It's the father's choice!

TheDaringHatTrick said:
Communist? You mean, the Illumanti... clearly.
Click to expand...

No, since the cold war the communists are out to get us, with their dirty socialism.
They want to kill anything that isn't communistic.
The proof is out there people!

We should protect ourselves against these power-hungry, greedy rats!
 
Sithious said:
That is true ofc :p

But my goal isn't to control a bunch of mindless rats, but to cleanse the earth of it's fitlth, then rebuild it with the brightest minds on the planet.

The remaining population will worship me for my accomplishments, and my name shall remain in the history books till the universe is nothing, but a cold dead pit of emptiness.
Click to expand...

So you would have to somehow "target" the filth. How you would decide on this, mein F
 
The Jester said:
Tell everyone they need to go to the nearest city hall if they meet requirement X.
Only the dumb ones will fall for it.
Click to expand...

That is a most ridiculous idea. Execute him first.
 
I'm leaving now TDHT, but I will return later to further elaborate on the plans to ensure the eradication of ignorance and continuity of intelligence.

And yes, Jester will recieve special "care"...
 
Last edited:
The Jester said:
Too late baby. I've poisoned your food while you weren't watching.
You might feel a bit dizzy in a few minutes, but it'll be over soon.
Click to expand...

Beyond the fact that you've just mentioned that you've poisoned my food, there's nothing to indicate that I've actually consumed it; only that you've warned me beforehand.

"Special care" indeed.
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Beyond the fact that you've just mentioned that you've poisoned my food, there's nothing to indicate that I've actually consumed it; only that you've warned me beforehand.

"Special care" indeed.
Click to expand...

I watched you eat it. And of course, I waited long enough for the poison to get in your blood.

"I want to show your people that even a moderator can bleed."

300_movie_image_gerard_butler.jpg
 
The Jester said:
I watched you eat it. And of course, I waited long enough for the poison to get in your blood.
"I want to show your people that even a moderator can bleed."

300_movie_image_gerard_butler.jpg
Click to expand...

And then.... you woke up, right? :P
 
TheDaringHatTrick said:
Beyond the fact that you've just mentioned that you've poisoned my food, there's nothing to indicate that I've actually consumed it; only that you've warned me beforehand.

"Special care" indeed.
Click to expand...


OMG JESTER!!!!

I told you not to start your monologue until AFTER she took a bite!!!!
 
slant said:
To this, I have to say, Congrats.

This is what I was asking for all along.

And I actually like the sound of this plan.

Everyone, discuss this plan.
Click to expand...


Nope. I don't like it. I can see that it is well thought out, but men should not be legally responsible for a woman's health care while she is pregnant unless that man is her legal father(if she is underage) or(legal) husband.

As much as this is going to bother people it needs to be said. Men can also be raped. A man should be able to walk away from a pregnant woman with no legal repercussions. I don't like the idea of legally forcing folks to "do the right thing" in this case.
 
christmas said:
Nope. I don't like it. I can see that it is well thought out, but men should not be legally responsible for a woman's health care while she is pregnant unless that man is her legal father(if she is underage) or(legal) husband.
Click to expand...

In my scenario, the focus of the law would be on the health and welfare of the child that the father is equally responsible for - he is not responsible, under the law, for the health and welfare of the mother.

Of course, prenatal care involves maternal care - but as it concerns responsibility under the law, the focus is the child.

christmas said:
As much as this is going to bother people it needs to be said. Men can also be raped. A man should be able to walk away from a pregnant woman with no legal repercussions. I don't like the idea of legally forcing folks to "do the right thing" in this case.
Click to expand...

I agree in the case of rape that a raped man should not have to pay child support for years after the birth of a child. As it concerns the health and welfare of the unborn child in cases of rape, sexual assault, and/or sexual abuse, in my scenario the State would provide for prenatal care.

The child in those cases, like all other children, did not ask to be conceived or brought into the world, but is in the world all the same, with the same needs any other child would have. I value those needs being met, and my best sense is that the State paying for those needs while the convicted rapist/abuser is in the penal system (regardless of their sex) is the best balance of fairness, responsibility, and compassion.


cheers,
Ian
 
It doesn't matter if both parties are responsible for the child. If one does not wish to be responsible that is the end of the line. If someone wishes to abandon a child there is always a reason. If that reason is satisfactory to you is another matter entirely.

Wait, so a man would have to prove that he was raped to not pay child support? That's dangerous, costly, difficult and not just not a good idea.
 
christmas said:
It doesn't matter if both parties are responsible for the child. If one does not wish to be responsible that is the end of the line. If someone wishes to abandon a child there is always a reason. If that reason is satisfactory to you is another matter entirely.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but my scenario is not concerned with what I find satisfactory, what you might find satisfactory, or anyone else for that matter. Wish, whim, and want are not things the State concerns itself with. The State concerns itself with Law, and that is what my scenario addresses.

christmas said:
Wait, so a man would have to prove that he was raped to not pay child support? That's dangerous, costly, difficult and not just not a good idea.
Click to expand...

No, and based on your question here my sense is that you have misunderstood or not read the original post that slant has asked people to discuss. It states that a man may choose to not pay child support (regardless of reason), with the condition he also forfeit all legal relationship to the child in question.


cheers,
Ian
 
Yeah this thread was excluding all cases of rape on the man and woman's part.

It has a very specific scope of details being discussed.
 
I actually did make a sex contract and now I may need it so I'm frustrated I didn't post it here :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top