Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, May 01, 2014

Boxing champ Floyd Mayweather Jr. reportedly posted and then deleted a sonogram of ex-fiancee Shantel Christine Jackson on his Instagram account, claiming that they broke up because she terminated the pregnancy. The caption he gave the photo read, "The real reason me and Shantel Christine Jackson @missjackson broke up was because she got a abortion, and I'm totally against killing babies. She killed our twin babies." In another message he deleted, Mayweather ran a photo of Jackson and wrote, "Before all the plastic surgery I had to pay for. I'm a Indian giver I want my money back." This probably won't help Mayweather's plan to buy the Los Angeles Clippers.

Advertisement

Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Menu

Advertisement

Subscriptions

Author Info

sitzkrieg

 

Advertisement

MORE STORIES

 

Advertisement

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Too many shots to the head.

#1 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-01 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Not as many as you would think. His defense is incredible.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-01 01:45 PM | Reply | Flag:

Who said I was talking about Floyd?

#3 | Posted by Harry_Powell at 2014-05-01 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Damn what's Mayweather going to do, he can't be a good Democrat now and he's black so he can't be a Republican. Poor guy is screwed, hey Harry why don't you break the news to Floyd?

#4 | Posted by paneocon at 2014-05-01 03:20 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

I don't agree with his stance against it, but it raises a valuable point about the deeply personal nature of this subject: men will never have more than 49% of the say in the issue of birth control. I think that's a great deal of the patriarchal right's problem with it.

#7 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-01 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mayweather has no class. He has a right to be upset about his girlfriend's decision, but to subject her to public humiliation and violate her medical privacy on a social network where he has 2.6 million followers is repugnant.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-01 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

He has no class?

He had his children taken away from him and he should have to keep quiet about it?
If it was something she is ashamed of then there is reason for her shame, if she is unashamed then why should she care?

#9 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-01 06:33 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

So if you had an ex, you'd tell the world about private things that went on between you to get revenge on her?

#10 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-01 06:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

"So if you had an ex, you'd tell the world about private things that went on between you to get revenge on her?"

If i were personally hurt i would see nothing wrong with expressing that. I see no reason why someone should be able to impose harm on another with immunity preventing someone else's outlet for emotion.

#11 | Posted by salamandagator at 2014-05-01 06:47 PM | Reply | Flag:

If i were personally hurt i would see nothing wrong with expressing that.

Then under that hypothetical, you also would have no class. Anyone in your life who saw what you did would know that if you felt hurt by them, you might violate their privacy in public in the ugliest way possible. People would be reluctant to associate with you.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-01 07:24 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Aren't there laws against disclosing someone's medical history, or do those only apply to health care providers?

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 08:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can understand his outrage and why he posted what he did by reflex.

That's the nature of his business. Boxers aren't the most socially adept character wise. They're aren't well adjusted people.

I'm glad someone in his camp saw the posts and removed them

As for Pane's predictable post; A highly successful, ultra-wealthy black man is a Republican nightmare. I can understand your knee jerk paranoia.

Maybe Money is a Republican. Did you think to check? He's a rich businessman like one.

Your attitude is exactly why Republicans can't win national elections. You pigeonhole everyone.

#14 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2014-05-01 08:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

WTF???

Mayweather needs to retire before his brain damage gets worse.

#15 | Posted by Tor at 2014-05-01 08:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Tsk Tsk,
No abortion etiquette.
He must have skipped meterosexual PC training.

#16 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-01 08:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

By the way RCADE,
Since you are white I think that disqualifies you from rendering any judgments about what Mayweather did. We need the brothers to weigh in on this You are obviously being racist.

#17 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-01 09:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

Obviously an emotional issue. Social media just facilitates your bad decisions. The thing is that he has the money to take care of the kid, but he couldn't save it.

#18 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2014-05-01 09:50 PM | Reply | Flag:

This is revenge porn, nothing more.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2014-05-01 10:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Mayweather has no class. He has a right to be upset about his girlfriend's decision, but to subject her to public humiliation and violate her medical privacy on a social network where he has 2.6 million followers is repugnant.

#8 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-01 06:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Again, tell that Mr. Sterling

#20 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-01 11:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

Let me add to this, Mr. Sterling spoke his mind, in privacy and is now being attacked viciously. Forced to pay a fine, which is enforceable by some crazy law. So yes, the government has violated his 1st amendment rights.

Mayweathers finacee killed 2 children that would have been taken care of, he had enough money I assume to raise them alone. She committed infanticide, but hey that's a private issue. Yet u all get up in arms about a death row inmate having a prolong heart attack.

Interesting contradictions, how do you live with such poor logic?

#21 | Posted by danv at 2014-05-01 11:35 PM | Reply | Flag:

Aren't there laws against disclosing someone's medical history, or do those only apply to care providers

-----

Only providers and their health care partners and associates (ie, vendors).

#22 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-01 11:49 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

He has a right to be upset about his girlfriend's decision, but to subject her to public humiliation and violate her medical privacy on a social network where he has 2.6 million followers is repugnant

----

What she did to him was even more repugnant. She told him she had a miscarriage but really had an abortion.

#23 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-01 11:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

What she did to him was even more repugnant. She told him she had a miscarriage but really had an abortion.

#23 | POSTED BY PIRATE

Fair point, and it's one that muddies the 'women's reproductive rights' and certainly muddies the notion that a fetus isn't a person.

I have 2 boys. Biologically they are the result of my sperm exchanging DNA with my wife's egg. They are our children.

However, if we extend the pro-abortionists' argument further they are her children because they developed in her womb.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-02 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

Forced to pay a fine, which is enforceable by some crazy law. So yes, the government has violated his 1st amendment rights.

Speaking of poor logic.

BTW, how about a link to that "crazy law."

#25 | Posted by et_al at 2014-05-02 12:05 AM | Reply | Flag:

#20 - DanV

This is not a 1st Amendment issue as it isn't government that is abridging free speech.

He made his comments.

Said comments were recorded and later leaked (this might violate a privacy law but it's not a Constitutional infringement as the government isn't involved).

His comments carried consequences that were meted out in the private sector.

The government played no role in any of this.

#26 | Posted by JeffJ at 2014-05-02 12:10 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Funny, listening to this sight, I would have figured that billionaires are exempt from the law... It appears not. Whatever, it is this dumbass's fault for getting her pregnant before they got married. If you aren't married, then you have no rights over the children until they are born. I don't particularly like abortions, and might try and talk one of my friends out of it if she told me she was considering it, but I feel that it is a necessary evil in the state of our current society today. I don't know why she had the abortion, and it really is none of my business, but Mayweather made a choice to not get married first. With choices comes consequences buddy, and no amount of whining and moaning will save you from the consequences of your actions.

#27 | Posted by mariosanchez at 2014-05-02 12:20 AM | Reply | Flag:

#8 | Posted by rcade

Bingo.

#28 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-02 01:41 AM | Reply | Flag:

#16 | Posted by Huguenot
"He must have skipped meterosexual PC training."

Which means?

#29 | Posted by TheTom at 2014-05-02 01:43 AM | Reply | Flag:

Mayweather has no class.

#8 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-05-01 06:27 PM | FLAG:

and he ducked Pacquiao.

#30 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2014-05-02 07:09 AM | Reply | Flag:

Again, tell that Mr. Sterling ... Let me add to this, Mr. Sterling spoke his mind, in privacy and is now being attacked viciously. Forced to pay a fine, which is enforceable by some crazy law. So yes, the government has violated his 1st amendment rights.

What the hell? The government has nothing to do with the NBA banning Sterling. The NBA is a private association whose owners agreed to a contract for how they work together. The contract includes a provision in which an owner can be banned for conduct detrimental to the association. His conduct embarrassed the league and was costing it millions in sponsorships and the goodwill of fans, players and other stakeholders.

#31 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 07:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

They are our children. However, if we extend the pro-abortionists' argument further they are her children because they developed in her womb.

No "pro-abortionists" say that children are only the mothers. That's a dunderheaded representation of the pro-choice position. The only "hers" are that it is her body and her decision whether to carry the pregnancy to term.

Floyd's such great father material that he was arrested for domestic battery in front of his young children. Considering how vindictively he acted after his ex's alleged abortion, and the fact he already had four kids with two other women, maybe there are good reasons she didn't want to have kids with him.

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 07:35 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Funny, listening to this sight, I would have figured that billionaires are exempt from the law... "

Sterling was not prosecuted under the law and was only punished by the private association he was a member of because his actions were going to mess with the ability of the other billionaires in the association to make money.

#33 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-02 09:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

It's amazing how many people don't understand the 1st amendment.

#34 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-02 09:32 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

She kills his twins and he is repugnant? Oh, I see, the misogynist tact again. Hillary 16! Women are above reproach 2016!

#35 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2014-05-02 09:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Floyd's such great father material that he was arrested for domestic battery in front of his young children. Considering how vindictively he acted after his ex's alleged abortion, and the fact he already had four kids with two other women, maybe there are good reasons she didn't want to have kids with him."

it appears they are both pretty repugnant trashy people.

#36 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-02 10:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

men will never have more than 49% of the say in the issue of birth control. I think that's a great deal of the patriarchal right's problem with it.

#7 | POSTED BY ZEROPOINTNRG AT 2014-05-01 04:40 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

What are you talking about? Between the Church and now the GOP, men have been controlling women's birth control choices for thousands of years.

#37 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 10:39 AM | Reply | Flag:

his actions were going to mess with the ability of the other billionaires in the association to make money.

That's why Madoff is in jail, yet the wall street crooks who fleeced the middle class walk free.

#38 | Posted by 726 at 2014-05-02 10:41 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

She kills his twins and he is repugnant?

You object vociferously to some of your comments being characterized as "misogynist" and then make another remark like that?

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy does not make a woman trashy. There are plenty of good people in this world who had an abortion. You undoubtedly know some.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 10:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Choosing to terminate a pregnancy does not make a woman trashy."

It can.

#40 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-02 11:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

still don't get this argument about abortion...if you don't want one..don't get one..really not that difficult.

#41 | Posted by drewinnj at 2014-05-02 11:37 AM | Reply | Flag:

By the way RCADE,
Since you are white I think that disqualifies you from rendering any judgments about what Mayweather did. We need the brothers to weigh in on this You are obviously being racist.

#17 | Posted by Huguenot at 2014-05-01 09:14 PM | Reply

I've noticed the dems (of course, I'm sure Rcade doesn't fit that definition) are showing their racist subconscious's more and more. It is really a shame how they view our black brothers.

#42 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-02 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

Right-wing First Amendment: People or businesses may talk out of their butt as ignorantly as possible, and any sanctions placed on them by the free market - either consumers or shareholders afraid of how the opinion may reflect on their profit - are are directly in violation, despite having nothing to do with government imposition.

Oh, but if it's not repressing SoCon nutjobs, money still = votes.

#43 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-02 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy does not make a woman trashy.

#39 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 10:55 AM | Reply |

No, but it often reveals poor decision making and self interest---which has become altogether more common in this present society.

#44 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-02 12:00 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

It appears not. Whatever, it is this dumbass's fault for getting her pregnant before they got married. If you aren't married, then you have no rights over the children until they are born.... but Mayweather made a choice to not get married first. With choices comes consequences buddy, and no amount of whining and moaning will save you from the consequences of your actions.
#27 | POSTED BY MARIOSANCHEZ

It appears you believe a husband has some say in whether his wife can get an abortion or not. You are sorely mistaken.

still don't get this argument about abortion...if you don't want one..don't get one..really not that difficult.
#41 | POSTED BY DREWINNJ

Here's the argument about abortion, that I don't get. A woman can choose to accept or deny her parental responsibilities, before the birth of the child. A man has no choice in that matter, and his parental responsibilities or lack there of are determined by the decisions of someone else.

If the woman wants to keep the baby and the man doesn't, too bad for him he's on the hook for support even though he didn't want said child. If the woman wants an abortion because she doesn't want to support the child and the man want to keep the child and support it, too bad for him, his child's development will be terminated.

#45 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Choosing to terminate a pregnancy does not make a woman trashy.

----

Terminating a pregnancy via abortion and then lying about it to the father (who also happens to be your fiance) is a trashy thing to do.

#46 | Posted by Pirate at 2014-05-02 12:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

Pirate's correct in his statement----I guess Rcade didn't think of that point.

#47 | Posted by matsop at 2014-05-02 12:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

If the woman wants an abortion because she doesn't want to support the child and the man want to keep the child and support it, too bad for him, his child's development will be terminated.

#45 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 12:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

You act as if this is the result of a double standard rather than the result of biological reality.

Don't get me wrong, family courts are ridiculously unfair. Men have been forced to pay child support for children that aren't theirs.

But that a woman can't be forced to proceed with a pregnancy she doesn't want is hardly unfair.

#48 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-02 01:02 PM | Reply | Flag:

#48 | POSTED BY SULLY AT 2014-05-02 01:02 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

I agree. But why then is it not as easy for a man to sign off on parental rights they do not want as for a woman to abort?

#49 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-02 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

But why then is it not as easy for a man to sign off on parental rights they do not want as for a woman to abort?

Because being forced to financially support a child you conceived is not anywhere close to as much of a burden as being forced to carry a pregnancy to term.

What kind of man refuses to support a child because the mother ignored his wishes and didn't get an abortion? Once the child is born he or she is something the man helped bring into the world. He ought to have a strong interest in being a part of that child's life and upbringing.

#50 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

"What kind of man refuses to support a child because the mother ignored his wishes and didn't get an abortion?"

If its during the pregnancy then be careful about the "c" word. It can be a "fetus" or a "child" but not both.

Its a problematic idea, but I could see plenty of reason why a man would want to financially disincent a woman he's impregnated from keeping the child. Maybe she's a horribly irresponsible and selfish person who has no business having a kid and who would spend child support on herself and by backing out of child support, he's made it more likely that she will give the child up to him or someone else. Maybe she's a junkie and is going to continue to abuse drugs throughout the pregnancy. Maybe she has kids already and they're horribly neglected. Maybe she lives with child abusers and has made it clear she won't move out.

#51 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-02 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

that a woman can't be forced to
proceed with a pregnancy she doesn't
want is hardly unfair.

#48| POSTED BY SULLY

I agree, so there needs to be a mechanism for a man to terminate his future parental responsibilities, before the birth of the child, otherwise a double standard exists.

#52 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

"otherwise a double standard exists."

Okay, it's a double standard. One that's not going to be removed.

#53 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-02 01:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

What kind of man refuses to support a child because the mother ignored his wishes and didn't get an abortion? #50 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-05-02 01:14 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

Probably a crappy excuse for one. Or maybe a young, responsible, career-minded one who informed a woman ahead of time he didn't want children, used protection which failed, and was mislead by a woman regarding her intentions if pregnant.

Yeah. If that sounded a little detail specific almost had that happen to me when I was around twenty. Fortunately, it turned out she was lying about the pregnancy to keep me in the relationship, and that destroyed the last vestige of a chance of that happening.

I've since had a great deal of disgust for the inequality of choice there. I at times find myself thinking people should be licensed to have children, and only as couples, at that. Of course, we can always say "abstinence only" if you don't want children, but we call that sexist when we apply it to women. Just not to men, for some reason.

#54 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-02 01:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

I agree, so there needs to be a mechanism for a man to terminate his future parental responsibilities, before the birth of the child, otherwise a double standard exists.

#52 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 01:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

In #51 I said there are legitimate reasons why a man would want to do that.

But I also said its problematic because its way too open to abuse.

There's probably no way to settle it fairly.

#55 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-02 01:44 PM | Reply | Flag:

She is free to make the choice that she did; however he is also free to voice and take action show his displeasure. Actions have consequences and both have exercised their freedoms. 'Nuff Said!

#56 | Posted by MSgt at 2014-05-02 02:02 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

But I also said its problematic because its way too open to abuse.
#55 | POSTED BY SULLY

Care to elaborate?

Is a woman's right to choose "way too open to abuse"?

#57 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

If its during the pregnancy then be careful about the "c" word. It can be a "fetus" or a "child" but not both.

I don't obsess over the language when discussing this subject. Calling the unborn child a fetus (or vice versa) does not change anybody's mind on the issue.

#58 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-02 02:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I can't believe you guys are discussing something this much when it will never change no matter what "valid" points you think you have.

#59 | Posted by Dalton at 2014-05-02 02:17 PM | Reply | Flag:

Care to elaborate?

Is a woman's right to choose "way too open to abuse"?

#57 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 02:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

You're unaware of deadbeat fathers? Allowing men to just disavow a pregnancy would make it way too easy for serial deadbeats to continually avoid consequences.

Unless we're talking about certain late term procedures that basically amount to killing a viable human child, no I don't think the woman's choice is way too open to abuse.

#60 | Posted by Sully at 2014-05-02 02:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm a Indian giver I want my money back"

Geez, in all of the abortion dialogue, I missed that comment.

funny...he managed to insult native americans as well.

#61 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-02 02:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

Sorry....I just couldn't resist

www.youtube.com

#62 | Posted by eberly at 2014-05-02 02:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

#60 | POSTED BY SULLY

"You're unaware of deadbeat fathers? Allowing men to just disavow a pregnancy would make it way too easy for serial deadbeats to continually avoid consequences."

Women have the choice to be serial deadbeats and to continually avoid consequences as it is now.

"Unless we're talking about certain late term procedures that basically amount to killing a viable human child, no I don't think the woman's choice is way too open to abuse."

So it would be too open to abuse to let the man make the same choice as the woman, to relinquish parental rights for whatever reason she or he chooses before for the age of viablity of the fetus?

#63 | Posted by TXLIBERTARIAN at 2014-05-02 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Women have the choice to be serial deadbeats and to continually avoid consequences as it is now."

No they don't. If they terminate the pregnancy then there is no kid and therefore no kid who is being neglected. If they give a kid up for adoption then someone is taking care of the kid and nobody is being neglected. So there goes the deadbeat thing.... And in one scenario the woman is undergoing a medical procedure. In the other she is carrying another human being inside her for 9 months before giving it up for adoption. So in neither case are there no consquences.

"So it would be too open to abuse to let the man make the same choice as the woman, to relinquish parental rights for whatever reason she or he chooses before for the age of viablity of the fetus?"

Yep. Because the type of guy who fathers a bunch of kids with different women isn't necessarily going to be up front with regards to his intentions.

#64 | Posted by sully at 2014-05-02 03:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

He's upset because he lost his kids. Who can blame him? Would he have been out of line if she had lost them due to circumstances beyond her control -- say a car accident? Woud he have been out of line to talk of the drunk driver that took them? No? Then why can't he talk about the woman who chose to take them?

#65 | Posted by goatman at 2014-05-02 11:54 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Yep. Because the type of guy who fathers a bunch of kids with different women isn't necessarily going to be up front with regards to his intentions."

I'm trying to imagine what the response would be like if somebody argued because some women are irresponsible trash, therefore it's justified for the law to discriminate unfairly against all women. And this type of discrimination isn't a double standard because it's based on an innate biological difference.

*rolls eyes*

#66 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 12:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Okay, it's a double standard. One that's not going to be removed."

Maybe not in our lifetimes, but at least those arguing against it are on the right side of history.

#67 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 12:15 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If they terminate the pregnancy then there is no kid and therefore no kid who is being neglected."

That was Scott Peterson's philosophy.

#68 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 12:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Just gunna leave this right here.......

i.imgur.com

#69 | Posted by GotTruth at 2014-05-03 06:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"If you don't want to be a debt slave for the next 20 years, you should've kept your pants on and never had sex."

#70 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 08:22 AM | Reply | Flag:

I don't understand why any man stands up for a man's right not to pay child support for his own child -- no matter the reason. Surely you wouldn't abandon your responsibilities like that if you got someone pregnant, even if you didn't agree with her decision to have the baby.

And to those of you from the party of personal responsibility -- is there no more serious personal responsibility than to provide for your own children?

#71 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-03 09:49 AM | Reply | Flag:

no matter the reason. Surely you wouldn't abandon your responsibilities like that if you got someone pregnant, even if you didn't agree with her decision to have the baby.
#71 | POSTED BY RCADE AT 2014-05-03 09:49 AM | FLAG:

In truth, no. For me at least. I would never take it out on the child, but at the same time, as I stated earlier, men will never have more than 49% of the say in the decision to have a child - or not. I'm sure it's part of what plays into the more patriarchal conservatives issues with birth control more than my own. Sully is probably right that it will always be problematic simply by nature of biology. But, it will never sit quite right with me. Women do get more of the burden - but they also have the option of attempting to "trap" men, and the best we can do about it is be careful and attempt to make good character judgement.

Bet if you told women something like that in reverse, it would come across as sexist.

#72 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2014-05-03 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't understand why any man stands up for a man's right not to pay child support for his own child -- no matter the reason."

If he chooses to opt out of parenthood and makes it known during the same time period the mother can have an elective abortion, it shouldn't be considered his "own" child.

"Surely you wouldn't abandon your responsibilities like that if you got someone pregnant, even if you didn't agree with her decision to have the baby."

Lame and irrelevant argument for the issue of institutionalized sexism/racism. You can't claim to be for equal protection while at the same time arguing against it.

#73 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 12:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

If he chooses to opt out of parenthood and makes it known during the same time period the mother can have an elective abortion, it shouldn't be considered his "own" child.

Biology made it his child. These kinds of rationalizations are pathetic. Men should be better than that. I knew when I was still a teen that if I got someone pregnant, I wouldn't get to decide whether the child was born and if it was, I'd be obligated to support the child. I welcomed that responsibility. How could you call yourself a man if you didn't?

#74 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-03 01:06 PM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 2

"Biology made it his child."

You're equivocating. Biology made it his biological child, but whether it's his legal child is entirely a social/legal construct. It's disingenuous to pretend otherwise. "The child" doesn't legally come into existence until it's at the viable stage of development.

We don't force sperm donors to be legal parents of their biological offspring. If they can decide to opt out before the child comes into legal existence, why not allow them to do so even after biological conception? That way the potential mother can decide if she wants abort, put it up for adoption, raise it on her own or find another sponsor to support the potential child.

"These kinds of rationalizations are pathetic."

If you were referring to your own, I'd wholeheartedly agree. It's as if you're trying out every logical fallacy in the book.

"This was the way it was when I was growing up as a kid, therefore it's the way things ought to be ... if you don't agree you're not a real man and you support lazy deadbeats."

Like I said, you're arguing on the wrong side of history on this one. You can't claim to be for equal protection under the law while at the same time arguing against it. If women have "the right to self-determination" and "reproductive rights" even after an unintended conception, then so should men.

#75 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:

[...] If women have "the right to self-determination" and "reproductive rights" even after an unintended conception, then so should men.

#75 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-03 05:42 PM | Reply | Flag:Righties for Welfare Moms

I can't remember seeing this many conservatives cheering on welfare moms and/or deadbeat dads since, well, since Bristol Plain popped out Hockeyboy's lust child.

#76 | Posted by northguy3 at 2014-05-04 12:02 AM | Reply | Flag: | Newsworthy 1

Ad hominem straw man non sequitur tu quoque peter cetera.

You've got nothing North, just like every other bigot defending the status quo in history.

#78 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-04 01:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

We're bigots for thinking men should support their kids? Interesting value system.

#79 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

No, you're bigots for supporting a system that gives one sex control not only of their own destiny and livelihood, but also that of members of the opposite sex. It's just as bad as supporting laws which allowed men to subjugate women.

#81 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-04 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

Cry me a river.

Child support has nothing to do with gender. The non-custodial parent has to pay it, and that could be a man or a woman. Since child support rarely comes close to what it really costs to raise a child, the non-custodial parent typically has it much easier than the custodial parent. And since more single parents are women than men, guess which gender has more reason to complain about the situation? (Hint: Not yours.)

#82 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 01:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

Stop being deliberately obtuse.

Your making excuses and rationalizations for a status quo system which gives one sex the power to decide whether or not the other will become a debt slave. And we all know this disproportionately affects some male populations more than others.

#83 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-04 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

And you still haven't explained why sperm donors should be allowed to sign away their rights and responsibilities before conception occurs, but not afterwards. Is there something special about conception, in relation to the legal existence of "the child"?

#84 | Posted by sentinel at 2014-05-04 01:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

Calling men "sperm donors" is fantastic. You really have spent a lot of time thinking about this so you could formulate the weakest possible argument.

#85 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 05:17 PM | Reply | Flag: | Funny: 1

Calling men "sperm donors" is fantastic. You really have spent a lot of time thinking about this so you could formulate the weakest possible argument.
#85 | POSTED BY RCADE

Its a reasonable question..... lets say before the act of sex you make it known you've signed away rights and responsibilities.......

Surely you wouldn't abandon your responsibilities like that if you got someone pregnant, even if you didn't agree with her decision to have the baby.
#71 | POSTED BY RCADE

I take it seriously too, I would propose to marry her, if she denied the proposal, I owe nothing....

#86 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2014-05-04 07:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

I take it seriously too, I would propose to marry her, if she denied the proposal, I owe nothing....

What a delight you'd be as a husband in that hypothetical. Marry me or else I won't pay a cent to support my child! What woman could pass up a chance to marry a man who would use a marriage proposal as a scheme to potentially avoid child support? That's the kind of person you want with you in the hard times.

Since you take marriage and child-rearing so seriously, I have a question for your scenario: How'd you manage to get someone pregnant without being married to her first?

#87 | Posted by rcade at 2014-05-04 07:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Advertisement

Post a comment

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2014 World Readable

 

Advertisement

Drudge Retort