Where is Sir Bobbys Jig? This humble pie just keeps coming. Trying to tell me Swansea weren't in form, 0-2 against Arsenal. Michu again............ Been a cracking day. Rugby fantastic, more bizarre results in the football, and I had the winner in the Hennessey. This season is even more unpredictable than last season if that is possible.
Ince with another double today for Blackpool. He'd be a great signing for us. Him and Benni either side of a central striker would be something else. Obviously highly unlikely but I can dream.
I see Billy/Niall have been banned: http://www.not606.com/showthread.php/182520-Billy-Niall It's a shame when posters go so over the top consistently.
And it had nothing to do with us, it was there own posters that got fed up with the alternating Billy/Niall combo.
Question - Should men have to pay child support? I've been thinking about this subject, and I think it's unfair that women are legally able to abandon their children at birth and not support or provide for it. As long as it is left in the hospital or a place where it can get care, she is legally entitled to just wash away with the child. She does not have to pay child support. Men do not have a choice if a women gets pregnant, and she keeps it and demands support. If it's a planned pregnancy between two people, then yeah he should be forced, but if it's unplanned, then I don't agree that a man should have to put his life on hold to support and raise a child. I know there are a lot of people here with morals saying that it's a mans role to do this, but we need to get rid of these stupid gender roles and expecting certain things of people because of their gender.
If the man doesn't want a sprog he should wear a rubber; regardless of whether or not she claims to be on the pill.
FFS Tash just put on a condom before you take a sip of the voddy, you know how you get... In fairness, it's a grey area. There will probably never be a law which is fair in every circumstance, and I think the current one is ok for some. It is a bit contradictory/sexist that a man can get a woman pregnant and if he wants it and she doesn't she can legally have an abortion free of obligation, yet if the woman wants it and the man doesn't, he has to provide for the child... It's a very complicated ethical web, and you're going to piss someone off just by forming an opinion, never-mind making a conclusive law. To be brutally honest, though, it at least makes some people more careful about what they're doing and thus gives a measure of control to the government over the number of off-spring produced by the population, which is certainly an important factor in policy making. Every civilization in history has had to monitor birth-rates, or suffered problems from over/under-breeding (not a position), and the fact us men are all sub-consciously aware of the need to be careful prevents people going out, spraying their seed around, and providing many many more kids. Freakenomics chapter 1 would be a good read for you Tash, if you're interested, because it does bare close connections with this topic and the need for government control of population. In Freakenomics, it details how one woman (and subsequently many across most states) being allowed an abortion resulted in lower crime rates. Statistically, most kids who fall under the remit of this law are going to be in the lower end of the social class spectrum, and they are in turn more likely to be criminals. The less kids born under these conditions because Daddy puts on a rubber, the better the crime rates, and the more police can release pointless lies about how they're cutting crime by X%, and the more we can fall into line with this deluded crap. So looking at the bigger picture is essential.
The problem is, though, there's only one method of protecting yourself if you're a guy, and that's a condom, and it's quite often avoided because it reduces sexual pleasure for both parties. Plus, with men, it's either you have a condom at the time, or you don't. If a fit bird gives you the eye on a night out, and you don't have a rubber, then your ****ed. If she wants your cock, she can have sex with you, and then she can take a pill in the morning. There is still time. OR she can get an implant which means she is basically safe from pregnancy as long as she has it in place. Men have to remember to go out, buy it, and take it wherever they go in case they get a bite, and if you don't do it with a rubber then you've basically got to pray she doesn't get pregnant. And I don't like the way people word it when they say men "get women pregnant", like pregnancy is caused by males and is inflicted upon females, like it's all the mens responsibility. It seems when it comes to pregnancy, men are always the guilty culprits who have forced themselves upon women, and women are always classed as the innocent party who deserve rights. When a man has sex with a woman, he's consented to sex, not necessarily making a child. My arguments weren't against abortion. Women should have total and utter right to control their bodies. My argument was for fathers having the right to reject parenthood. If women want to keep the child and raise it, then that's fine, but I don't think fathers should have to pay child support in all cases. I've looked into this subject a lot, and yes I agree men can play a big part in a childs life, but tell that to the mothers that are legally entitled to abandon their children. That's what I'm saying. If women can give up their kids, then men should be allowed to do it also.
No, it's about minimising the risk. If you go around bare-backing every girl you meet then, sooner or later, you'll knock someone up. What happens when the child is planned and the couple split up but he rarely gets to spend any time with the child? Should he still have to pay when he's doing all he can but the mother doesn't want him seeing the kid any more?
That's also something I think about a lot, and I often think what if a couple split and the mother gets a new partner who's around the child more than the biological father. It can confuse the kid. IMO this also needs addressing because I don't think it's right that women have the primary right of custody. I don't understand why mothers are automatically entitled to think the baby should be living with them, rather than the father, just because she's the childs mother. I think if a couple are torn apart, and the father feels he is being shut out of the childs life, then he should be able to contact authorities and the mother and father should be forced to go to counselling sessions where they agree that they will do whats best for the child, and make sure the mother doesn't twist the childs mind against the father, and also make sure that the child knows that her new boyfriend isn't actually his/her real father, just their mothers new partner. P.S. About the first part, yes going around ****ing lasses without a rubber is stupid, but I don't think it's right that blokes have no rights after they ejaculate.
Tash, you forget you may be emotionally attatched to your child and want to support it, however I do understand it must be difficult to hand over money to the mother, once she has it, she not you has control over how it is spent. It can seem harsh someone having to support a child after a one night stand, but if you choose not to protect yourself, then you should live with it.
1. I assume you're joking about. Some people, male and female, go out to have one night stands. Stupid to do it unprotected, but hey ho. 2. I never said women had all the responsibility, I'm just saying it's easier for a women to protect herself from pregnancy, than a guy getting a condom, and, as I said, condoms don't just reduce sexual pleasure for males. A lot of women prefer sex without it. 3. You missed my point. I'm saying that it's unfair that men are always treat as the guilty party. Saying men "get women pregnant", is like saying that she had no choice in the matter, and he forced himself on her. It's like saying he deserves blame for the pregnancy occurring. IMO it's more a womans responsibility. Women say "my body, my right", when it comes to things like abortion, pregnancy ect. But it should be "my body, my right and my responsibility". If we're giving women rights to choose whether or not to abort child and other things, women should be responsible for their bodies also. If you have rights, you also have responsibility. 4. I agree you cannot complain that a child is the result of sex, but my point is that it's wrong the way people say "you had sex with her, therefore you must now man up and look after the child". Having sex shouldn't mean you should have to raise a kid. A woman has the right to abort or keep the child, that's her choice, and it should be, but if men have no choice in whether the baby lives or dies, then they shouldn't be forced to support the child, as women have the right to get rid of a child and choose not to support it. My point that no one seems to be addressing is that women have the right to reject a child and not support it, so men should have the right to do the same thing. 5. I get your point, but if that's the case, then this should be forced on both genders, not just males. If the government was so focused on family units, then they would force women to support their children, not just men. It's a ridiculous double standard in society. If a man wants nothing to do with a child, he's a scum bag. If a woman wants nothing to do with a child, then it's her legal right and we cannot question it. It's not fair.
If you are emotionally attached to your child and want to support it, then that's great. I'm not denying it's your own fault for sleeping around that you get pregnant or get a woman pregnant, but again people aren't getting what I'm saying. This is about equal rights. If women are allowed to abandon a child that they've given birth to, then men should be allowed to reject parenthood and shouldn't be forced to provide for it, especially since if it was the other way around, and a man wanted a child and a woman didn't, she could kill his child, and he'd have no right to stop her. It would be better, though, if men had to pay, then they should be able to control how it's spent. That would be a lot fairer.
If anyone has a spare few minutes, go on the Liverpool forum, there's a Poll about vasectomy on there, some of the less vulgar posts are very funny. They're such a dramatic bunch!
