Posted on 01/29/2014 5:55:14 AM PST by lbryce
give me a break, guys just want the sex, they can’t think with their brain when they are on the hunt, they will do anything their little anatomy tells them
There is a special place in hell for this scum.
Yes, but don’t males, particularly those under 35, support abortion in higher numbers than females? That may no longer be true.
That’s Harry Blackmun (Nixon) law.
but...but its just a ball of cells, not life right? So what’s the big deal? She’s just gonna miss out on some baby shower gifts. He should only have to pay restitution for missed shower gifts!
And, at this time, ours is neither!
Mail fraud and product tampering with bodily harm. I believe the murder charges were dropped.
At that point, the agenda of "sexual equality" could have gone either way:
The feminist movement, with their "equality agenda," went for the latter. This option for "dual irresponsibility" is the core of the "Sexual Revolution."
Due to contraceptives --- the armamanetaria of the "Sexual Revolution" --- both parties now feel justified in expressing surprise and resentment when a baby is produced by their baby-making activities. ("Pregnant? No!! How could this happen? It's shocking! It's unfair!!") If the lady is thereupon unwilling to commit murder, then it's all on her.
Of course, this didn't prove entirely favorable to the preferences of feminism, so it was followed up by the stacking of feminist family courts whereby men would be hounded and harried for decades if the lady said "Make him pay," or dumped without a rag of paternal rights or duties if the lady decided on a more solo style.
The losers? Always the babies. Often, the men. Usually, the women as well as the "marriage culture" dissolves in an acid bath of resentment, cynicism, callousness and disgust.
Happy Sexual Revolution, everybody!
I am not opposed to child support as a concept,
it is sold as being an entitlement to the offspring (ie Judge Judy) which is hard to argue against.
That is the moral argument that supports those draconian punishments for not paying, and the secret courts.
But the laws are the opposite of that argument, legally its an entitlement to only the mom (the parent who gets full custody) who legally can spend it on anything they want, even a new boyfriend.
Its a reward.
The exception is joint custody, but many women use tricks to avoid that .
The truth is, in the eyes of the law it is only a "baby" if the mother wants it. Otherwise it is just tissue. This is fundamental logical construct which enables abortion on demand but charges people for double murder if they kill a pregnant woman.
What's the solution? I think there is only one: restoring the marriage culture.
One might object that that will be difficult, and will take a long time. But my assessment of the situation is still that that's the only solution. It's the slow way, or no way.
I recall a time when a surviving child would get SSI because a parent died, the remaining parent (or legal guardian) would be the manager of that $$$.
They were required to document how they spent that $$$ on the child and some general living expenses were allowed.
Child support is not like that, its just an entitlement to one parent from the other parent with no review. Judge Judy first says its for the child, then tells the father its none of his business how she spends it.
It is an incentive to be a single Mom in many cases,
He wasn’t convicted of murder.
He was convicted for product tampering and mail fraud.
My point is, I took literary license when refering to him as a murderer. My take on what he did was from an ethical, moral perspective, not a legal one.
..that is his power....
condoms too much to ask for?...how about just not having sex with a female until you're ready to commit to marriage and family....
and we wonder why western civilization is dying...between abortion and the pill and men not wanting children, we are absolutley doomed as a culture...
One could equally argue that a woman has the power to say ‘no’ as they did for many 100s of years.(except in Muzzie countries)
But that would result in being accused of hating them.
She can say no, or say yes and get welfare or child support, or execute her ‘constitutional’ right to make the ‘problem’ go away.
Now that is power. Who says both sexes are equal under the law?
Do you have a workable proposal to make biology “equal under the law”?
Seems to me that rational men, recognizing the biological realities of procreation would exercise the necessary self control and or prophylactic means so as to not pass that power to the female gender.
Men should stop whining “it’s not fair” when they stupidly pass control to the female and then don’t like the results.
Sounds like a rhetorical question,
But it seems to me that too many so-cons got sucked into the liberal idea that paying woman to have babies out of wedlock, if privatized through child support versus welfare, would cut down on single Mom babies. Of course since then we now have ~ 40% single parent families, so it obviously didn't do that.
Its as counter logical as paying people to not-work will get them jobs.
On abortion, it is very strange moral logic that its a constitutional right for the Mom to kill her unborn, but a crime for the father to do it, especially considering above. Feminists love it.
The strange moral logic is that because the law allows women to kill unborn babies, men should also be allowed to do so.
What this man did was criminal and evil and deserving of punishment and has nothing to do with the dismal abortion laws.
Or the opposite, and its not women, its specifically birth mothers. If you killed that baby you would go to jail too.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.