- Moderator
- #61
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
No he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
oh---ok 1.5 out of 14 is ~ ten percent------now I do not feel all
that unique. I am not up on current trends----in my time
it took a really seriously damaged chick to lose custody-----
not the kind who make big bucks
That's changed for sure. I got lucky 20 years ago, my ex abandoned her child, or I probably would not have got custody in a court battle. Today that's changed, finally Courts no longer default to "the mother is the best parent absent proof that she is abusive or something"
Actually, the newest trend appears to be joint custody with no child child support
"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?
Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody
oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law
Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.
A bill proposed by a Republican state lawmaker in Missouri would require a woman seeking an abortion to obtain notarized consent from the baby's father, even if he is physically abusive toward her.
Proposed Bill Would Require Women To Ask Men s Permission To Have An Abortion
Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, over 56 million unborn children have been killed, more than the entire population of Spain. And we need to do something with it.
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
There's so much wrong with that I just don't know where to start.
republicans are taking freedom, rights and liberty from women. I just don't understand why anyone would ever vote for a republican.
I'm so glad I don't live in any of the red states that are hell bent on taking freedom, rights and liberty from women.
It won't pass
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
That's changed for sure. I got lucky 20 years ago, my ex abandoned her child, or I probably would not have got custody in a court battle. Today that's changed, finally Courts no longer default to "the mother is the best parent absent proof that she is abusive or something"
Actually, the newest trend appears to be joint custody with no child child support
"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?
Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody
oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law
Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.
I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
I sure hope you're right.
No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
I sure hope you're right.
No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
"joint custody" ??? both bathe and dress and feed and
guard the kid?--------no child support? both do the shopping?
Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody
oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law
Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.
I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced
um no in fact interfering with visitation is NOT an excuse not to pay. Nor is not paying child support a valid reason for refusing visitation.
Courts look very unkindly on parents who do either.
And OF COURSE there are non custodial parents who simply bail because they aren't that attached to their child AND they don't want to pay child support. It's simply pathetic, but one can almost understand why back in the day a man would be ordered to pay 1/4 of his paycheck, or more AND be told that he could only see his child(ren) one weekend out of the month, why many would simply say "fuck that" and disappear.
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
I sure hope you're right.
No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.
Kid lives with mom one week and dad the next. BOTH have custody
oh-----they live near each other-----and neither is running from the law
Yes, see how that works. Keep both parents in the child's life by not making one feel compelled to run because of child support. I mean let's fact it the system of just making the man give the woman money with no say in how it was spent on the child plus little contact with the child wasn't fair, OR working.
I know of no such cases that a man runs simply because of child support. The fact WAS that interference with visitation was a cause for refusing to pay. I just don't know
about any cases of that which you describe-----but I don't doubt that there are such cases. In my time (ancient times) I agree that divorce was entirely cook book-----
almost silly. I lived in a "no fault" state-------either side could get screwed----generally one or the other. -----but
even better------nothing got enforced
Child support and visitation are NOT related
Child Support And Visitation Are Not Related
um no in fact interfering with visitation is NOT an excuse not to pay. Nor is not paying child support a valid reason for refusing visitation.
Courts look very unkindly on parents who do either.
And OF COURSE there are non custodial parents who simply bail because they aren't that attached to their child AND they don't want to pay child support. It's simply pathetic, but one can almost understand why back in the day a man would be ordered to pay 1/4 of his paycheck, or more AND be told that he could only see his child(ren) one weekend out of the month, why many would simply say "fuck that" and disappear.
I think that the reasons for CHUCKING it are very varied------
I have heard all kinds. The laws that demand payment regardless -----are observed in the breach. At least in the recent past they were. ------- There is another law-----if the
custodial parent takes the kids OUT OF STATE----a long distance off-----that the non custodial could request ending
support. At least such a law existed in the past----in states in which I lived. Also----a fleeing spouse who does not request visitation------does not get it. -----uhm "I know one such case"----who was told by the judge----"if he shows up and wants to see the kid----call the cops"
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
I sure hope you're right.
No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.
oh? so if a man in a divorce court says "I never wanted the kid anyway"-----he's off the hook?
Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?
RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.
Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.
Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?
Your coin appears to have but one side.
no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
OMG!
Now an abusive man can force a woman to have his child. Now a rapist can force a woman to have his child.
Now he can't. It's a proposed law and has zero chance of passing.
I sure hope you're right.
No man should ever have the right to force a woman to have a child she doesn't want.
No woman should ever have the right to force a man to pay for a child he doesn't want.
oh? so if a man in a divorce court says "I never wanted the kid anyway"-----he's off the hook?
we're not talking about divorce court.
Can a woman go into divorce court and say "I want to abort my child?
Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?
RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.
Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.
Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?
Your coin appears to have but one side.
no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?
Your coin appears to have but one side.
no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice
Where is the requirement that the father pay to rear the child?
RWs would have us back in the Dark Ages if they could. Abortion did not just start in 1973, nor will it ever end.
Most abortions are medically necessary but the reason for an abortion is not germane to the question of rights. Nor should we take away basic rights based on the whims of another person.
Then there's the flip side. If he wants her to abort, and she refuses, should she take singular financial responsibility?
Your coin appears to have but one side.
no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
no. <<<< my declaration. He planted it----he has to
water it and feed it and----set up the stakes to SUPPORT
its growth
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice
Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?
That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.
unless of course you decide to abort, in which case he has no say. Right?
And you don't see the hypocrisy of that position?
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice
Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?
That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.
Depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the
characters of the players. Your question is far too broad..
There are men who do not believe that women belong in
the kitchen? how many. Right now I am busy doing the
laundry-----he does not know how to use the machine-------we
have a very egalitarian relationship----he just does other things. If I were pregnant with HIS child------I would consider his RIGHTS
no......you were never in labor
Abortion requires no labor. What are you talking about.
Why is only one partner completely responsible? The other gets choice?
Makes zero sense.
Abortion has very negative effects on a woman's Physiology---it has no effect on the physiology of the
man who's action initiated the pregnancy----her body, her choice
Really, so you don't believe finding out you're going to be a father, and then being told "I'm aborting your child" without so much as a conversation has ANY affect on a man?
That ma'am is an antiquated, and sexist, opinion. You're no better than the man who believes a woman belongs in the kitchen.
Depends on the circumstances of the relationship and the
characters of the players. Your question is far too broad..
There are men who do not believe that women belong in
the kitchen? how many. Right now I am busy doing the
laundry-----he does not know how to use the machine-------we
have a very egalitarian relationship----he just does other things. If I were pregnant with HIS child------I would consider his RIGHTS
So , you concede he has rights in regards to you getting pregnant?