41 Percent of Pregnancies in New York City Are Aborted

Whats Up wrote: So major bean, you are saying that any man not wearing a condom wants to reproduce. Women then can stop having abortions because the man that didn't wear a condom will raise that child.
rofllol

Excellent point!

major bean......you carry a child in you for nine months, then go through delivery......then you can discuss a womans "responsibility".....until then your opinion is just so much noise.

major bean wrote:

The Viking wrote: I am not like that nor do I feel that way at all. Not sure what kind of men you have hung around with, but nice generalization. There should be a national law where a man has to accept financial responsibility no matter what, and custody if the mother does not want it. And if neither does, then the baby goes up for adoption with a certain amount still paid anually out of their taxes for each child they fathered and didn't keep. And if they don't they lose their drivers license or end up in jail. It may big a big boost to the condom industry. I am tired of men shirking all the responsibility. It is what is causing more women to be irresponsible and have abortions as a form of birth control.

And the women are being responsible by becoming pregnant out of wedlock?
Why not include the women whenever mentioning financial responsibility? And if the mother does not want it why not include financial responsibility from the mother in the national law? That would make it equal. And if neither wants it the amount is taken from both father and mother for each child that they produced.
Let's keep it equal for both sexual partners. Other than that, you are falling into the concept that women do not have to have reproductive responsibility.

No, you are right. 50% of all responsibilies including fiscal should go to both mother and father, then maybe people would have a little less free unprotected love with people they don't want kids with.

viking, since many women raise their children alone (and some men) I think financial responsibility is already equally divided. If a woman stays home to raise her children while the man works, is she not contributing at least 50% to those children? How many women give up the raising of children vs the number of men who do?

hmmmmm...I'm not sure I stated that well. I have no statistics but, I would surmise that there are more households with children that have either just a mother or a mother and father, than just a father. So women are indeed taking responsibility for the cost of raising children.

archer wrote: viking, since many women raise their children alone (and some men) I think financial responsibility is already equally divided. If a woman stays home to raise her children while the man works, is she not contributing at least 50% to those children? How many women give up the raising of children vs the number of men who do?

hmmmmm...I'm not sure I stated that well. I have no statistics but, I would surmise that there are more households with children that have either just a mother or a mother and father, than just a father. So women are indeed taking responsibility for the cost of raising children.

Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model. Have as many children with multiple fathers (you collect more that way), stay at home (you would have anyway if married) and have the government collect the paycheck. And then this woman trains the next generation of unwed child support queens. But, no problem - those men should know better and keep it in their pants.

daisypusher wrote:

archer wrote: viking, since many women raise their children alone (and some men) I think financial responsibility is already equally divided. If a woman stays home to raise her children while the man works, is she not contributing at least 50% to those children? How many women give up the raising of children vs the number of men who do?

hmmmmm...I'm not sure I stated that well. I have no statistics but, I would surmise that there are more households with children that have either just a mother or a mother and father, than just a father. So women are indeed taking responsibility for the cost of raising children.

Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model. Have as many children with multiple fathers (you collect more that way), stay at home (you would have anyway if married) and have the government collect the paycheck. And then this woman trains the next generation of unwed child support queens. But, no problem - those men should know better and keep it in their pants.

That reminds me of a joke.
A woman walks into the downtown welfare office, trailed by 15 kids.

'WOW,' the social worker exclaims, 'are they all yours?"

'Yep, they are all mine,' the flustered momma sighs, having heard that question a thousand times before.

She says, 'Sit down Leroy.' All the children rush to find seats.

'Well,' says the social worker, 'then you must be here to sign up. I'llneed all your children's names.'

'Well, to keep it simple, the boys are all named Leroy and the girlsare all named Leighroy.'

In disbelief, the case worker says, 'Are you serious? They're ALLnamed Leroy?'

Their momma replied, 'Well, yes-it makes it easier. When it's time to get them out of bed and ready for school, I yell, 'Leroy!' An' when it's time for dinner, I just yell 'Leroy!' An they all comes a runnin.

An' if I need to stop the kid who's running into the street, I just yell Leroy' and all of them stop. It's the smartest idea I ever had, namin' them all Leroy.'

The social worker thinks this over for a bit, then wrinkles herforehead and says tentatively, 'But what if you just want ONE kid tocome, and not the whole bunch?'

'Then I call them by their last names.'


"

daisypusher wrote:

Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model. Have as many children with multiple fathers (you collect more that way), stay at home (you would have anyway if married) and have the government collect the paycheck. And then this woman trains the next generation of unwed child support queens. But, no problem - those men should know better and keep it in their pants.

WTH? So a woman who stays at home to raise her children while her husband works is no better than a welfare mom. I beg to differ......I chose to stay at home when my children were young because I think that is the very best way to raise children, even if it means living on one salary and doing without some extras.
When I became a single mom I started a business so I could work at home, again, doing without some things because being home with my kids was that important.

You take an extreme situation then spread it to all women who stay home with their kids....ya know, that used to be the norm in this country, and most people wax poetic about the era of stay at home moms and happy children. Maybe those welfare moms and their children would have a better life if the deadbeat father....or fathers....paid them half the cost of raising their children. I still contend it takes a man and a woman to make a child, each should bear responsibility.

But you seem to think it's a man's world, make the kids, then walk away? it's the mom's fault after all and she should bear the burden of raising those kids he didn't want but was more than happy to make.

archer wrote:

daisypusher wrote:

Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model. Have as many children with multiple fathers (you collect more that way), stay at home (you would have anyway if married) and have the government collect the paycheck. And then this woman trains the next generation of unwed child support queens. But, no problem - those men should know better and keep it in their pants.

WTH? So a woman who stays at home to raise her children while her husband works is no better than a welfare mom. I beg to differ......I chose to stay at home when my children were young because I think that is the very best way to raise children, even if it means living on one salary and doing without some extras.
When I became a single mom I started a business so I could work at home, again, doing without some things because being home with my kids was that important.

You take an extreme situation then spread it to all women who stay home with their kids....ya know, that used to be the norm in this country, and most people wax poetic about the era of stay at home moms and happy children. Maybe those welfare moms and their children would have a better life if the deadbeat father....or fathers....paid them half the cost of raising their children. I still contend it takes a man and a woman to make a child, each should bear responsibility.

But you seem to think it's a man's world, make the kids, then walk away? it's the mom's fault after all and she should bear the burden of raising those kids he didn't want but was more than happy to make.

Non sequitur. "Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model." Does it or does it not? Nice rant though.......

daisypusher wrote: Non sequitur. "Truly, archer, thinking like that is what drives the new welfare mom model." Does it or does it not? ....

It does not.....

Then, why do those child support queens stay home, have more babies and collect the checks?