The Conservative Cave

Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 24, 2014, 06:05:37 PM

Title: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: SSG Snuggle Bunny on January 24, 2014, 06:05:37 PM
Quote
Nanjing to Seoul (1,357 posts)

I have a philosophical idea to pose to all of you. I hope it's debated honestly and respectfully

Good luck with that.

Quote
But my question is simple. If a woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the man has no right to order her to have an abortion. IF the roles are reversed, how much say does a man, husband and father have if he wants a child and the mother doesn't?

Again, I am not one of these men's movement assholes. . .but I'm curious how much fathers and husbands matter in family planning.

Quote
Ilsa (33,353 posts)

2. Bottom line: none.

It will always be her final decision on when to be pregnant.

Why would a partner want otherwise? Women who want the pregnancy are more likely to take better care of themselves.

But in a marriage, it is best if both partners want to have a baby.

So if he makes all the household income, how much is the wife entitled to use without his direct permission?

Quote
Eleanors38 (6,463 posts)

279. If she wants a baby and he doesn't, what then?

Quote
PassingFair (20,925 posts)

318. My guess is he shouldn't ejaculate into her.

Yes?

TRANSLATION: Women should have all the power, none of the responsibility.

Quote
gaspee (2,922 posts)

4. When a man

Last edited Thu Jan 23, 2014, 06:07 AM - Edit history (1)
Can have a uterus implanted and carry a child, then he can decide when to have a child himself.

It is best if both partners want children - and to be honest with each other about it. Not now sometimes does mean not now and sometimes it does mean not ever.

Two of my very good friends - high school sweethearts married 15 years - divorced over this issue. He wanted kids, she didn't and never would. They got divorced and within two years he was remarried an his new wife was pregnant. I think in the end it worked out better for them both. They are both happy now.

I think one partner wanting children and one not wanting children is an irreconcilable difference.

Quote
PeaceNikki (20,425 posts)

10. The final decision is ALWAYS the woman. Always. No exception.

If that makes you or any man feel oppressed, tough ****ing shit. Until you can carry and deliver your own baby, it's just how it is.

Then sign away all claims of child support.

Quote
Logical (11,269 posts)

75. Tough ****ing shit? Classy! Nice civil response! LOL, angry a lot? nt

Quote
11 Bravo (16,539 posts)

107. There are individuals here with a vested interest in ensuring that NO discussion of this nature ...

remains civil.

Quote
adigal (4,754 posts)

146. Say the man doesn't want a child?

You'd be forcing him to support that child for 18 years? Okey dokey.

You can't have it both ways. Either he has a say or not, he's responsible or not. That he has no say if he wants the child, and is legally responsible if he doesn't is absurd and illogical.

And I am a pro-choice woman. But I think both the mother and father should have a choice. Actions have consequences.

Quote
Star Member Squinch (6,105 posts)

151. What makes you think I'd be forcing him to support the child?

He has no say what the woman does with her own body.

And yes, actions have consequences. He shouldn't get a woman pregnant till they are in agreement. If he does, the consequence is that he has no choice about what she does with the pregnancy.

But if any of us were to say the welfare parasites should stop squeezing out new grubs we'd be damned for suggesting they can control their biological functions.

Quote
kcr (5,552 posts)

158. I'ts absurd and illogical to hold a child responsible for actions he/she had no control over

Why should the child suffer?

Default choice: DEATH

Quote
TBF (21,690 posts)

195. If the man doesn't want a child he shouldn't have one -

period.

His choice is to not have sexual relations. Actions have consequences.

Quote
Niceguy1 (1,847 posts)

253. now , in the spirit of the discussion

Good luck with that.

Quote
apply your response to women. If women don't want to have babies they shouldn't have intercourse. Do you agree with that? Somehow I think you don't.

And TBF dodges any answer of that exact point.

Quote
notadmblnd (17,901 posts)

278. If a man doesn't want a child, then the man needs to keep it in his pants

or find an effective means of birth control for himself. It's not like men don't know that engaging in sexual intercourse can result in pregnancies, so I think that anytime a man has unprotected sex with a woman, he is consenting to becomming a father.

Bitches need to learn to swallow.


And on it goes.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024376014
Title: Re: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: thundley4 on January 24, 2014, 06:19:55 PM
Quote
And yes, actions have consequences. He shouldn't get a woman pregnant till they are in agreement. If he does, the consequence is that he has no choice about what she does with the pregnancy.

What about you lying scrunts that tell a guy she is on the pill and he doesn't need a condom since it feels better for both?  You do it just for the support.
Title: Re: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: Freeper on January 24, 2014, 06:32:30 PM
So if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his pants? Yet if we tell a woman to keep her panties on we are undermining her rights. Hypocrites!
Title: Re: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: Carl on January 24, 2014, 06:52:56 PM
Nothing matters more to a leftist she creature then the ability to use a child or kill it to exert her obsession with having power.
Just sickening.
Title: Re: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: mamacags on January 24, 2014, 06:54:16 PM
How about the whores that poke holes in condoms or spit it out to use a turkey baster later.  If the woman doesn't want a baby then she shouldn't ovulate, open her legs, forgo protection.  I hate the feminazis on DU and their DUmbass man haters club.
Title: Re: For those who were silly enough to think the Ku Klux Klams wanted EQUALITY
Post by: JohnnyReb on January 24, 2014, 07:05:22 PM
If it's going to be another government supported parasite, why don't taxpayers get a say?....just asking.