??? See Roe v Wade. What happens if a pregnancy continues and results in birth? Oh interesting, motherhood! Don't try to play semantics with me. Obviously. I never argued otherwise. This is not my argument and I never said otherwise. My argument is one of the legal rights of a parent and the right to sign away said parental rights. I am sorry but you are completely losing me here. You are bringing this into the discussion for what reason? I could ask the same of you. It seems that you and FoxHastings both want to punish men who chose to have sex with parenthood because of the innate and unchanging fact that women must potentially suffer through a pregnancy and painful childbirth. I don't understand why that should have any bearing on whether or not a man or a woman becomes a legal parent or not.
And YOU just admitted that men supporting their own children is a punishment....WHO doesn't like the kiddies????
Is there any particular reason you are trying to personally attack me or do you just have nothing else to add to the discussion? People always resort to ad hom when they have nothing left. So instead of debating the merits of my arguments you instead want to sit here and try to assassinate my character and me personally and say that I hate children or that I don't like children on a personal level (which I have desperately been wanting my own child for years now so this is totally ludicrous). I don't know if you have read the forum rules but I recommend reviewing Rule #2 once more.
In the bolded red above you posted that men supporting their own children would be punishment. Then I posted :And YOU just admitted that men supporting their own children is a punishment....WHO doesn't like the kiddies?? There was no insult , just a statement and a question. But threatening to run to the mods with a perceived insult only proves you are desperate....and have no argument.
Again why are you trying to personally attack me? I dunno Fox, who doesn't like the kiddies? Is it ME? Are you trying to say I don't like the kiddies? Do share. I like the rules of the forum, they prevent people from going off and ranting and raving pointlessly about the poster themselves and instead force you to focus on the actual argument at hand. I know most of the mods here pretty well, they have made it clear to me multiple times if people break the rules we need to report them and inform the mods so they can take corrective action. Is there a problem with that?
Well let's go back to your question Fox, "Who doesn't like the kiddies?" I don't know. Please tell me.
Curious. It seems when confronted with me asking you to tell me the answer to your question you won't respond. Why? Is it because it would have been a personal attack? I thought as much. Now I wonder if we can actually get back to the discussion at hand instead of derailing the debate with pointless attempts at character assassination. --------------------------------------- diamond lil , I was thoroughly enjoying our discussion. It's been a long time since I have had such a heated argument and been able to have a strong back and forth with someone on here. I really look forward to hearing a response from you soon although I have to head off to work in a minute here I will be back later tonight to review your responses. Cheers!
"""""""""" It seems when confronted with me asking you to tell me the answer to your question you won't respond. Why?"""""""""""" What did I not respond to?
Oh gosh, let's put it in context....""""And YOU just admitted that men supporting their own children is a punishment....WHO doesn't like the kiddies????"""" I asked you first....
Ok, I can't speak for anyone here but me, but my issue is this. I don't feel that supporting children that I help create is a punishment, but if a woman wants to opt out she can. If a man wants to opt out he's a low life SOB. I just find the disparity there amazing.
Yes, because a woman can "opt out" before it's a child. Once it's a child BOTH parents are responsible for it. Once it's a child then BOTH can opt out by putting it up for adoption. A man or woman putting their child up for adoption are neither low lifes nor SOBs. But men and women who refuse to support their children are. Now, if you can get a law passed that let's men off the hook for supporting their own children...go for it, but be prepared for the consequences.
Just a thought. If a fetus ever becomes deemed a person at conception would that then mean the male would be libel for costs associated with pregnancy and if he cannot pay would the state then include these costs in it's welfare payments towards the 'child'? Have to admit I have no idea if the state actually does provide payments to a female during pregnancy. I still maintain though that even if the premise of a man being able to revoke parental responsibility and so not be legally libel for child support was right in an equality sense it will never happen. The conservatives of the USA would never allow such a law to be passed as it would require a significant increase in taxes in order to fund it, and in the end we all pretty well know that conservatives don't want anything that takes money from their pockets.
Did you miss the part where I responded succinctly with, "I don't know."? I sincerely do not know who does not like the 'kiddies'. Please tell me who does. Or do you not know either?
They don't. In fact the US is very far behind when it comes to financial aid for pregnant women. We're just barely getting proper treatment in the workplace. I just saw an article recently that shows that businesses now HAVE to treat pregnant women like employees with disabilities, which is a good thing because now they can't force pregnant women to undergo stressful work environments, lift heavy objects or do any kind of harsh physical labor while working that could potentially harm their pregnancies. Oh I'm sure it'll never happen either in all likelihood. The state will always chase after men to pay for their kids (HELL! Even for money from men who have been proven NOT to be the paternal fathers!) It's a bit ridiculous how the system works. There are a lot of problems with the child support and welfare system here and they are all put on the back burner for other things like war/foreign policy it seems. Would be nice if the government would mind it's own business in the outside world and start focusing on it's own countries problems. =/
Roe v Wade does not give women the right to give their children away without the agreement of the fathers. When that happens, both the man and woman become parents.Pregnancy is not parenthood. Pregnant women are not mothers. And I've provided a link showing you both parents have equal rights. because you seem to think women have the right to sign away an embryo and want men to have the same right. I've tried so hard to explain. Abortion does not equal opting out of being an actual mother. It is opting out of becoming a mother. Men cannot do that. Because that's the way human reproduction works. It's not about punishing men or women, but making sure children are supported by both parents whenever possible.
Oh? Summary President Barack Obama released recommendations for his fiscal year 2015 budget on March 4. The budget proposal contains $3.9 trillion in spending. For the first time in history, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' budget is over $1 trillion. Much of the HHS' increased spending is due to an aging population. The budget reinforces priorities for access to high-quality preschool available to every four-year-old child and for increasing investments in high-quality care for infants and toddlers, including additional funding for expanding program duration and enhancing teacher quality in Head Start and making quality improvements in Child Care Development Fund programs. Employment of People with Disabilities The budget proposes new authority and $400 million in new resources for the Social Security Administration, in partnership with other federal agencies, to test innovative strategies to help people with disabilities remain in the workforce. These strategies could include early-intervention measures, such as supportive em(*)ployment services for individuals with mental health conditions, targeted incentives for employers, and incentives and opportunities for states to better coordinate services. The proposed demonstration authority would help build the evidence base for future program improvements. The cost of the demonstrations could be offset by program integrity measures. For more information on proposals impacting people with disabilities, see: http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/def...pportunities-for-people-with-disabilities.pdf. Supports for Victims of Trafficking and Domestic Violence The budget includes funding for a joint Health and Human Services, Department of Justice, and Homeland Security initiative to prevent and address domestic human trafficking. Some $10 million in funding is allocated to address the needs of victims, to train providers, and to improve data collection, research, and evaluation activities. Community Services Block Grant(CSBG) The President proposes to reduce and reform CSBG. These measures continue the administration’s focus on accountability to outcomes. The budget funds CSBG at $350 million and will competitively award funds to high-performing, local agencies that demonstrate success in meeting community needs. Efforts Towards Ending Homelessness To continue efforts toward the President’s goal of ending youth homelessness by 2020, the budget invests $2.4 billion, an increase of $304 million from the previous year, to fund HUD’s Homeless Assistance Grants. The grants will support new permanent supportive housing for vulnerable populations and maintain the more than 330,000 beds that HUD funds to assist the homeless. The funds support research to improve data quality and service capacity for targeted populations such as: pregnant youth, adolescent parents, and youth involved in the foster care and juvenile justice systems. Improving Health Care Access, Research & Quality of Services The President's budget includes $25 million over the next two years to monitor and prevent fraud, waste and abuse in the Health Insurance Marketplace (HIM). An additional investment of $14.6 billion over the next 10 years is proposed to provide additional resources to increase access to primary care services, including but not limited to: extending the increased Medicaid payments for certain physicians delivering primary care services by one year through 2015 and modifying provider eligibility to include additional primary care providers. Additionally, $3.9 billion over the next six years will be provided to the National Health Services Corps (NHSC) for additional placements of health care providers in underserved areas. Investments of $4.6 billion will be made to the Health Centers program in 2015 and $8.1 billion in new resources over the next three years. Improves and Expands Access to Mental Health Services The budget calls for $164 million to support the President's "Now is the Time" initiative, established in 2013 in the wake of the Newport, CT school shootings, aimed to expand mental health treatment and prevention services across both SAMHSA & the CDC. This includes $55 million for Project AWARE (Advancing Wellness and Resilience in Education) to implement plans to keep schools safe and refer children with behavioral needs to appropriate services, as well as to provide Mental Health First Aid training in schools and communities. Another $50 million will be used to train 5,000 new mental health professionals to serve students and young adults; $20 million will be funded to support Health Transitions, which supports transitional age youth access behavioral health services. Children’s Health Insurance The President's budget is proposing to extend the Children's Health Insurance Program's performance bonus funds. These performance bonus, originally authorized through the CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2009 (CHIPRA) provided states with the opportunity to enhance eligibility and enrollment of children qualifying for Medicaid and reducing coverage gaps, most notably implementing Express Lane Eligibility which allows for data matching between SNAP and Medicaid to expedite enrollment into Medicaid. Child Care and Development Block Grant The Child Care and Development Block Grant (CCDBG) would receive a total of $2.147 billion in discretionary funds, which is a $57 million increase from current levels. Of this total amount, about $200 million would be set aside to assist states in improving the quality of child care. CCDBG mandatory funds would receive a $750 million increase, raising current levels to $3.667 billion to help maintain low-income family’s access to child care assistance. Head Start Head Start would receive a total of $8.87 billion, which would provide over $250 million in increased funding. This increase includes a $100 million cost of living adjustment for current Head Start grantees and $150 million set aside for the new Early Head Start-Child Care Partnership grants established in January. The FY2014 final budget provided $500 million for potential partnership grantees to expand access to high-quality early care and education for low-income infants and toddlers. The President's proposed increase would raise this amount to $650 million in FY2015. Maternal, Infant and early Childhood Home Visiting Title V Maternal, Infant and early Childhood Home Visiting would receive a $129 million increase, raising its levels to $500 million in FY2015 and extend mandatory funding through FY2024. Preschool Development Grants The newly established Preschool Development Grants would receive a $500 million increase from FY2014 levels, bringing this amount to $750 million in FY2015. The President's Preschool for All initiative would receive about $75 billion over 10 years. This would be paid for though a proposed increase in federal tobacco tax. Early Care and Education Programs The Investing in High-Quality Infant and Toddler Care preschool initiative is coupled with companion investments at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in high-quality care for infants and toddlers. This includes $650 million in the base budget and $800 million in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative for Early Head Start-Child Care Partnerships, to provide access to high-quality infant and toddler care for more than 100,000 children, and additional resources in the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative to support Head Start grantees who are expanding program duration and investing in teacher quality. In addition, the budget makes a substantial commitment to maintain the number of children served by the Child Care Development Fund and improve the quality of care, with an increase of $807 million in combined discretionary and mandatory funds for 2015 and sufficient mandatory funding to support more than 1.4 million children for a full ten years while investing in significant quality improvements. Supporting Evidence-Based, Voluntary Home Visiting The budget calls for investing $15 billion in mandatory funds at HHS over the next 10 years to extend and expand evidence-based, voluntary home visiting programs, which enable nurses, social workers, and other professionals to connect families to services and educational supports that improve a child’s health, development, and ability to learn. Like Preschool for All, this initiative would be fully financed by raising federal tobacco taxes. Targeting the Achievement Gap through a New Race to the Top Competition As the 2013 report by the Equity and Excellence Commission made clear, the problem of inequitable opportunities for students in the nation’s highest poverty schools denies those students the quality education needed to compete successfully in the global economy and imposes a substantial economic cost on the country. The budget builds on the findings in this report by proposing a new $300 million Race to the Top (RTT) Equity and Opportunity initiative centered on closing the achievement gap. Additional resources will be provided through the Opportunity, Growth, and Security Initiative. The RTT initiative will link together state and local fiscal, student achievement, and human resource data systems, allowing them to work in concert to provide underserved students access to high-quality teachers and evidence-based supports. RTT Equity and Opportunity grants will reward tracking resources at the school level and using data, including return on investment metrics, to target intensive interventions to schools that are most in need. The initiative will also leverage resources from other Federal programs, such as Title I Grants and the Statewide Longitudinal Data System Grant program, which the budget proposes to double in funding to $70 million. Promotes Responsible Fatherhood and Prevents Teen Pregnancy The budget proposes to modernize the Child Support Enforcement Program, which touches the lives of one-quarter of the Nation’s children and helps secure contributions toward their financial and emotional well-being from non-custodial parents. The budget proposes to change current law to en(*)courage non-custodial parents to take greater re(*)sponsibility for their children while maintaining rigorous enforcement efforts. The budget also continues funding for evidence-based models that prevent teenage pregnancy to build on the dra(*)matic progress that has been made in this area. Prevents Hunger The Administration strongly supports the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and other programs that reduce hunger and help families meet their nutritional needs. SNAP is the cornerstone of the nation’s nutrition assistance safety net, touching the lives of 47 million Americans, the majority of whom are children, the elderly, or people with disabilities. In addition to supporting SNAP, the budget also invests $30 million to support sum(*)mer electronic benefit pilots, which are proving successful in reducing childhood hunger and improving nutrition in the months when school meals are unavailable""""""""""""""""""" Partial list
I'm still waiting, quite patiently I might add, for you to tell me "WHO doesn't like the kiddies?". Because I don't know. That is the one question you have failed to answer thus far that I am most interested in hearing the answer too. Are you going to give me an answer to that or not?
I really hate it when I have to string together quotes just to show how one has gone from one subject to a complete other subject. It's so strange. And it's no wonder we're all so confused about your arguments thus far. Surely you can understand why I am at a loss at this point of the conversation now. You literally jumped from abortion to adoption and I'm not really sure how. I mean there is a two letter difference between the words but wow. Just to make things more clear, since you seem to be muddying the waters, either intentionally or unintentionally (I am not sure at the moment) can you please show me where I have ever made this claim in any of my arguments? Again I never claimed this and never argued for it (if I have please feel free to show me where and I will gladly concede). All I have argued thus far is for men to have the legal right to sign away their parental rights to an unwanted child born or unborn. It would appear you are building plenty of strawmen here. What does the medical procedure of having an abortion have to do with men or even women signing away their parental rights to a child? That's what I don't understand. You keep bringing it up as if it's relevant somehow. Care to elaborate? This is where I am getting most confused, you continue to mention it as though it's relevant, I can't see how it is.
MOD EDIT - Rule 3 And I don't know what you mean by your melodramatic "Finally".....I have posted all along that people who don't want men to support their actual living real air-breathing children really don't care for children. How could anyone care for children if they don't want them to have the support of their parents. When people want children to have less, less food , less shelter, less education, less opportunities so their fathers have monetary freedom shows they do not care about children..
I certainly did not do it on purpose, as I'm not a teenaged troll. That's the way the quote function is working for some reason. I answered each question as it was shown. Putting it simply, you keep claiming that men cannot choose what to do after causing a pregnancy they wish had not happened. You want a law to be passed allowing them to "opt out", because women can "opt out". Women don't opt out. They may or may not decide to terminate a pregnancy. There is no doing anything about that. What is so difficult to understand?
Can or can women not decide to terminate a pregnancy for the sole reason of not wanting to become a parent? If the answer is yes (and it is), then women can and do opt out. Very often.
Their reasons are immaterial. They do not "opt out". They undergo a medical or surgical procedure to end a pregnancy.
No, it takes place in a hospital or clinic, hopefully. It is a medical procedure. Not a legal agreement.
