You can't kill a living human being...

Death Penalty exists...

Abortion will always be a touchy subject, but if you have money to travel, you can get that abortion in places that support them. So what these abortion laws do is punish poor people who can't make that trip. Then those same people are forced to either put the child up for adoption (because we don't have a ton of children that can't be adopted already) or they can raise that child, most likely in the same situation that led to them being poor and not having a proper family unit.

Storytime, and god help me if my wife ever finds out I talked about this.

I was raised in a poor home, with an abusive family. My wife was raised in a poor home with a good family. When we started dating after High School back in 1992, you had two choices for safe sex, condoms or birth control (doctor visit with no insurance and it was Texas in 1992, they weren't just tossing it out like free candy). We had to use condoms because we couldn't afford birth control and because she was scared of using it. If you have ever read the side effects, you might be too, seeing as death can be one of them in rare instances.

So condoms were the watchword. But accidents happen; maybe one just didn't work right, maybe it was the one that broke one time, but we ended up getting pregnant. I told her that I would do whatever she wanted. We planned to marry soon anyway, so I said we could shotgun it if need be. She said she didn't think she wanted a child. So I said that it was HER decision, but I would be there through it.

It isn't easy. Unless you have been in that exact situation, you will never know the fear and uncertainty involved. We were 18 and 20, just starting out with shit jobs, living with parents, and with a 1968 Catalina as our only vehicle. Her parents would have forced her to have it if they knew, because they thought the same way as @bobknight33. We would have been stuck living with them, they already didn't like me because I wasn't deeply religious and not into ranch life. My parents wouldn't have taken us in because my mom didn't like my wife until years later. The stress and anger would have probably split us up, and both of us would have likely remained poor to this day.

Instead, my wife chose to not have the child and got an abortion in the first trimester. We kept it to ourselves, married later, and are still together today. We both fought our way out of being poor people to being on the upper spectrum of middle class. We decided we just didn't want kids and now we spoil our niece. I will swear right now that we would never have made it to where we are today if we had been forced to raise a child because of someone else's deranged idea that every child must be born regardless of the future in store for it.

So, yes, I can speak to what an actual poor person goes through in that situation. We were lucky, because there weren't laws rammed through by religious people who have no clue of the consequences, just a strong delusion that God wants all children born. Funny how those religious people wash their hands of the aftermath of their crusade. Even funnier are the ones that quietly send Mary Lou to California to 'visit an aunt' for a couple of months when they find out their spawn got knocked up.

TL;DR

If you fight against easy abortions, except those where the child has reached the capability to survive if it had to be medically removed from the mother, you and the rest of your ilk can go fuck yourselves.

Fact check.....
3,500,000 child cases * .008 mortality = 28000 dead children you fucking inhuman monster.
3,500,000 * 10% who have long term disabilities = 350,000 children disabled for life.
Pay up, your ilk being obstinately unsafe caused their disabilities, you should pay to support them for life just as if you were driving blindfolded because Trump said car bumpers make them safe in accidents and you ran over a few, leaving them to die in the streets because getting hurt by a car is fake news.



Well over 570000 dead Americans you Anti American enemy of the people.
32000000 cases * 10% long term side effects like severe permanent heart, lung, brain damage = 3,200,000 disabled people created.

I think it's fair to say most readers here hope you're next. No one is more deserving of infection, no one is more deserving of severe permanent disabilities, no one is less deserving of a vaccine or hospitalization. I hope your children bring it home day 1 when school restarts.

Ask Brazil how following your plan has worked....better yet, put your money where your mouth is and move there, unvaccinated, and let us know.

Fake news made too many ignorant morons fight against public health measures, costing us over 1/2 million deaths and well over $5 Trillion in unnecessary expenses that could ALL have been avoided with adult, serious leadership we sorely lacked for a full year plus until January.

Bob, you ARE fake news. Dangerous, deadly, and costly fake news.

BTW, it costs about an extra $2.2 million to raise a child with disabilities, and an EXTRA $3,175 to $5,853 per month for adults - keep in mind they mostly have no income and don't add to the gdp, so add the average $61,224 cost of living in the US and you have over $120000 per year per person (3200000 disabled so far) you get a recurring yearly cost of your "ignore the danger and get to work/school" plan cost of up to $3.84 e11 ($384,000,000,000) per year so far....an impossible cost to bear. Granted, not every person with permanent damage is totally disabled, so being generous assume only 10% are....still $38,400,000,000 PER YEAR at current average cost not including children. That doesn't include direct cost of hospitalization for covid, from $51,000 to $78,000, nor the loss in gdp from 3.2 million earners gone.
Fuck your $5 Trillion....most of which went to businesses.

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

While I agree that tricking someone into parenthood is an awful thing to do, I feel like your solution might be worse than the crime.

What happens to the child? What happens to the other parent?

Obviously, if it's a man tricking a woman, she can terminate the pregnancy, but I'm pretty sure we don't want to go down the path of forcing a woman to have an abortion, even in this circumstance.

At which point, the woman is in jail and the father, even if he didn't want a kid, might feel he has to raise the child himself.

But yeah, it's an utterly reprehensible thing to do.

Not a dilemma at all actually. What we will tell them, whether it be with the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or Jesus Christ, is that some other parents believe some things that we don't, and they teach those things to their children.

We are fortunate to know some people who were raised with parents who were truthians and hearing how they handled all those things makes it clear not only that it is possible but how it's possible to raise a child in an environment of ~total honesty.

(Funnily [to me] is that one such guy I know told me how his parent told him, "We will never lie to you so you can always know that what we tell you is the truth. That's how you know Jesus Christ is really your lord and savior." LMFAHS. If you're wondering, yes, he's a die hard Christian.)

That poor dogs' just wondering WTF those two clueless humans are doing....raising a child and scaring the shit out of everyone in doing so.

"Who is the judge of what is the right treatment?"

You're going to love this answer It is, of course.... the state, or more specifically the law.

I assume you believe that children are entitled to some protection under the law, regardless of what their parents believe? So really, we're not arguing over the principle... simply the extent.

Yes, at one point people thought slavery was fine and dandy, but eventually that was changed through legislation (it was kind of sad that some people were so ok with slavery they thought it was worth going to war for, but some people are idiots).

Now, there are issues today that I personally disagree with that may or may not be legal. Not providing your kids with medical treatment is a pretty easy one. Most people don't believe your rights as a parent extend to letting your child die because you thought Santa Claus would save them.

More difficult would be education. I am uncomfortable with the idea that parents can withhold information or outright lie to their children, but a lot of people seem fine with this.

On the more controversial end of the scale, I personally find it abhorrent that society tolerates the genital mutilation of infants in a weird combination of religion and misguided puritanism (btw this is not a slight on anyone circumcised, if you want to make that decision for yourself as an adult, go nuts).

Some of these things may change, some not. Some will come about through majority pressure, some through principled individuals making a moral argument that supercedes the tyranny of the majority.

But ultimately, yes, the community is the judge of what is acceptable practice when raising a child. It's not perfect, but it's a whole lot better than the alternative.

>> ^dag:

The lesson was for the sorry sayer, not the receiver. Saying sorry and meaning it is an acknowledgement of causing harm - minor empathy, most definitely Not sociopathic.>> ^criticalthud:
yes, learn how to say sorry when you don't mean it in order to make someone else feel a certain way, and to quickly forgive purposeful aggressive action.
good sociopathic training
dunno. what you guys see a dutiful lesson in good manners I see as training to be disingenuous.
and who is the lesson for? are you condoning that your child should expect an apology every time she's bumped into?
if you train your child to be a princess that the world should be apologizing to, make sure she stays in the USA.



ok, the first action was purposeful. did the first girl learn a lesson or learn that she could commit purposeful actions and then be forgiven for uttering a phrase? The lesson learned here for a little girl is that she can purposefully act, with malice, and be forgiven right after without ever having to examine her reasoning for committing the malicious act. The catholic church allows for the same behavior. it is essentially saying that you may escape responsibility for your actions by apologizing for it. this is pure fallacy, and a poor way to raise a child.

"say you're sorry" - learning how to say something in response is not learning appropriate behavior.

As to who receives the lesson in the second scene - who is the impressionable one here? who is in their formulative years? if you teach your child at this age that they are special and that they should (creating unrealistic expectations) expect an apology every time someone bumps into them, and the world must be polite to them, you're not doing them any favors.

in the second scene also, most here are in agreement that the older girl should be punished in some way, even though her actions lacked any intent. this is not how the law works, and for good reason.

but seriously, let's breathe for a second and reflect upon just how idiotic it is to force someone to say something they don't mean. this kind of junk in ingrained into our society and you guys are mirroring it. Fight Club got it right.

What is the physical pain of a belt slap compared to the social pain of ridicule for throwing a ball like a girl?

But seriously, It's curious how physical punishment is immediately taken for abuse these days. We don't know if he was hitting hard or often enough to injure the kid physically/psychologically.

I'm not a father, I was raised with physical punishment, but I personally don't agree with it, totally unnecessary. *Maybe* in extreme cases when you have to let the child feel the pain for screwing up, but ideally you don't want to let the situation get to that point. I also don't agree with him hitting the kid for throwing a ball poorly.

That being said, as long as there's no serious physical abuse, who are we to judge how he should raise his kid? Human beings are violent by nature, our society is violent, and boys, specially, have to learn how to deal with violence growing up. Is it right to expect raising a child not to involve violence EVER? Specially today with these kids running their mouths off to their parents, throwing tantrums like little dipshits and... throwing balls like little girls!

Ive been in jail (not the Police station, county jail which was one step below prison). It is hard for me to write about it. I am still so damaged by it that I have a hard time watching shows depicting real or imitation incarceration.

Trust me from the bottom of my heart that the system in the USA makes you worse for society. You become a hardened evil monster who has had to use all of your energy every minute of the day just to survive. You pick up skills that have no application in normal society.

No offense HPQP but you don't know what the hell you speak of. Have you ever trained a dog? Do you understand that punishment (negative reinforcement) creates dogs with problems? Yes we are human but he same applies. If you don't like that analogy then its like raising a child. You can't just use punishment without encouragement to raise a good child.
Wouldn't you want the criminals to see what type of life they can lead when they follow the rules? Let me tell you that even if you are PERFECT at following the rules in the US Jail system you get fucked up. Someone is out to get you. Its a breeding tank for sociopaths.

My thoughts are so scattered from being upset that its hard to write this without getting myself banned or looked upon like a crazy person.

If any of you have questions I can answer feel free.

They say it takes a village to raise a child. Texas is one heck of a village.


(Also, where the hell are her parents???)

>> ^gorillaman:

Absurd luxuries like these cost so much because of the amount of labour and resources that went into producing them. Labour and resources that could have been spent producing something worthwhile instead. When you buy a Lamborghini you're making the world worse for everyone. Owning a Lamborghini is a crime against humanity.


Cost of raising a child in the US: $220,000

List price of a Gallardo: $198,000

As far as I'm concerned, your parents could have spent the money on producing something worthwhile instead of having you.

You act as though the labour and resources went into a black hole. Engineers were employed, research was done, factories were built, money was made and families were fed.

A crime against humanity? Are you seriously comparing owning a fucking car to this, or this or this? I really hope you're joking.

Your missing the part about how it was almost certainly her fault for being raped to begin with.

>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

Yeah, it is pretty obnoxious that you talk outta your ass all the time.
Forcing a woman to give birth to a HUMAN PERSON is not the equivalent of making a child take care of pet.
Plus, you'd be the first motherfucker to complain when you're forced to pay taxes to provide healthcare and food assistance and public education to support that baby once it's growth.
"You'd better have that baby! Otherwise, it's murder.
You say you don't have the income or means to properly raise that child?
Well that's your own fault. Don't ask me for a handout!"
>> ^lantern53:
That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!

Yeah, it is pretty obnoxious that you talk outta your ass all the time.

Forcing a woman to give birth to a HUMAN PERSON is not the equivalent of making a child take care of pet.

Plus, you'd be the first motherfucker to complain when you're forced to pay taxes to provide healthcare and food assistance and public education to support that baby once it's growth.

"You'd better have that baby! Otherwise, it's murder.

You say you don't have the income or means to properly raise that child?

Well that's your own fault. Don't ask me for a handout!"

>> ^lantern53:

That's pretty obnoxious.
Why don't they let a Democrat abortion doctor stick a pair of scissors in their unwanted babies skulls?
After all, we don't want them to be punished...with a BABY!

>> ^chingalera:

What makes one set of parents better than another has little to do with their sexuality-unless the child identifies theirs based on the imprints and datum, setting and environment, provided by an agenda-oriented or otherwise fucked-up couple.


I could see this being factually correct if you consider that any gay couple that has kids, adopted them because they wanted children, versus a large portion of straight couples who (oops!) had a baby when they weren't prepared (and thus were not ready for being a selfless parent geared toward raising a child as their main priority in life).