the developing world wouldn't catch on to the idea,
Click to expand...

You can't make an appeal to law in a thread where the discussion is about whether the laws should be changed.
 
Munky1080 said:
Interesting question, and I have to say that Dolph has nailed it. I'm fairly anti-abortion in my beliefs, but I do tend to keep my thoughts to myself, as I understand they're unpopular opinions and who am I to argue, but if we're talking about *choice* then surely a man must be able to have the choice to wash his hands of the child and walk away? Otherwise things aren't really equal between men and women.

Also, women go on and on these days about "not needing a man" to help raise a child, so what's the harm if they're single mothers without financial help from the father?
Click to expand...

People need to catch themselves on and realise the world isn't and never will be equal. Different people, different sexes, different mental illnesses, different rights and responsibilities. We are different, that is actually what is so amazingly wonderful about us.
 
Hikari Kisugi said:
And **** that, as a tax payer, i am not going to fund your 13 week decision to not be arsed, nope nope nope.
Take some responsibilities with your rights. Pay for your seed, because i can't be arsed. Adoption included.
Click to expand...

As I have already pointed out, with evidence, child maintenance is not counted for means tested benefits already. (Change was brought in by labour during their time in power.

You fund the decision for people to have kids they can't afford regardless of whether the father contributes or not.

If you are going to argue, at least know your facts.
 
Dolph said:
You can't make an appeal to law in a thread where the discussion is about whether the laws should be changed.
Click to expand...

indeed, especially when the OP was clear in the first line of the OP that it is the principle he was interested in discussing not the implementation whether that be some official register or some contract or whatever etc..
 
Dolph said:
As I have already pointed out, with evidence, child maintenance is not counted for means tested benefits already. (Change was brought in by labour during their time in power.

You fund the decision for people to have kids they can't afford regardless of whether the father contributes or not.

If you are going to argue, at least know your facts.
Click to expand...

On this I utterly agree, but until science afforda us all a natural world wide off until we want it switch we're stuck with ******** nature. A nature which will see one race/culture/mental illness overrun us all within three generations. So I am hoping science sorts itself out and gives us a nice worldwide solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom