The point is that about a third of the pro choice male crowd says they would sue to have the child aborted or move to another country to avoid paying child support. Funny how some people's opinion change when it affects them.
Yes, it IS funny how an opinion changes when it affects them....suddenly they change and abortion is OK So the idea that men should have a "say" in a woman's pregnancy sure fell flat I have long felt that if men could get pregnant there'd be a free abortion clinic on every street corner …
Unlike the other poll which only had two options, this is more of an opinion question. I commend you for staying true to yoir belief as I did mine with that gotcha question.
The abortion, no question. Why should I be forced to pay for someone else's religious beliefs? Though I can't for the life of me see why I wouldn't just sue for the right to not be charged child support, let the woman have the abortion or not, my concern is whether I have to pay money.
So you agree: Yes, it IS funny how an opinion changes when it affects them....suddenly they change and abortion is OK
If you create a child, you have to help support it....you knew this before you Impregnated the mother
No one says that he chose to have an unwanted child the same way no one says she chose to have an unwanted child
Because it is against her will. They took a potential child from her. If I chop off my finger it is not a felony but if you chop off my finger it is
And so did the mother before she got pregnant. I've never raped anybody. I'll be generous and pay for the abortion. I shouldn't have to pay for someone else's religious beliefs
No a woman does not have to support a child , she can abort it. But if she has it she supports it. ...and as a father you would not be paying for anyone's religious beliefs, you'd be paying for YOUR child....that's a law not a religious belief...
It's a zygote until the mother decides not to abort it and that decision absolves me of any responsibility. Again, I didn't rape her.
Why aren't those that support the rest of us that didn't impregnate the mother supporting the child when she can't and he won't going after him?
While many do support the children they choose to have, many do not. Why don't you spend 1/4 of the time going after the deadbeat sperm donors that actually created children as you do taxpayers that didn't when it comes to supporting children?
FoxHastings said: ↑ No a woman does not have to support a child , she can abort it. But if she has it she supports it. ...and as a father you would not be paying for anyone's religious beliefs, you'd be paying for YOUR child....that's a law not a religious belief... What? You couldn't address or refute my post as usual so you want me to spend a "1/4" ( where that number came from is a mystery ) of my time going after deadbeat dads? WTF? The law already does go after them so WTF are you going on about?
Apparently the laws are doing a very good job since the taxpayers still support the children they didn't create because the one that did isn't doing his job. There is an easy way to determine when the laws are working. Taxpayers won't put out a dime to support kids they didn't create.
We support those children whose fathers can't be found or have no money. Hey, I get it, you think children should be punished for what their parents did or do....I get it, it's appalling but I see what you're saying...
Oh, in the Magic Land of Unicorns and Fairies all crimes are stopped before they happen , all fathers found, all fathers have income, …. Hey, I get it, you think children should be punished for what their parents did or do....I get it, it's appalling but I see what you're saying... Ya, I'm sure they have stats.....and that law works about as well as others... Ya, they will, they have to , even those who hate children so much they want them to suffer for what their parents did....can you IMAGINE people that awful !!????
In other words, you admit the laws you claim are being applied don't work. You seem to think those of us that didn't create those children should be punished for what their own parents won't do.
You think people that had no connection with the process should someone pay for something they didn't do. That's appalling. I love my children. I also support my children. That's how it should be. If you want to talk about people hating children, talk to those that won't provide their own even with the basics of life. Interesting how you consider someone that does for his children as being hateful yet don't for those that won't do for their own.
FoxHastings said: ↑ We support those children whose fathers can't be found or have no money. Hey, I get it, you think children should be punished for what their parents did or do....I get it, it's appalling but I see what you're saying... NO where in the post of mine you quoted did I "admit the laws....don't work". So it's obvious you had no good reply and had to "imagine" things that weren't there. The law works well enough (as does any law) to make fathers pay for their kids.....but America doesn't abandon needy children..... I don't consider it punishment to support this country and it's citizens especially children....you do....too bad...
