Most black men date FAT/UGLY white women

naw...any dude believing a woman cant have a child because she said so is a dumb ass.

....no one forced you to lay up with her. if you cant handle the consequences of skeeting then get to beating.

if anything wrap up so your dick wont explode. you dont know what disease she has.

 

it was fred that used the word rape.
as i stated and as you see.....dudes are putting all the blame on women...no accountability or responsibilty on men...unless they rape em.

sad sad sad

worse than cat piss

 

I agree he didn't use his best judgement by believing that she "couldn't get pregnant", but regardless of how it happened, it was an unintended pregnancy. Condoms don't work 100% of the time. Neither does bc. My only point is that men should have a choice, just as women do. He has no right IMO to tell her what to do with her body, but he should have a say - early on - with regard to whether or not he wants to continue with the pregnancy.

 

he does have a choice....choke the monkey, be a monk, snip snip, or face the possibility of being a dad. period.
another problem i have i that these guys have shown a deep since of selfishness and lack of manliness.

 

I don't think it's selfish or un-manly for a guy to recognize that he's not ready to parent. I actually think that kind of self awareness is lacking all too often.

Again...the point is that a man deserves the same simple right to choose when he's ready to parent...just like a woman can. A woman isn't forced to parent just because she gets pregnant...why should a man be?

 

naw...thats really not thier point...go back and look at fred's statements and tdk until he started the right to choose....especially response to mine about balance responsibility (back on fred).
they dont believe men should be responsible. look up a couple of post above to start

 

How interesting that the woman (LL) is sympathetic to the male POV, yet GL the supposed male is steady trying to down TDK & Fred.

 

very simple question:

are you saying that man should not be held responsible for help bringing a child in the world?
yes or no.

is all the womans fault?
yes or no

 

No because women choose whether that child comes into the world or not. If you want sole choice shouldn't you take sole responsibility?

 

Interesting follow up from the plaintiff's legal team on the legal case I posted before...
"Roe vs. Wade for Men"

Our View of the Decision

After the March 9th filing of "Roe vs. Wade for Men" in a United States District Court in Michigan, the Attorney General of Michigan intervened and made a motion to have the case dismissed. He argued that, once a baby was born, Michigan's child support laws were enforced against men and women equally. Therefore, when Matt Dubay was forced to pay child support, there was no violation of the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
The implication of the state's argument is that every year there are hundreds or thousands of single Michigan women who, after giving birth, are prevented from giving their babies up for adoption by biological fathers. Then, presumably, these fathers get custody of their children and persuade the state to compel the biological mothers to give them child support. Child support enforcement is gender-neutral. There is no sex discrimination, according to the state of Michigan.
Okay...
Jeffrey Cojocar, the attorney for Matt Dubay, filed a Brief opposing the state's motion to dismiss. Mr. Cojocar demanded that the Michigan A.G. present one woman who wanted to give her baby up for adoption and then was forced to pay child support. The state implied that there were many such women. "Show us one," Jeff said.
It was a dramatic and risky move for Mr. Cojocar because he was giving the Michigan Attorney General an easy way out. All the A.G. had to do was cite just one example of a woman forced to pay child support for a child she didn't want to parent. But, we reasoned that if the state failed to produce even one woman, the judge would have no choice but to deny the motion to dismiss. Thousands of men forced into parenthood but no women? That would certainly be an apparent violation of the equal protection clause. That would require a trial on the merits. That would necessitate legal discovery and investigation and further argument. And so, Mr. Cojocar said, "Show us one."
There was no response from the state. "Show us one!" we demanded.
On July 17, 2006 United States District Court Judge, David M. Lawson, summarily dismissed Matt Dubay's lawsuit. In a decision that reeked of unnecessary and inappropriate sarcasm, Lawson chided Dubay for not wanting to support "his" daughter. "[Dubay] had difficulty accepting the financial consequences of his conduct so the state came to his assistance," wrote Judge Lawson, with smirking and childish penmanship. In our view, the judge's sarcasm revealed his bias. We had hoped he would have displayed an intellectual and judicial curiosity and inquired of the state, "Is there at least one woman?"
Had the judge conducted a full hearing and then decided against us, thoughtfully, that would have been discouraging. But that didn't happen here. Instead, Judge Lawson slammed the courthouse door in Matt Dubay's face and then shamefully ordered him to pay the state's legal fees. The judge's decision will likely have a chilling effect on any citizen who wants to fight for his or her civil rights in a federal court.
Had the judge conducted a full hearing, we might have successfully exposed the inequality and sexism of child support enforcement. The Michigan authorities might have been embarrassed. The lack of equal protection given to Matt Dubay might have become obvious. The judge might have been required to rule in Matt's favor. Oh, maybe that's why the case was dismissed.

 

stop dancing. answer the question. i already answered that court trial...even in the appeal he lost.

just answer my two questions

 

I don't dance, I have not supported one side or the other in this debate, just posted legal facts on the issue. I have stated that as the laws currently state, the only choice a man has is before sex occurs.

It is interesting to posit the social implications of men having the legal right to terminate their parental rights and obligations in the case of unwanted pregnancies before birth. There would indeed be pro's (men would be less likely to be the legal and financial victims of deceptive tactics to get pregnant) and con's (such a law could lead to wide interpretations as to when such rights could be exercised) to such a situation. Lastly to answer your question directly, if the child is already born, then imo all debate stops and that child is the responsibility of both parents, legally and financially unless adoption is the mutual choice of both biological parents.

 

ok. i apologize for that.

however, you agree with me all the way around. no one forced the man to have sex in any fashion...when the woman is preggy and child is born...then man-up. period.

very simple.

these guys dont want to be held responsible. i see that as weak.

 

So what do you think about women who choose to terminate the pregnancy against the wishes of the man?

 

I see where you are coming from, and for the most part we agree, if you create a life you are responsible for it in all ways. I do think that the arguments that TDK is raising brings interesting legal questions, questions that have been and will continue to be tested in courtrooms and legal decisions as to the fairness of Roe V. Wade and the equality of terminating parental/legal/financial rights.

 

weak

 

My question to that is: if it becomes legal for a man to make himself legally/financially NOT responsible for a baby that he helped produce, whether he wanted to or not, where will it end?

It would give men the freedom to forgo being responsible for their actions. A man could just have as much unprotected sex that he wants, go in front of a judge and claim he wants no financial responsibility for any of the children he could possibly reproduce.

This could lead to a whole host of OTHER issues.

And lest we forget that a woman is taking her life in her hands whether she has an abortion or carries a baby to term. Both are risky for the woman.

This mentality of "I can just do whatever I want and not pay the consequences for my actions" is the underlying issue to this whole thing.

 

She's weak for recognizing that she's not ready to endure the physical and emotional requirements (not to mention the financial implications) of pregnancy and childbirth? I'm sorry, but that's such a typical man statement. As a man, you have NO idea the toll that pregnancy and delivery takes on a woman's body, not to mention the impact it can have on her career and potential earning. Yes, her job is "protected" under PDL, but advancement opportunities could be compromised during that time missed. Who are you to say she's weak for making that decision?

I think it sucks that a man has no say in the termination of his child, lets get that straight, but its HER body...HER decision.

 

Agree with you here. If the child is born, both parties need to take responsibility for her/him. It's long before that time comes, that I think men should have a choice in whether or not to participate. If she has a choice in whether or not she's ready to parent (which every pregnant woman does), so should he. Thats all I'm saying. Once she no longer has the choice of carrying to term, his choice also goes away. How is it ok for him to have ZERO rights here?

 

Knowing this shouldn't a woman do everything in her power to prevent the situation meaning bc and requiring a man to use a condom. No glove no love or is it ok for her to be wreckless?