Moderators: cupcakesnake, bwgood77, zimpy27, infinite11285, Clav, Domejandro, ken6199, bisme37, Dirk, KingDavid
Case2012 wrote:What a b****. That child is going to be the product of a hostage negotiation.
Men should have the right to choose too.
G35 wrote:DuckIII wrote:JrueHK wrote:Child Support Laws are a joke. I hate it so much. You have hard working Americans making something like 30k-50k a year but you have this strippers that have sex with one professional sports player and they are set for life. Seriously law is a joke and biased against men. And women scream equality. Go figure.
Its unfortunate that this post received 5 and1s. Child support laws are in place because the child is in no way at fault for the choices made by the father and mother. While the mother collaterally benefits, the support is for the child. I'd love to hear your alternative plan to child support laws.
How is a child getting 50K or a 100K a year getting hurt compared to getting $1M a year? The child isn't accustomed to anything but living inside of a womb....of a stripper so it might be pretty roomy. You can't tell me a kid is suffering if they are living off 100K. What you mean is the baby isn't being spoiled which may in the long run be a good thing.
If there is no intent of marriage as long as the child is being adequately supported I don't see why a baby is entitled to an extravagant lifestyle. I think more men would be willing to set up a trust fund in the babies name than give their money to someone they haven't known longer than a week......
MemphisX wrote:These athletes are doing it all wrong.
Once you let the soldiers out the gate, you go for the Wade the strategy. Go for custody. That $1 million should be used to pry open her life and find every skeleton showing she is an unfit mom,
Brauer wrote:princeofpalace wrote:Brauer wrote:It takes two to consenting adults to make a baby. It should take to willing adults to actually decide to have the baby. If it happens to be the case that the female decides to have the baby regardless of the father not wanting to have it, the male should be exempt from financial support. I'd actually go as far as to claim that this would likely decrease the amount of babies being born without a father since females would now have negative consequences for unilaterally deciding to have a child.
And I consider myself a feminist, even as a man, because I want real equality for the sexes. This is just another step to make the decision process more fair.
Or, men should simply stop having sex with those they would not want to procreate with. Its not that hard to keep it on your pants. You choose to sleep with the girl, you better man up and deal with the consequences if she gets knocked up. Its not a hard concept to grasp
so one should only have sex with people you want to have a baby with? Disagree completely. First, I don't think casyal sex is wrong at all, as it brings utility to both people engaging in it. Second of all, I don't think abortion is wrong, since a being can not suffer without consciousness, which the fetus does not yet have. I also disagree strongly with the "face the consequences" arguement. This comes of the point of view that casual sex is wrong and should be penalized. Additionally, even if you part from this premise, I believe the negative consequences would be way too big for such a mistake. We need to break way from this idea of penalization just for penalization's sake. Causing, or letting, people to suffer is not good and this would only be morally correct if the benefits that come from the penalization far outweigh the damage, as is the case for fines and jailtime (most of the time) since they serve as a deterrant. As a result, I believe it is pretty clear that my alternative would be the ethically correct one and not to mention the most practical one.
princeofpalace wrote:Brauer wrote:It takes two to consenting adults to make a baby. It should take to willing adults to actually decide to have the baby. If it happens to be the case that the female decides to have the baby regardless of the father not wanting to have it, the male should be exempt from financial support. I'd actually go as far as to claim that this would likely decrease the amount of babies being born without a father since females would now have negative consequences for unilaterally deciding to have a child.
And I consider myself a feminist, even as a man, because I want real equality for the sexes. This is just another step to make the decision process more fair.
Or, men should simply stop having sex with those they would not want to procreate with. Its not that hard to keep it on your pants. You choose to sleep with the girl, you better man up and deal with the consequences if she gets knocked up. Its not a hard concept to grasp
Brauer wrote:It takes two to consenting adults to make a baby. It should take to willing adults to actually decide to have the baby. If it happens to be the case that the female decides to have the baby regardless of the father not wanting to have it, the male should be exempt from financial support. I'd actually go as far as to claim that this would likely decrease the amount of babies being born without a father since females would now have negative consequences for unilaterally deciding to have a child.
And I consider myself a feminist, even as a man, because I want real equality for the sexes. This is just another step to make the decision process more fair.
Shuttlesworth34 wrote:
I have explained this already. The court's theory is that the child gets to benefit from the good fortune of one of his/her parents. That kid won the parent lotto when it comes to financial situation. PG has been told what the deal is a million times. Yet he still knocked up a girl. Now he is going to pay for it. Simple as that.
@bruce_arthur "And finally, as a whore." RT @docfunk "Here is what LeBron looks like as a Knick, a Fireman, an Astronaut..."
G35 wrote:Shuttlesworth34 wrote:
I have explained this already. The court's theory is that the child gets to benefit from the good fortune of one of his/her parents. That kid won the parent lotto when it comes to financial situation. PG has been told what the deal is a million times. Yet he still knocked up a girl. Now he is going to pay for it. Simple as that.
Not the point. Everyone realizes the penalty of getting a stripper pregnant. We know that if PG really did get her pregnant the rules are in place to protect the child. Before children/women weren't as well protected as they are now; the problem is that rules have swung too far overcompensating the birth mother of these out of wedlock children making wealthy men targets for unplanned children. There is no consequence for women to be on birth control or be honest to any degree in this sort of situation.
The laws need to be updated so there isn't this predatory aspect from some women trying to cash in on the genetic lottery. Because if we are truly concerned about the child we should be doing things to ensure the mother and father are actively involved in the child's and not just posturing about making sure the dad pays "what he owes"......
Brauer wrote:It takes two to consenting adults to make a baby. It should take to willing adults to actually decide to have the baby. If it happens to be the case that the female decides to have the baby regardless of the father not wanting to have it, the male should be exempt from financial support. I'd actually go as far as to claim that this would likely decrease the amount of babies being born without a father since females would now have negative consequences for unilaterally deciding to have a child.
And I consider myself a feminist, even as a man, because I want real equality for the sexes. This is just another step to make the decision process more fair.
Brauer wrote:It takes two to consenting adults to make a baby. It should take to willing adults to actually decide to have the baby. If it happens to be the case that the female decides to have the baby regardless of the father not wanting to have it, the male should be exempt from financial support. I'd actually go as far as to claim that this would likely decrease the amount of babies being born without a father since females would now have negative consequences for unilaterally deciding to have a child.
And I consider myself a feminist, even as a man, because I want real equality for the sexes. This is just another step to make the decision process more fair.
Optimus_Steel wrote:Gwynplaine wrote::lol:
Well.. Just shows he's human.. I know I'm not one to judge. I would've done the same under temptation and in the moment. Condoms just suck.
Hopefully he'll own up to it, take care of the child and be a man.
Could've been much worse if he went the Derrick Rose way though....especially without a condom.
That guy straight up refused to pay a Hooker/stripper after a romp..
N more recently over the summer of #theReturn he was caught banging some ho on the couch by his fiance/baby mama after which they broke up.. n all you could her in the summer was about his kid and family..
Just saw some of her pics. Girl's got some meat on her.
So that's how he hurt his other knee....
