When we are planning for our finances, we must decide how we will measure our success. One such measure is by achieving financial freedom, but what does financial freedom really mean? The term “financial freedom” is thrown around a lot by both traditional financial planners and investment advisers, as well as every infomercial get-rich-quick scheme. Typically, most of the schemes are using the term to mean being so rich you never have to work again. But really financial freedom means being released from uncertainty and being able to confidentially know that you will be able to meet your life goals.
This may mean that you have enough passive income (through pension, investments, business ownership, or real estate rental income) to finance your basic expenses. Or, it may mean that you simply know how to use your income, and investments, to create a life where financial issues are no longer holding you back from your goals. But what I think is not important — what does financial freedom mean to you? If you lived in a world where you KNEW that you were going to be able to reach your goals, and you knew exactly what to do to reach your goals, how would that feel? What words come to mind when you think of financial freedom?
US workers are so self-defeating. The unions don’t seem to care about the state of the economy. How about making prosperity rather than destroying it individuals?
Financial freedom is really important. You do not have to be rich to be free financially; but if you can go by the day and still have savings that you can use in the future for you or your family.
Hi there! Financial freedom needs to be worked for by all working people. By being financially free, the future looks rosy.
Its hard to determine what financially free really is, but the people who make it there some how figured it out. This article provides a good rough outline to the steps to a financially free life.
Cody, webmaster at Periodontist San Luis Obispo site.
To me financial freedom doesn’t necessarily mean being a millionaire. It just means that I can do what I want, when I want, and I can live my life comfortably without having to worry about money. Then again, happiness in life means different things to different people, so the concept of financial freedom may also differ from one person to another.
@ RJ and Stacy, it’s true you don’t need to be rich or a millionaire to achieve financial freedom. But not many people can achieve this. Most of us still live with debt all around.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
What do you mean by financial freedom? Why is it important to you? What will it be like to be financially free? What’s/who’s stopping me on achieving it? Why are they stopping me from achieving it now? How much pain would it be for my family if I die too soon? How can I take care of it now? What can I do to start this change? Can I do it now? How?
Who will benefit from my financial freedom? What lasting value would it create for me and my family?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
My husband and I are working very hard to get out of debt. We only have school loans and a home loan. We pay off our credit card every month and pay extra towards the college loans. I would like to try for a baby. I have recently been diagnosed with an issue that may mean I am infertile. So I would like to try now just to try naturally first.
My husband is thinking about it and he wants kids, but I think he is afraid of not having all of our financial ducks in a row, while I am afraid that waiting may mean no baby. So what should we do? I am just asking for your opinion I will definatley talk more indepth to my husband. Thanks so much
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Currently, we (wife, 2 children) live in a city that we love, the climate, the atmosphere, the people, etc.
I currently rent and am 1-2 years away from having enough money to either put a down payment on a home or purchase land and build a new home.
I own a house that needs remodeling in a different city which I do not enjoy (the opposite of where I live now).
In terms of finances, opting to live in a house I already own is the best decision, meaning a difference of many thousands of dollars saved by no longer renting besides the costs involved in purchasing a home in the future and the reduction of financial stress by having no mortgage or rent to pay every month. Ultimately, this situation could be leveraged to achieve financial freedom in a significantly shorter period of time.
Is it worth it? Would you exchange the environment you love in order to improve your current and future financial situation? If anyone has had a similar experience, please comment.
Selling the house in question would not make a significant enough difference in finances nor get me any closer to purchasing a different house.
We have a large amount of credit card debt and are considering debt negotiation through Freedom Financial. They say that we can pay off our debt in three years time and that while our credit rating will initially be affected, by the time the debt is paid, the negative rating will be mitigated. Has anyone used this service (or a similar one)?
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
I am looking for some tips you guys use to help yourself avoid financial freedom.
thanks!
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
I have heard only good things about this book, does anyone know if The practical Guide to Total Financial Freedom: Volume 1 is as good as they say? Im thinking about buying it for sure at my bookstore, anyone love it?
I found it at amazon and might order it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPractical-Guide-Total-Financial-Freedom%2Fdp%2F1411620542&tag=theinfosc-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325”
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
What books can help me to achieve financial freedom? I read the the 4 hour work week, but I feel it is not that great.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Have you ever wondered what it woulld be like to be financially independent ? When was the last time you didn’t have a credit card? When was the last time that you where able to go shopping with out thinking about having enought money to pay the rest of the bills?
Wouldn’t be nice to be free?
What are you doing to accomlish those dreams?
If you would be able to do something to be debt free, to be able to go shopping freely would you do it?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Have you ever wondered what it woulld be like to be financially independent ? When was the last time you didn’t have a credit card? When was the last time that you where able to go shopping with out thinking about having enought money to pay the rest of the bills?
Wouldn’t be nice to be free?
What are you doing to accomlish those dreams?
If you would be able to do something to be debt free, to be able to go shopping freely would you do it?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
I want to have enough money so that I will not have to worry about money for the rest of my life. I want to do what I want to do. I hate working a job I hate just to pay the bills. So what is financial freedom?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
How do you plan to become wealthy. (if at all)
Please explain why you think your route to financial security is the “best” method.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
We are in the process of signing papers with Financial Freedom but I worry about them since the government seized their parent company IndyMac Bank. They say they can still make loans, but I worry if they will be able to continue the monthly payments. If I went with them, could I transfer to another lender at a later time?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
I have heard only good things about this book, does anyone know if The practical Guide to Total Financial Freedom: Volume 1 is as good as they say? Im thinking about buying it for sure at my bookstore, anyone love it?
I found it at amazon and might order it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPractical-Guide-Total-Financial-Freedom%2Fdp%2F1411620542&tag=theinfosc-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325”
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
I have heard only good things about this book, does anyone know if The practical Guide to Total Financial Freedom: Volume 1 is as good as they say? Im thinking about buying it for sure at my bookstore, anyone love it?
I found it at amazon and might order it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPractical-Guide-Total-Financial-Freedom%2Fdp%2F1411620542&tag=theinfosc-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325”
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
my goal in life is to achieve financial freedom as soon as possible.
I never went to university though…do i need to go?
im 23years old right now
since highschool grad ive been just working to support myself and save some money on the side.
what i want to do is to invest or start a business
recently ive been doing some reading on how to invest and doing business..and such
but i have no previous experience.
any advice ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
and on the other hand i am studying at collage and 2 years are left and my performance hasn’t been good enough.Both pursuing my interests and pursuing financial freedom are important to the same extent.I am the lastborn child of my family and i don’t want to be dependent on my 2 brothers and sister and my parents financially.I don’t know what to do.What’s your idea?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Have you ever wondered what it woulld be like to be financially independent ? When was the last time you didn’t have a credit card? When was the last time that you where able to go shopping with out thinking about having enought money to pay the rest of the bills?
Wouldn’t be nice to be free?
What are you doing to accomlish those dreams?
If you would be able to do something to be debt free, to be able to go shopping freely would you do it?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
and on the other hand i am studying at collage and 2 years are left and my performance hasn’t been good enough.Both pursuing my interests and pursuing financial freedom are important to the same extent.I am the lastborn child of my family and i don’t want to be dependent on my 2 brothers and sister and my parents financially.I don’t know what to do.What’s your idea?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
I have heard only good things about this book, does anyone know if The practical Guide to Total Financial Freedom: Volume 1 is as good as they say? Im thinking about buying it for sure at my bookstore, anyone love it?
I found it at amazon and might order it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/redirect.html?ie=UTF8&location=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2FPractical-Guide-Total-Financial-Freedom%2Fdp%2F1411620542&tag=theinfosc-20&linkCode=ur2&camp=1789&creative=9325”
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
I am 22 and i am a student at collage and two years are left to finish my education.I don’t want to be dependent on my family’s money to buy or achieve my favorites.I think i should find a way to become financially free.How can i achieve financial freedom?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
and on the other hand i am studying at collage and 2 years are left and my performance hasn’t been good enough.Both pursuing my interests and pursuing financial freedom are important to the same extent.I am the lastborn child of my family and i don’t want to be dependent on my 2 brothers and sister and my parents financially.I don’t know what to do.What’s your idea?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion or falsify abortion itself :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father ! Better to defend the attitude as it is instead of telling people advices about how to fit with it.
By the way stop following people trying to track some mistakes expression and get to the subject itself instead.
However you dodge you can not hide this fact :
Abortion = There is a way to opt out for women even with having sex, but there is no way to opt out for men = SEXISM
Tax payers are not responsible for my sperm ? Then why they are responsible for a woman’s egg by giving her a paid pregnancy leave ? hypocrisy
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Now I know this debate has been going on for a while but the more I think about it the more It amazes me that Liberals actually think they are for “freedom” when they support this sort of nonsense.
To make this clear, Liberals and Democrats want to force PRIVATE insurance companies with PRIVATE owners to not have the FREEDOM to operate their business in their own terms.
Now I want to point out some of the arguments Liberals are using for this nonsense.
“They already covering Viagra, they should also cover contraception”
Their is NO mandate to cover Viagra! insurance companies do it to attract more male clients! This is strictly profit based!
“It will save them more money in the long run if they do so”
Even if that is the case (which I seriously doubt) isn’t it still up to the company to do so? Should companies also be mandate to give monthly check-ups to people with higher risks of cancer because it will save them money in the long run as well? I mean since when was the government to
nanny of private business?
“Woman are going to go broke having sex if this law is not passed”
This is so offensive on so many levels it is ridiculous, MOST women have sex within their financial means and wont’t be seriously effected by the measure.
But most importantly SEX is NOT A RIGHT. No one should pay and co-pay any costs related to sex YOU VOLUNTARILY choose for, This whole notion that women need to be “Sexually Liberated” is just nonsense.
But what do you think?
@Bash
If that is really the case then why did this law need to be passed? Why was Sandra fluke complaining about going broke having sex?
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Have you ever wondered what it woulld be like to be financially independent ? When was the last time you didn’t have a credit card? When was the last time that you where able to go shopping with out thinking about having enought money to pay the rest of the bills?
Wouldn’t be nice to be free?
What are you doing to accomlish those dreams?
If you would be able to do something to be debt free, to be able to go shopping freely would you do it?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
where people will have to go hungry because the realities of the instability of capitalism become more and more clear? i mean they try to give us the illusion that we have freedom, but when we’ve lost everything, we’ll know of the failure of what this global system is
i hope it happens soon
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
Please read these two scenarios
First
A student who do not want to become a mother in the middle east had sex with a man and got pregnant, and abortion is not allowed in the middle east. Once she had her baby she also had a responsibility on her because of unwanted motherhood, and due to hard, and critical study material (+ Some ruthless exams) beside the child she was unable to success in her exams in college.
Second
A student who do not want to be a father had protected sex but unfortunately the condom failed, the friend decided to keep the baby EVEN he emphasized for her from the begin he do not want to be a father and he was unable to financially abort due to SEXIST laws. He was unable to continue support a forced UNWANTED child and pay college fees at the same time.
In the first case the woman did not have an access to Physical abortion and hence she lost failed in her college, in the second case the man was not able to continue his college because of financial problems and no availability for financial abortion.
So no access to financial abortion may have an impact on the man’s life too.
Now let’s hear the feminist boring answers about forced fatherhoodfinancial abortion :
1. CondomContraception etc = CondomContraceptionmorning-after pilletc
2. Pants on (Or wrap it) = Women also is to get her pants on (Or wrap it)
3. Vasectomy = AbstinenceCoilDiaphragmMorning-After Pill Hysterectomy
4. You knew the risks (OR old enough to know them = risk to financial support) = She knew the risks (Or old enough to know them = Risk to become pregnant financial abort)
5. No one forces you to throw your sperm = No one forces you to hold a penis or NOT to do oral or anal
6. Be a gay = Be a lesbian
7. Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Child support) = Perhaps this is thing you should think about before taking pants off (Financial abortion)
8. I decide to have to have baby or not and be responsible for your own actions (I did not force you to sex, You play with me then I decide) = I decide to financially abort or not and be financially responsible for your own actions (I did not rape, You play with me then I decide)
Let me answer :
Condom : May fail
Vasectomy : Is a pro-choice medical procedure, women still have an access to avoid motherhood WITHOUT having to do a pro-choice medical procedure so the fairness and equality imply that same thing to be applicable for men. Vasectomy has a chance of 1 over 1000 to fail and make the man fertile again. It is NOT 100 certain to protect him from unwanted fatherhood by Vasectomy. Women still have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex and men also must have 100% certain choice EVEN with having sex. Added to this Vasectomy reversal when the man is ready to be a father has a risk to fail, so after all these argument we conclude that vasectomy is NOT to be used as a defense in the abortion and fatherhood coercion debate. Yes abortion is medical procedure but it is NOT pro-choice, it comes after sex not before.
Pants on : In any other instance if a woman have to choose either her freedom to become pregnant or risk to lose her job then this would be considered an abusediscrimination so making the man between two choices (either sexual freedom or possible unwanted fatherhood) is also abusediscrimination.
You know the risks : Knowing the risks by itself NEVER means the law is fair, the woman also know the risks in case of financial abortion is allowed so does this mean financial abortion is fair now JUST because of “Know the risks” ? What if a higher supreme judge said : “Anyone who smack someone will have 2 years prison and 200 000 USD penalty, people you know the risks now” Does this mean the law is fair ? So it is better to defend the attitude about forced fatherhood by some other means.
And so on for the rest of excuses (Actually a reply is summarized directly after them).
So abortion means a woman has 100% certain choice for NOT becoming a mother, however there is no 100% choice for men except not having sex which I just refuted it and proved it is an abuse. Telling a man “You chose NOT to use condomvasectomy” which is the most common defense in this debate NEVER means that a man gave up his full independent choice on his wallet, What if “a woman chose NOT to use morning-after pill or coil”. Does this mean she gave up her right to control her body ?
As far as for financial abortion they say :
9. Great ! we would have 10 children with no father to support them = Great ! we would have one father supports 10 children and then go to prison for failure !
10. What is the fault of the child = (S)he is innocent, and what is his fault if his condom or her morning-after pill failed ?
11. Your fault to have sex = Her fault to have sex, and by the way if sex is fault let’s ban it and make it for marriage couples only !
12. It is simple ! Do not have sex until you are ready to have a child (Or else support himher) = Do not have sex with someone who is not ready to have a child (Or else abort himher OR handle the responsibility alone)
About the excuse number 9, children do NOT have to live in poverty because of these arguments. Governments (Most) which allow abortion already giving PAID pregnancy leave respecting her right and choice to become pregnant (Paying for her own choice) + Ability to go for the same payment work after pregnancy + Number of free abortions sometimes.
So also as governments respect both choices to abort or not and financially support both choices and so governments must respect man’s right to financially abort and handle the child support (Paying for his own choice not to become a father). Women already have a right to access financial abortion which comes by the physical abortion itself, and if she decided to keep the baby then she gave up that right. It is exactly as when the man agree to support the child DURING pregnancy, by doing so he agree to give up his financial abortion right. There is no discrimination here.
About the excuse number 12, A woman can also have sex even without being ready to have a child and still have a way to avoid forced motherhood, and hence the man also is to have sex even without being ready to become a father and still have a way to avoid forced fatherhood. EQUALITY means !
“It seems like men just want to have sex and then complain when a woman gets pregnant. If the only thing you have to do to ensure you don’t get a woman pregnant is NOT have sex, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal.”
What a nice try to build a defense for fatherhood coercion (Financially), but what about applying the same argument to sustain financial abortion :
It seems like women just want to have sex then complain of financial abortion. If the only way to avoid financial abortion is to ensure you do not get a pregnant, I’d say that’s a pretty good deal. Or have sex with only with a man who really want to be a father !
Do you want to compare 18 years of payments as consequence for the man with a 500$ abortion and some feeling of distress and other things for several days after abortion ?
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
How are you going to become financially successful?
And before one of you type out a long depiction of success is different to everyone, let me state what kind of success i mean. financial freedom, in the sense of doing what you want, when you want, and how you want. You don’t have to work, it isn’t a necessity, but if you want to you can.
You basically are being paid while you sleep. [passive income/cash flow]
Now, my question is what do you plan on doing to reach this success and how are you going to do it? What as in affiliate marketing, writing eBooks, or MLM….? And how, as in writing out my goals, taking action, and things such as how soon are you going to take action?
Well, i hope i clarified the question.
Hi there
My pregnant girlfriend recently broke up with me and I’m confused about what to do when the baby is born. She has two children already to other men (both suggested abortion, one is not around and the other barely makes and effort) and I loved and cared for them as if they were my own however things changed for her and we split up. I was not excited when first finding out she was pregnant (she saw baby and I saw baby, costs AND three kids) I grew into it and I am looking forward to being a proper Dad.
Where my dilemma lies is that I am from one side of the country and she is from the other. After news that her Dad doesn’t have long to live we returned to her hometown so she and her kids had as much time with her Dad as possible. Unfortunately, five weeks later, she decided that she didn’t want me to be a part of things. Despite intending to move back at an appropriate time after her father passes she has since said that she will probably not return to the west coast (where we were and where I’m from).
Her hometown is a country town two hours from the nearest major town and six hours from the nearest major city. I’m not a country person by any means and job opportunities are scarce. I also love the west coast. All of my family and friends are on the west coast.
What I would like feedback on is what is best for my child. My three options are as follows:
1) Give up my life, support network and potentially happiness while living on the east coast and being 50% of a father. My girlfriend’s other two children spend time with different people often so my child spending time with me wouldn’t be a huge dilemma other than my girlfriend is very controlling. When he/she starts school I would prefer that he/she is treated the same as his/her siblings and I worry that me taking him/her away will affect all of the kids (especially as the oldest has no father and the second child’s Dad comes along when he pleases). I know that I will make friends and develop a new support network in time but until then it would be me and baby (half the time). That’s it.
2) Give up my child and live on the west coast (not an option to me). As sad as it sounds, my child will live a happy and healthy life without me around. I know this as my girlfriend’s older kids have a lot of love and support without their Dads around and mine will receive the same. My girlfriend is a fantastic mother and I know my child will not go without. Also, it means that the kids won’t have to deal with ‘why does he/she get to go here but I don’t’.
3) Return to site work. I used to work on remote mine sites and it gave me financial freedom however it meant living away from home for 2-4 weeks at a time and living life during my one week break. Work at these sites consisted of 13 days of 10-12 hour days followed by solitude (or binge drinking with bogans/rednecks – not my cup of tea) until sleep. My employer was very happy with my work and has offered me a position if I choose to return. This option means having no life for 2-4 weeks while I work and having no life but being able to see my child for the week that I am off work. If I choose to see friends or family on the west coast I would have to sacrifice time with my child or they would have to fly to the east coast, something that can become costly nor would I expect people to do. It would also mean asking (and expecting) to have my child from the moment I get my girlfriend’s hometown until the moment I leave (roughly five nights – there is a lot of travel involved and it’s limited time so I feel this is a reasonable expectation, even as a newborn). This would be OK while all of her kids are younger but will be questioned as they get older. I would be happy to take the other kids too but I’m not so sure she would be happy with that.
So this is probably a strange question but that’s what I am facing and I would like to know what people think will be best for my child. I would love to be an active father but I also don’t want my child to be screwed up. He/she and his/her siblings will have a hard enough time as it is.
Thanks in advance for your answers.
Step 8 – Understanding The Ebb And Flow Of The Money Cycle
what does ebb mean? i searched the dictionary about ebb but i still can’t seem to understand about it
Would you believe anything from a left-wing partisan website?
Heritage take “economic freedom” to mean freedom from government regulation. However, that is not what their index measures.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/chapters/htm/index2007_chap3.cfm
For example, one of their categories is “monetary freedom.” Monetary freedom according to them is highest when inflation is low. HOWEVER, inflation is low in first world countries like the U.S. because the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT manipulates interest rates to keep it low. In the U.S., banks are COERCED to insure themselves with the federal reserve.
Other categories include “business freedom” (for absence of regulation in general), “financial freedom” (for absense of banking regulation), “investment freedom” (for absence of investment regulation) and “labor freedom” (for absense of government enforced labor rights).
Do laisez-faire cons really believe that the most primitive of third world countries can compete with the U.S., Europe, and Japan on regulation? You don’t even have to look at the regulations. Just look at all the departments: Department of Labor, SEC, FDA, OSHEA, FDIC, and plenty more that not even I know about.
HERE’S A LIST OF ONLY A HANDFUL OF US REGULATIONS
http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/cfr-table-search.html#page1
Just one example. Child labor is illegal in this country, but legal or in practice allowed in third world countries.
andy g,
You bash liberals all the time. The difference is that I provide facts from third party sources to back up my arguments.
Ryan,
The problem is the RIGHT-WING site does not measure economic freedom. They define economic freedom as absense of government regulation in a host of categories. The problem is their index does not measure this.
This RIGHT-WING think tank is spinning reality to support what they already believe in.
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
“One of the primary changes brought about the new law is the establishment of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau within the Federal Reserve.”
This is a blatant example of the fox guarding the hen house.
“This new agency will have sweeping powers to regulate virtually every kind of lending activity and lender, from the largest banks to the smallest pawn shops. … But there is one large group of lenders that escapes oversight by the new agency: car dealers/auto lenders.”
And liberals wonder why conservatives complain about freedoms being usurped. ^^^ THIS is a perfect example.
My question: Do I have this right? The Federal Reserve can dictate how pawn shops can institute lending practices, but not car dealers?
What’s the point here? To ‘protect consumers’? If that’s the case, then why are car dealers void from this oversight? Personally, I work at a car dealership where predatory lending is commonly the norm (28% loan origination fees along with 25% interest rates….and that’s all profit for the banks, not the car dealers….the car dealers still need to profit from their sales.)
WTF sense does any of this make?!
http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/110085/what-financial-reform-means
I came across a chart showing the avarage salaries of business analysts in IT/Computer software/Computer hardware. I do not know what a business analyst does exactly. What course should I take in college to become a business analyst.
Currently I’m planing on getting a degree in Business with IT in college, will that enable me to become a business analyst?
Even if you don’t believe it….isn’t it worth the $6 just to try it out??
INSTRUCTIONS ON WHAT TO DO:
Some people will perceive this as an ‘off the wall’ idea to make money, but others will look at it as a great business opportunity. This by far is the safest; most risk free opportunity you will find to start your own business because you use Paypal, the most trusted banking system on the internet. Not only is this an opportunity to gain financial freedom, but you will help others do the same as they help you. A basic principal that has been forgotten about – Giving to one another. This is a very simple opportunity. This is an even simpler automated way to make money that does not require opening mail, only a Paypal account.
——————————————————————————–
1. Create a Paypal account for free.
2. Give six people $1.00. (Paypal IDs are listed below.)
3. Post this opportunity to others on the internet.
4. Other people create a Paypal account for free.
5. Thousands of people give you $1.00 to be put on your mailing list.
6. (Once you add your Paypal ID.) If we all work together everyone will benefit. Here’s how! Paypal verifies that this $6 investment program is 100% legal and is a big hit this year see their note below or ask them directly… For a simple investment of 15-30 minutes and just $6, it is 100% worth it to make thousands so quickly. This is not another scam that takes lots of your hard earned money; this is a no risk investment that will make you thousands of dollars very easily and quickly. From PayPal: ‘Dear Member, it has come to our attention that there is a PayPal opportunity floating around at the moment you may have heard or seen the $6 opportunity; you may have even taken part in it. Well, we have been asked a lot of questions about this opportunity the answer is yes it does work and yes it is safe to use providing you follow the rules it is legal and has made a big hit on the internet this year. If you would like to take part in this opportunity or would like a bit more information then please see the attached file that was kindly donated to us. Thank you for using PayPal!’
Turn $6 into $15,000 in only 30 days…here’s how! You have most likely seen or heard about this project on TV programs such as 20/20 and Oprah or you may have read about it in the Wall Street Journal. If not, here it is below – revealed to you in step-by-step detail. This program is by no means new. It has been in existence in many forms for at least a decade. I found this on a bulletin board and decided to try it: Make Money with your PayPal account as shown on Oprah! IMPORTANT: This is not a rip-off; it is not indecent; it is not illegal; and it is virtually no risk-it really works! If all of the following instructions are adhered to, you will receive some extraordinary dividends. AGAIN, PLEASE NOTE: Follow these directions EXACTLY, and $20,000 or more can be yours in 4 to 6 weeks. This program remains successful because of the honesty and integrity of the participants. Please continue its success by carefully adhering to the instructions. A FEW LEGAL TIPS: You are starting a Mailing List: 1) File your responses alphabetically everyday. If you have a computer, all the better, if not get one with your first mail responses. 2) You will soon compile an extensive mailing list. It can be very useful in your business, to start a new business, or for other businesses to acquire information from you. When you send out these letters, you are in the mail order business. People are sending you $1.00 to be put on your mailing list. This is a legal helpful service. Once again see Title, section 1302 and 1341 of the US Postal and lottery laws. Like most of us I was a little skeptical and a little worried about the legal aspects of it. It follows the same regulations as the mailed chain letters, which according to the U.S. Post Office (1-800-725-2161) is indeed legal!
——————————————————————————–
Here are the 4 easy steps to success:
STEP 1: Take a few minutes to join PayPal: Remember to verify your account. http://www.paypal.com The Internet’s most trusted Internet banking system for your future income. When creating your PayPal account place your email address which you used for PayPal on the list below; this way people can send money to your account.
STEP 2: Once you have a PayPal account running, use PayPal to post $1 to EACH of the 6 Email Addresses below because you pay people with an email address in PayPal. Select ‘SEND MONEY’. To do this you may need to use a credit or debit card, which is very easy and secure so nobody but PayPal may see it. What you are doing is creating a service.
This is absolutely legal! You are requesting a legitimate service and you are paying for it! Here are the 6 individual Email addresses that you have to send $1 to through PayPal for this to work properly
Ok before i carry on just to save me getting in trouble ( see what i mean ) or offending anyone, this isnt me being racist,
I’m concerned that in britain we are letting in alot of imigrants , now most of them are decent hard working citizens and to you i say ” welcome ” but why o why ( and here comes the rant)
do we have to let in people who are not willing to work and more so the people who sit on our streets drinking and taking drugs
we have enough native criminals we dont need to import more
and might i add that these people get more financial aid and housing aid from our government than british citizens do
just to save any confusion i’m refering to the poleish, not all of them mind it just seems that we have alot of homeless alcoholic poleish here
WHY ?
I KNOW THIS IS A DANGEROUS SUBJECT BUT I HAVE HAD MANY PROBLEMS WITH THE PEOPLE MENTIONED
Sorry i kinda missed out the whole freedom of speech part, i can get sacked for mentioning anything like that and its the same in a lot of jobs
I’m currently an undergrad at a liberal arts school. I’m planning on majoring in either politics or philosophy, and a minor in business. After i get my degree, would i be capable of getting hired or nonetheless get an interview with a firm or bank. Also, could a business internship help the situation?
the words “socialist” and “Marxist” without even knowing what the words mean or how they are applied in a constructive sentence that often pertains to reality–rather than a sick-minded fantasy?
For the record–and conservatives *can* look this up: Obama isn’t a Marxist or a socialist. If he *were*, how did he get to be President in the first place?
Second? Liberals like myself *abhor* Marxism. For one thing, it has nothing to do with being American and wanting equality for all. Marxists didn’t believe in those things.
They believed in control of the people through capital wealth and financial gain as a last resort.
Marxism itself was briefly associated with Leninism in a bid on imperialism–as the final stage of capitalism itself–where the might of one nation is brought to bear on by another for strategic or economic gains which benefit the wealthy and the powerful.
Not the people it was originally supposed to represent.
I understand what being a “socialist” means, but it’s not connected to being a liberal–whose root words mean “freedom” and “liberty”.
Socialism a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles.
An *improbable* task given the fact that the US is solely on a “capitalistic”-principle; having an economic system based on the private ownership of property and production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit.
And often done on the backs of those whom have very little or none at all.
So how can true socialism and Marxism exist in a country such as ours?
Why can’t conservatives see this?
Ive read half the books of the Rich Dad series so please list others.
I’ve read half the cash flow quadrant.
So I am 18 years old in Pennsylvania near Pittsburgh. I have a year of high-school left cause i repeated first grade. I just got back from a Vacation in Washington D.C. I was only with my friend and it was like the first time I have ever really been on my own. I basically tasted full freedom, and it tasted great. Sure, it was unrealistic because it was a vacation. I didn’t have a job to go to for those 4 days. But I did have to budget my money and such to even go and to not run out of money too quickly while I was there. Anyway, I basically had to fight with myself to not cry cause I was leaving and had to return home, but in the end I did cry when I finally got home. I miss it so much. I miss the feeling of being on my own, being independent and not having all of this stress that I have at home. I miss being in the city and having the metro to take me places and being able to walk almost everywhere. I miss eating healthy like I did while I was there. We don’t really eat healthy at home cause we have no fridge cause we sold it and we’re broke because of my mum being broke like me. My mum is nice and stuff sometimes (she can be really mean and crazy like most parents), but she’s a single parent and she doesn’t make a lot of money so we have so many financial issues. We’re going to lose the house unless we magically can somehow get someone to help us save it. They refuse to refinance cause her credit is terrible. I don’t want to move so far away from my only friend. I don’t want to lose the knowledge of knowing my surroundings, the people, everything. I can’t stand the thought of it. I hate the fact all of the money I made at work basically went to this house except for my first paycheck and my last two paychecks. I moved to Germany for four months once with my mother, and it was terrible. I wanted to die so badly there. I’m afraid it’ll be just the same as the place I’m moving to cause I’ll have no one once again. I’m scared I’ll be all suicidal again. Icould try again to move in with my friend at her house, last try her mum said no. I can’t get all of my thoughts and words that I want to sMay out cause I just can’t stop crying and everything is all jumpled. We’re so broke we sometimes only eat once a day. I only make about 400 a month at this restaurant job that’s part time. Only 7.25 an hour. So even renting a place near hear is pretty impossible. Even having a roommate somewhere isn’t even possible cause the lowest I saw was 400 a month split (sometimes even with 2 other roommates). I’m so scared. I miss D.C. so much. I can’t get over the fact that those four days were the happiest I have ever been in such a very very long time. I hate being in this house cause I just get sad seeing the rooms being all empty cause we sold our furniture to make some money to move into an apartment. My father gets 1,200 Retirement from the military, but he’s in jail for child molestation and he has stopped paying Spousal support just because he wants to (and he can according to the divorce agreemant). He was doing it voluntarily but he stopped because we tried to move to Germany. I hate him so much, I don’t want to speak to him. But I really need that money to keep the house. But he might not even go back to paying the money if I be all “I’m sorry for telling you that you’re dead to me and etc etc.” I really don’t want to do that. I’m scared that I won’t be able to go to college because of lack of money and bad grades and everything. I’m scared that I’ll never know what I want to do with my life. I feel like I need to figure it out now or else I won’t be able to get a good job. I’m so scared to forever depend on people. I’m scared I’m going to be stuck working in a restaurant for the rest of my life. Basically, I’m scared. I’m so scared. I’m scared that I’m going to be alone. I’m scared that I’m going to be unable to live with my friend in an apartment wherever she will go. I just miss being happy…like I was on vacation… I feel so lost now and so sad. I really do not want to leave my only friend here. She’s basically my other half and is the world to me. If I could sell my soul to have it all, I would. Or at least, to never have to leave or lose her. Basically, I need advice on these things:
1: What should I do about moving? I really really do not want to move so far away with my mother, but I am pretty broke and I don’t know what kind of options I really have.
2: What should I do about college and my future? I don’t know what I want to do as a job and I’m scared I wont be able to even go to any college or anything.
3: What should I do if I do have to move far away with my mother?
4: What should I do if I can’t get into to college or even a community college?
5: Anything else you think could help me. Emotional advi
5: Anything else you think could help me. Emotional advice is helpful do.
Please. Say whatever comes to your mind. Something is better than nothing. I really need lots of help here. Thank you for any answers, I really appreciate them quite a lot.
i have been working in family business for ever,i am unable to work for my family anymore. it is a control issue. and i am not paid well for this reason. my family think that having more money means freedom. so they keep the payment low to maintain the controlling aspect.
i need to be out. the thing is everywhere i apply or trained at. they treated me badly,as they believe my family is rich and i shouldn’t be there . they also want to pay me less and even expect me to work for free,considering my background.
i don’t know what to do.
i have a college degree,and a background working against me. i need financial and creative independence. what should i do?i thought about starting my own business but,i have no capital to start with.
I am a Business Administration student at the University of Oregon and want to start reading more than just my course books. I have read some classics like “The Art of War” by Sun Tzu and more recent business books like “The Little Red Book of Selling” and “Good to Great.” What are some other books that every business student should read before going into the real world. Thanks.
I have worked for the 501C business for 10 yrs total, 3 in this specific business area. They no longer wish to carry this branch of their association. When they close, I will be fired. Can I start up my own for profit business, with the same business description?
term goals, meaning basicly if they can give the youth of iraq a job and show them what freedom of having your own money is they will be less likely to join radical groups, and at this point they are now 90% iraqi payed in the country ad will be 100% very shortly.
so with this information coming from the countries rep, doesnt these prove that they are moving towards a better life?
he also said it would be dangerous to leave with out finishing the job, instead of building a long friendship with iraq , if we leave it would be like we did nothing at all, and hurt the future relationships in the region
so with that said does that make you think about keeping the course ?
also they need to open oil production back to 100% to become free from the past , and be able to compete with the region and the sooner we help them do that the sooner we can draw down and they can make the market more friendly to the western world.
do you agree with anything he has said?
6 % unemployment is full employment under any other president besides a republican so ahaha to your mature answer, nice double standards
im glad you missed the point of the questions to spread your agenda
this guy was from iraq to america zimbo
ok , im 23 and i owe over $3400 dollars to a credit card i have with bank of america
bottom line i wanna pay off this debt but at the same time i wanna have money for the future to maybe move out or have freedom
i originally had the card with american express but things were so hard financially that i couldnt keep up with the payments and well here i am
my father gave me $20,000 and i currently have 13,000 or something left and dont know what i should do i mean i cant move without a job anyway (because work has been hard to find)
(sigh) i wil speak to credit score people and other financial advisors but what should i do? the BofA people said i can pay 1600 and the rest will be concidered earned income?? i dunno how that all works
and also as of may 1st my credit card account with bank of america was closed
bottom line i wanna pay off this debt but at the same time i wanna have money for the future to maybe move out or have freedom