LOL! I've already done my part to propigate the genetic codes of myself and a certain man.

My question is, if you really want a vasectomy labret, when will you be scheduling your appointment?

I disagree...

when decision #2 comes into play is when decision 1 was not really a decision at all. It "just happened" is usually the case. If decision #1 was actually "decided", either way.... whether it's yes or no.... there isn't a need for decision #2. The only time decision #2 is a decision is when #1 wasn't. So all decisions cannot default to #1.

#1 and #3 go hand in hand. Essentially the same. Unless you're a surrogate or some other bizarre circumstance. But #2 is all by itself. #3 only becomes a real decision if #2 exists, because at that point, there are options like adoption.

Here's a crude graph to illustrate the discussion:

http://www.opticalamplitude.com/stuff/decisionchart.jpg

But the problem is that with an answer of Yes to Decision #2 solely by the woman, eliminates Decision #3 for the man under our current system. Regardless of whther he wants to raise it or not, he's going to. Either by being there with the child, or by sending a check every month.

So I cannot agree that men should be left out of Decision #2 whther it's *your body* or not. It's still MY life you are affecting with that decision as well. :winkwink:

When Decision #1 is not present, Decision #2 MUST be mutually agreed upon.

not really a decision at all? when does this happen? is my response. If you do grown up things, you should be prepared to accept grown up consequences. REAL SEX is not some entertainment activity and it has very real, very possible consequences, pregnancy being the foremost example. i am suprised that so many men of this day do not protect themselves better. All people lie, especially about sex.

yes, of course.... very lofty ideal there, and it's a good one... I agree wholeheartedly... but I'm talking about the world that I live in here on Earth.... where people fuck constantly and get pregnant every 7 minutes. The one where drunken slobs screw in the backs of Ramblers outside in the bar parking lot and contraception is the last thing on their minds.

C'mon tit.... you know as well as I do that just because people are grown doesn;t automatically mean that they're responsible or even capable of using their brains. :glugglug

stop whining.

okay.... how about highschool kids.... they get pregnant every single day. How many of them CHOSE to conceive or not to conceive? Probably not many. Decision #1 is normally not present in the majority of teen pregnancy cases. Yet if the female is the only influence on Decision #2 (which now comes into play because #1 did not exist), and the answer happens to be yes, then the male is what we like to call, *fucked* for the next 18 years.

Crying? Hardly. When that kid is born, the female is going to go to the ends of the Earth (or rather, the courtroom) shouting "IT TAKES TWO! BE RESPONSIBLE!) and it won't take much.... oh he's going to pay alright.... but back there at decision time, you're saying it doesn't take two.... it only takes one.

and I say you are wrong.

I don't care if it's your body or not. It affects my life as well as yours... and that warrants a voice in the matter.

By the way, today just happens to be my oldest son's 18th birthday.... odd coincidence..... my sentence is finally over. And the court can kiss my tropical tanned ass from here on. http://www.opticalamplitude.com/assets/rockon.gif

and no.... I did not have a voice in Decision #2.

I have never claimed to endorse underage sex. It happens and will probably always happen. Your point is moot because if both parties are underage, then their decisions default to their parents. If one party is of age and the other is not, then the responsibility lies on the adult.

the true grown-up consequences of sex may be something our free loving forefathers neglected to teach us. Yes sex is natural. Sex should not be a source of shame. Just the same, real sex is never simple or casual and women know this very well.

okay. see, i find that sad. whatever his origins, it's not his fault and why would you be finding fault after all those years? yes, women can and do play offspring like pawns and that's wrong. men abandon their children and that's wrong. the one who is not wrong is the child. i would hope you have a better relationship with your son than your comment implies. you can't go back you know.

you're right... wanna know my story? (rhetorical)

Reader's Digest condensed version:
I was 16... girlfriend was 18. She had been on the pill for two years without fail. When you're that young and stupid, you blab shit to everyone. She found out I was planning to break up with her for another girl. Time goes by and our last night together was Homecoming. Standard get-hammered-have-sex-fall-down-and-pass-out kinda party at a friends house afterwards.

Month later she springs the news on me. She's pregnant. And she's going to keep it. Did I mention I was 16? Or that she was 18? Well, if the being pregnant wasn;t bad enough, she then called my new girlfriends house and told her PARENTS as well as her, that she got pregnant on purpose and she was going to have the baby because, and I quote, "It's all I'll have to remember him by." End quote.

Yeah... the court said I needed to be responsible..... I had to pay. And I did. For 18 fucking years I paid.

Now you tell me who got fucked here.

I'm sick and tired of hearing the fucking sob story from women about how men don't live up to their responsibilities. I llived the shit in reverse.

The fucking system is deeply flawed. There is no reason to default judgement against the man simply because he's the fucking man. That's bullshit. Equal fucking rights my ass.... the fucking courts cater 100% to women's asses in child cases. Whether they got screwed and dumped or whether they outright did the fucking shit on purpose.

Well, there's one bitch in the world that's going to hafta find an alternative source of supplemental income to her fucking welfare so she can pay her rent as of today.... this much I know. And the champagne is flowing freely here in the islands tonight baby. :glugglug

Nope.... I don;t hold him responsible for anything.... because it's not his fault. It's hers. Doesn't matter anyway. The kid has listened to 18 years of her lies and bullshit and he hates me to the point he hasn't spoken to me in nearly 4 years.

for what it's worth mr head, in your circumstance, i think the courts were wrong. i hope you play the hand you are dealt well.

it's cool.... karma is a bitch sometimes. :Graucho
she's lived in a shitty one-horse town ever since, gained 200 pounds, has 7 kids and is twice divorced living on welfare and food stamps... and I just got word last week that she's being evicted.... again.

The boy, on the other hand, is extremely intelligent.... finished highschool early.... way ahead of his class.... and rumor is he's already fully planned and scheduled for college far away from that stinkhole. So even though he won;t talk to me.... at least he's on his way to something better in spite of his mother.

Quite often, whether to have an abortion is a decision made by a *couple*. I resent your comment, since I *have* been in such a position, and it was one of the most horrible times of my life. Please Go Fuck Yourself. Thank you.

let me turn that back to the original question of choice. what if you had WANTED that child when you were sixteen and the mother was eighteen mr head? what if the mother didn't want it and did not want to carry it to term? would you want the law to enforce her to have it? this is what choice boils down to.

the same law that would prevent a women's choice to end a pregnancy is the same law that would be cited as precedent to enforce a woman to terminate and/or gestate. once a woman loses control of her body to the government, then what?

fine. i'll take a fuck for the team. good for you, you did what you were supposed to do in the first place and that is be there for the whole shebang. abortion is never a happy thing and i am sorry you had to go through it. but i don't think i need to point out to you that your woman went through extra sorrow/stress because of that surgical procedure.

tricky question.... I am pro choice, however.... we have to look at the sides somewhat differently due to the extreme difference in the outcomes.

One outcome is a new human which must be cared for. A massive responsibility in many ways.

The other outcome is nothing. No responsibility, no financial concerns... nothing. It ends at the clinic.

So.... given the differences, I think the decision should be mutual between the prospective parents, but if an agreement cannot be reached, perhaps the law should take over and default judgement to abort. Certainly the lesser of the two evils in today's world.

An exception to that extreme judgement might be (if in a deadlocked situation) if the partner that wants to keep the child is willing to sign an agreement stating that the other is fully released from responsibilty of the maintenance of the child. If that can be agreed upon, then by all means..... birth as many babies as you want. But I can't agree that just because one half of the prospective parents wants to keep it that the other is automatically forced into providing for a child they do not want, no matter which half is determined to keep the child. Doesn't really matter. By forcing responsibility AFTER protest, you're not creating a parent.... you're merely fining them for their actions as if it were a crime. As I am living proof of.

the short answer there is no. Law should default to abort if the two can't agree.

I gotta crash... I'm falling asleep on my keyboard again....

great convo tit.... thanks.... :winkwink:

Can't we just abort all the "ProLifers"?
hehehe

Here's what I always wondered. Abortion is not considered murder by law. Technically it is not a life yet by law.

But if someone attacks a pregnant woman and kills her, he can be charged with 2 counts of murder, one for the woman and one for the unborn child. However we just established above that it is ok to kill an unborn child. But wait, only if the mother says so? So if a psycho stabs a pregnant woman in the stomach and kills the baby, is charged with murder, but then the woman comes forward and says its ok she was getting an abortion anyways, are the murder charges dropped? No. Why not?

If a pregnant woman has an abortion, all is fine and dandy. If a pregnant woman takes a knife and stabs herself in the stomach and kills the baby, she is charged with murder. Wherein lies the difference?

in that case, because the guy that did the stabbing is clearly a lunatic that must be locked away from society. We can't just go around stabbing people now can we.

If a woman stabs herself in the stomach with a knife, she's probably dead.

Right! Now, let's make it confusing...
The attacker kills the pregnant woman... Yet the unborn child was unharmed... Let's say someone saw the attack, called 911, and they rushed the woman to the hospital. They deliver the baby prematurly, and put it on life support. The baby dies as it was removed from the womb too early, and the life support just wasn't enough to keep it alive.

Now, the attacker didn't kill the baby. It died of natural causes. However, if the attacker hadn't killed the mother, there was a good chance for the baby to be born normally.

Would the attacker be charged for that death?

it is an easy one, without having to resort to convoluted hyperthetical dilemmas.
it is a matter for the individual, there is no room there for others to impose their views.

one question a right to lifer should ask themselves is if it is right to force a JW to take blood transfusions to live.

it really is a simple matter :)