1 posted on
03/09/2006 5:51:32 AM PST by
Abathar
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
To: Abathar
Oh, not this shi'ite again.
2 posted on
03/09/2006 5:53:17 AM PST by
Tax-chick
(Death is perishable. Faith is eternal.)
To: Abathar
This is a real "Super Barf" !
4 posted on
03/09/2006 5:54:40 AM PST by
Zenith
To: Abathar
We men already have that option. It's called "not banging her in the first place". Works every time it's tried, and you don't need to go through a court battle to do it.
5 posted on
03/09/2006 5:55:10 AM PST by
RichInOC
(...somebody was going to say it...why not me?)
To: Abathar
"There's such a spectrum of choice that women have -- it's her body, her pregnancy and she has the ultimate right to make decisions," said Mel Feit, director of the men's center. "I'm trying to find a way for a man also to have some say over decisions that affect his life profoundly."
Silence, slave, or you will be flogged for your disobedience.
6 posted on
03/09/2006 5:55:14 AM PST by
Old_Mil
(http://www.constitutionparty.org - Forging a Rebirth of Freedom.)
To: Abathar
If men need more control over this issue then my suggestion to all of them so that they won't be the big financial losers in this one - keep your zipper up or stay home alone!
7 posted on
03/09/2006 5:55:20 AM PST by
zerosix
(Native Sunflower - Pies Rock)
To: Abathar
"Unintended pregnancy"??
I threw a rock into the air... I did not intend it to break a window and therefore, I should not have to pay to fix the window.
8 posted on
03/09/2006 5:55:53 AM PST by
Paloma_55
(Which part of "Common Sense" do you not understand???)
To: Abathar
The Jerry Springer generation has grown up.
9 posted on
03/09/2006 5:56:47 AM PST by
Tribune7
To: Abathar
"Feit doesn't advocate an unlimited fatherhood opt-out; he proposes a brief period in which a man, after learning of an unintended pregnancy, could decline parental responsibilities if the relationship was one in which neither partner had desired a child."
He got this from Joey Tribbiani, right?
Not QUITE up to Joey's best thinking, but it's real
close.
10 posted on
03/09/2006 5:58:23 AM PST by
righttackle44
(The most dangerous weapon in the world is a Marine with his rifle and the American people behind him)
To: Abathar
Men always have an opportunity to avoid fatherhood. it's called a zipper, and if they keep it closed it's 100% effective.
11 posted on
03/09/2006 5:58:37 AM PST by
Kozak
(Anti Shahada: " There is no God named Allah, and Muhammed is his False Prophet")
To: Abathar
I agree with the intent of this action: to shed some light on the inequities of the existing situation. The thing that makes me crazy are rulings in several cases I've read about involving men paying child support and then discovering, through DNA testing, that the children are not theirs and the courts ruling that the payments must continue until the child reaches 18.
Talk about getting screwed twice by the same woman...once with consent and then once by the courts without even a kiss!
12 posted on
03/09/2006 5:58:37 AM PST by
borisbob69
(Old shade is better than new shade!)
To: Abathar
Yup, the know-nothings will howl about men keeping their pants on, but this issue is popping up with a frequency that indicates a trend.
They sat still for mothers killing unborn. They'll sit still for legalized bastardy.
To: Abathar
You tell me why men should have some kind of right after the act has been accomplished?
I understand the 'Keep your Zipper up" crap...I just don't think it's realistic. BTW, wouldn;t a "Pill for Men" be useful in establishing male reproductive rights?
18 posted on
03/09/2006 6:01:12 AM PST by
Explodo
(Pessimism is simply pattern recognition)
To: Abathar
Really, Ms. Gandy? What about the right of the child to EXIST? A right your organization does not recognize, even in those cases when the child is in the process of being born.
28 posted on
03/09/2006 6:10:26 AM PST by
PzLdr
("The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am" - Darth Vader)
To: Abathar
34 posted on
03/09/2006 6:11:48 AM PST by
joe fonebone
(Woodstock defined the current crop of libs, but who cleaned up the mess they left?)
To: Abathar
Liberals are such socially destructive little weasels. Only a string of expletives would adequately describe the depth of my disdain for them.
41 posted on
03/09/2006 6:13:54 AM PST by
Doohickey
(If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice...I will choose freewill.)
To: Abathar
This was posted yesterday and it was reassuring to see that most of us FR men are real men willing to do what is right.
Sadly, there were a few who agreed with this lawsuit but only a few.
49 posted on
03/09/2006 6:21:41 AM PST by
HEY4QDEMS
(No animals were harmed during the creation of this post.)
To: Abathar
Excellent idea, home they win the case.
56 posted on
03/09/2006 6:27:53 AM PST by
jpsb
To: derllak
61 posted on
03/09/2006 6:33:01 AM PST by
Leatherneck_MT
(An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.)
To: Abathar
Hey
Equal = Equal
The baby is 1/2 the male's. Both are equally responsible for the pregnancy. Each should have an equal say if it will be aborted or not. She has to endure the 9 mos and the delivery and he has to pay for 18+ years.
Right now he has no say at all.
To: Abathar
I agree with the men in this lawsuit. I think the current situation places unfair decisionmaking authority in the woman once a child is conceived. She not only has unilateral life or death power over the child, she has unilateral power to decide whether the man will have to support the child.
If a man wants the child and is willing to raise it on his own, the woman can say "Tough," and kill it.
If the man doesn't want the child, the woman can say "Tough. You're going to support it anyway."
I don't think there's any question that the current situation is unfair to the children and to the men.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-26 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson