On the rights of unwilling fathers:

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

sorry if i'm not fluent in forum lingo, but what is qqqq?:dontknow:

lol...chuckles some one caught that, haha...i wanted to make sure or see how the quoting came out.... before i got started on writing my responses

the qqqqq... probably made more sense than what is now there

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

1. unjustly killing (murder) anyone causes great concern for me, especially when its a baby. THERE SHOULD BE HUGE CONSEQUENCES. THIS IS NOT ACCEPTIBLE !

aight, but this is beyond control...

2. that's a good point, IF u CAN get/take support/money from the rapist.

u can always do that, unless he's dead he will always be able to work

4. genocide is too broad. specifically, infanticide is the worst type of genocide/murder.

attempting to accept that... nope, can't, i can't imagine infanticide ever getting ahead of genocide as genocide almost certainly includes multiple infanticides

5. that's true biologically, though legally, who'ever is the victim of UNwanted sex/pregnancy/baby, isn't legally responsible for the crime. but anyways, the real point i wanted to include, A FATHER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS CHILD TOO.

concurs, not much to say

mother mother mother....a FATHER is JUST AS IMPORTANT as any mother is for a baby-child !!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR (the ONLY exception is when a baby needs/can only ahve milk and there's no source of milk (animals') available, than and only than is a mother more important than a father, for obvious reasons...(though, freakily some human males have started to produce milk, in such extreme situations. which shouldn't be too surprising, humans can actually do pretty amazing things when in extreme life and death situations for themselves or others they care about.

glad you see it that way, unfortunately many mothers will not let you take away this priviledge of theirs that they share a special bond with their child that a father cannot hope to reach on as high a level

on the bench pressing thing..., i have NO idea how to respond to that (pity for the man? for pushing off that rock and still falling to his death?)

6 (your #1) . NO HUMAN STATE should EVER let a baby die, especially from irresponsibility.

NO STATE, human or not, should ever let a baby die, especially from irresponsibility. :whistling:

8 (your #3) . equal punishment to equal crime. the legal standard of justice. if the baby is murdered/dies by or because of u, u die/executed. pretty simple.

so if the baby died, the rapist will die? nope, if you're bent on killing the rapist, then rather have him die even before the baby dies.

(non-sexually...again...some males' stupidity really embarrases me)

you can't blame him for not wanting to §$&% someone elses girl friend, would you?

EDIT:

the qqqqq... probably made more sense than what is now there

HA!! u bet!

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

the rock climber, LIVED. he did NOT fall off the cliff (i'm pretty sure it was the rock's large mass-weight, gravity, and the downward slope that was the cause of his sliding. so once he got the massive rock off, he stopped sliding...or his friend was able to catch-grab-stop him from sliding. however take note...he was right AT the edge of the ledge...even with this "super human" ability it can only do so much. he could NOT "chuck" the 14,000 lbs rock over the ledge from 5 feet away from the edge....riiiight. he was RIGHT at the ledge and was amazingly just able to lift it, move it over his head, and "push" it jsut enough outward to clear his head and fall down the mountain cliff with OUT taking his head along with it or having it first fall on his head, crushing it-killing him *duh*, and than bounce and go over the ledge. THIS IS/WAS a ~14,000 lbs chunk of rock we are talking about!!! that's like... 7 small cars of weight!!! world record bench press by FAR!!! the force he/his brain/muscles generated jsut to lift, move, push that weight was easily enough force to tear and shred his arms apart every single muscle tendon cartilege completely TORE through his entire arms. possibly the best way to somewhat imagine this, is if u imagine his arms ripping off in half, "amputation/severing"). the friend (probably cell-phoned) a helicopter that got there in time before he bleed to death.

POOR GUY though!!!!! his legs CRUSHED to a powder of bone mixed with a mush/soup of flesh and blood by the rock falling on them, than his arms are OBLITERATED by the force he needed to generate to get the rock off him. no legs no arms... POOR GUY, yet he did still live/survive.....amazing!

TRUE STORY TOO, witnessed and even possibly recorded by his friend, witnesed and recorded-documented by the medical helicopter team rescuing him, and he lived himself, "to tell the story".
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
aight, but this is beyond control... -iamebadger

but, NOT (NEVER) beyond punishment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
i don't wanna make a debate about the terms genocide infanticide, it's rather silly having a terms debate...a "term" is already an arbitrary thing.

i jsut wanna try to explain better what i mean:

types of (victims) of murder:

1. the most common and least heinous of all: 18-25 year old males killing each other.

2. killing the elderly. this is a tough call. on the one hand they ARE OLD and are well "down hill" and due to that their life isn't "too" important (excluding their knowledge-wisdom). a younger person has much more life ahead of them and thus are "more important". however, that also makes them helpless-defenseless-powerless and which makes the crime much more heinous as they are more strongly seen as greater victims.

if this is a cruel view i have, u can smile, since I as will everyone, be in this same "unimportant" old age person who is well "down hill" situation and some young person, should humanity unfornately get some one as cold as me, make this same cruel statement about old and decrepid me. touche!, eh?

this SHOULDN'T bother anyone, OLD AGE IS A FACT OF LIFE FOR ALL PEOPLE. (unless u die or are killed before u reach old age)

3. killing a female (any age). SEXISM. death of females probably will always be considered more heinous than killing males.

4. killing the (male or female) young (including babies and, for me, all the way to conception): the 2nd most heinous murder.

5. killing a young female. combine #4 and #3 gives u thee most heinous murder of all.

as for genocide, to me, genocide simply means mass (multiple) murders (usually on "some unknown level" of "LARGE scale"). if a "criminal" like the unibomber kills 100-150 people is that "genocide" ? how about a "terrorist" killing ~15 ? people on the U.S.S. Cole ? is a gang member ("criminal") killing 5 people in a shootout or "drive-by" "genocide" ? see...how no one knows...exactly where "non-genocide" and "genocide" starts

i know that genocide, technically was made to mean "genes" ("race") + cide (~killing), but for myself, as i said, genocide simple means mass/multiple murders.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

genocide means murder of a people, most prominently: it was attempted in the holocaust (let's not get into that just yet)

if you think this is a terms debate, then it will indeed turn into a terms debate... then fair enough, we'll let it be

also, i forgot to address one point:

5. that's true biologically

emotions/bonds and other "metaphysical" things will never be considered as biological by me. i can understand all the biological causes that people bring up to be possibilities of defining emotions and bonds biologically and what not, but i will not change my view yet, seeing how nothing's entirely set in stone yet and i still get to choose

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

i ment, that a biological mother/father, is biologically "connected" to their biological child. the child IS 50% a hybrid of both of their halved DNA's and the other 50% is also a NEW-UNIQUE being-person completely different than mother and father. because of this in some way (that science still has no explanation for) in a subtle way CAN "communiate" with each other. this does cause a relationship. however the true test of being real parents or not is defined by how they actually care about and treat the child. despite this uncanny "connection" of biological parents and child, in NO way does this allow for "ownership" of the child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's well documented cases over and over again, of how a "sister" (sibling or a parent) magically gets this "bad feeling" about "her brother" (or child) who's off in the theatre of war (or just a crime or whatever. it doesn't ahve to be war. ANY location-cause of death works) directly at the exact time that indeed the brother DOES actually get killed and dies. then the commanders in head quarters are informed of the brother's death some amount of time after the death. which than come to tell the sister/family that the brother has indeed been killed, yet the "sister" already knew that sub-consciously...or she of course was hoping her "bad feeling" wasn't serious...though unfortunately time and time again it's verified as correct.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

first of all, you never own a human!
there's a german saying: "our thoughts are free"
i'd like to expand that saying on to not just the thoughts, but if all else fails, at least the thoughts are free!

second: the whole gist of that "uncanny connection" is indeed "how they actually care about and treat the child" and vice versa (" " used as quote marks)

 

[Johnny]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

i ment, that a biological mother/father, is biologically "connected" to their biological child. the child IS 50% a hybrid of both of their halved DNA's and the other 50% is also a NEW-UNIQUE being-person completely different than mother and father. because of this in some way (that science still has no explanation for) in a subtle way CAN "communiate" with each other. this does cause a relationship. however the true test of being real parents or not is defined by how they actually care about and treat the child. despite this uncanny "connection" of biological parents and child, in NO way does this allow for "ownership" of the child.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
it's well documented cases over and over again, of how a "sister" (sibling or a parent) magically gets this "bad feeling" about "her brother" (or child) who's off in the theatre of war (or just a crime or whatever. it doesn't ahve to be war. ANY location-cause of death works) directly at the exact time that indeed the brother DOES actually get killed and dies. then the commanders in head quarters are informed of the brother's death some amount of time after the death. which than come to tell the sister/family that the brother has indeed been killed, yet the "sister" already knew that sub-consciously...or she of course was hoping her "bad feeling" wasn't serious...though unfortunately time and time again it's verified as correct.

That is all bull****. When you have someone close to you off to war you feel bad and worried constantly. The occasional drama movie where the widow responds "he's dead isn't he?" when the military calls does not statistics make.

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

However, many times the mother will spend the money (in part or all) on herself and not the child. Rarely have I heard of cases where there is oversight to guarantee the child is being well taken care of with the bulk of the money. Hey, mommy needs new shoes and ear rings too!

I have often thought a % of the money should go to long term things like a college fund but I don't think that is usually the case. Although I could be wrong.

And gee, is this allegation raised by the guy who has to pay by any chance?

In any case, you're thinking about it wrong, if you get $500 to spend on your child then that frees up $500 of money you would otherwise have to spend on him or her so you can spend it on yourself. So there's no "spending that money on herself". Unless you object to her using that specific bill.

and also, they will believe her as well..... 100% SEXISM

LOL.

abortion is murdering a baby. this has nothing to do with rape. last time i checked, the baby in the female's womb didn't violate/rape the "female", why is the baby allowed/getting capitol punishment/death ?

Interesting philosophy - when a woman wants to choose what happens to her womb the only concern is the fetus' rights, but when a man wants to choose what happens to his wallet the child has no right...

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

In any case, you're thinking about it wrong, if you get $500 to spend on your child then that frees up $500 of money you would otherwise have to spend on him or her so you can spend it on yourself. So there's no "spending that money on herself". Unless you object to her using that specific bill.

this coming from a woman who receives that kind of pay by any chance? :crazyeyes:

why doesn't she just spend the received 500$ on the child and spend her other 500 on herself? that way she shuts up criticism...

Interesting philosophy - when a woman wants to choose what happens to her womb the only concern is the fetus' rights, but when a man wants to choose what happens to his wallet the child has no right...

do you know what this post is "just asking for"? a monster thread of ethical debate about the ever-so-hot abortion issue!

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Interesting philosophy - when a woman wants to choose what happens to her womb the only concern is the fetus' rights, but when a man wants to choose what happens to his wallet the child has no right... -dondrei

i don't quite understand this...maybe if u could/wouldn't mind giving examples for me. i apologize for being stupid or slow with this comment of yours.

but what i do understand is my own view:

i do NOT care about female-mother or male-father, i care about the baby.

and this is how much i care:

let's say i have the most hottest beautiful wife in the world and she's pregnant and going into labor. there's a complication such that, despite the doctors and medicine-technolgy, one of them or both of them WILL die.

instantaneusly without a single moment of delay AT THE speed of light, my decision:

baby LIVES, and my sexy hot most beautiful wonderful wives DIES! without any regret or hesitation.

and if it's my life or baby. baby LIVES and i DIE.

babies/kids/children COME first.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

there we go...

 

[krischan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

abortion is murdering a baby.

Argh, he said Jehova !!!

* backs out of thread *

 

[Anyee]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

let's say i have the most hottest beautiful wife in the world and she's pregnant and going into labor. there's a complication such that, despite the doctors and medicine-technolgy, one of them or both of them WILL die.

instantaneusly without a single moment of delay AT THE speed of light, my decision:

baby LIVES, and my sexy hot most beautiful wonderful wives DIES! without any regret or hesitation.

and if it's my life or baby. baby LIVES and i DIE.

babies/kids/children COME first.

I do so hope that you tell her "honey, you're not as important to me as that ugly clump of cells" before you're in that situation. That way, if she doesn't want to be MURDERED by her IDIOT HUSBAND, she can transfer the legal rights away from you. We're not your property.

Incidentally? The Jews believe that until the fetus crowns, ie enters the world, it is subordinate to the mother. Why? It's easier to get someone pregnant than to raise a person safely and healthily into adulthood. Simple logic, not displayed here.

My favorite part about pro-"life" is how willing they are to kill women, who are nothing more than breeding sacks and places to put their dicks. Also, how they talk about adoption...but never adopt anything but healthy white babies.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

and there we go again...

 

[HegemonKhan]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

I do so hope that you tell her "honey, you're not as important to me as that ugly clump of cells" before you're in that situation. That way, if she doesn't want to be MURDERED by her IDIOT HUSBAND, she can transfer the legal rights away from you. We're not your property.

Incidentally? The Jews believe that until the fetus crowns, ie enters the world, it is subordinate to the mother. Why? It's easier to get someone pregnant than to raise a person safely and healthily into adulthood. Simple logic, not displayed here.

My favorite part about pro-"life" is how willing they are to kill women, who are nothing more than breeding sacks and places to put their dicks. Also, how they talk about adoption...but never adopt anything but healthy white babies.

such a woman, would never be my wife, i don't marry trash/F-I-L-T-H.

that "lump of cells" u speak of, without question, has more value than such a woman u speak of.

and be glad i don't have legal power, as every murderer of innocent babies would either be executed or getting to know terrorists in gitmo bay or even better a russian gulag, as should be baby murderers punished and punished equally to the crime they commited murder...and not only murder but murder of the most innocent, a baby, infanticide is truly *IN*-human.

with my view and power, i would be/am the most feared thing to all evil-do'ers especially such heinous evil as those who murder babies. fortunately for evil, i don't have such power and they are safe and free to continue to do their evil acts upon humanity's most innocent.

 

[Johnny]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

such a woman, would never be my wife, i don't marry trash/F-I-L-T-H.

that "lump of cells" u speak of, without question, has more value than such a woman u speak of.

and be glad i don't have legal power, as every murderer of innocent babies would either be executed or getting to know terrorists in gitmo bay or even better a russian gulag, as should be baby murderers punished and punished equally to the crime they commited murder...and not only murder but murder of the most innocent, a baby, infanticide is truly *IN*-human.

with my view and power, i would be/am the most feared thing to all evil-do'ers especially such heinous evil as those who murder babies. fortunately for evil, i don't have such power and they are safe and free to continue to do their evil acts upon humanity's most innocent.

Or you could save the woman that time and then have a new baby another time and everyone can be alive! or two babies in the future!

 

[AeroJonesy]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Keep in mind, last time I made a thread about abortion, Anyee deleted it. She was a mod here at the time and she called it an "accident." I've modded for sister site worldofwar.net and know that there is no accidental way to delete a thread.

 

[PFSS]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

such a woman, would never be my wife, i don't marry trash/F-I-L-T-H.

that "lump of cells" u speak of, without question, has more value than such a woman u speak of.

and be glad i don't have legal power, as every murderer of innocent babies would either be executed or getting to know terrorists in gitmo bay or even better a russian gulag, as should be baby murderers punished and punished equally to the crime they commited murder...and not only murder but murder of the most innocent, a baby, infanticide is truly *IN*-human.

with my view and power, i would be/am the most feared thing to all evil-do'ers especially such heinous evil as those who murder babies. fortunately for evil, i don't have such power and they are safe and free to continue to do their evil acts upon humanity's most innocent.

Please print this out and show it to any women you plan to date in the future.

I'm not sure if this has been asked before but how old are you and is English your first language?

 

[Dondrei]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Incidentally? The Jews believe that until the fetus crowns, ie enters the world, it is subordinate to the mother. Why? It's easier to get someone pregnant than to raise a person safely and healthily into adulthood. Simple logic, not displayed here.

I've always liked Judaism a lot better than the rest of that branch, they're so much more pragmatic.

For most of its existence the Catholic church maintained that abortion was only murder once the fetus had a soul, which wasn't until it became animated. Basically once you can feel it kick.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Re: On the rights of unwilling fathers:

Keep in mind, last time I made a thread about abortion, Anyee deleted it. She was a mod here at the time and she called it an "accident." I've modded for sister site worldofwar.net and know that there is no accidental way to delete a thread.

hahaha XD

these debates have been going to my head in the past...

i gave off a warning, but...

there we go...

if this develops any further i might not be able to resist joining in...