I would read my comment in full before jumping to accusations. I started my comment by saying, "Perhaps the actual study delves into this issue more, but as this study has been portrayed in this article..." I clearly acknowledged that I had not read the full study and went on to acknowledge that it was completely…

No matter who they choose he won't be hot enough, or will be of the wrong race, or he won't be authentic, or whatever. You can't please everybody.

Perhaps the actual study delves into this issue more, but as this study has been portrayed in this article it seems to skip over one of the principle rules of sociological (or really any) research in that correlation doesn't equal causation. While I'm sure there are actually plenty of reasons why this "phenomenon"…

Agreed 100% Furthermore this argument of "the woman decides to have the kids" puts the ENTIRE onus of child rearing and support on women because after all, "the choice to give birth to them in the first place was ultimately hers — not his."

Again - choosing to give birth and choosing to PARENT are different choices. What we are holding men accountable for through support claims is their obligation as a PARENT. You are discussing two different issues. Are they related? Obviously - only a moron would suggest otherwise, so i assumed you would deduce I was…

They shouldn't be mixed together because they're entirely different issues. Abortion deals with bodily integrity while supporting your child deals with societal laws and contracts to provide for your offspring. They're entirely different legal and moral concepts and it's therefore inappropriate to mix them together.…

Abortion deals with the issue of an unwanted pregnancy. Child support deals with taking care of an existing child. These are different issues that shouldn't be mixed together.

First of all, most visitation agreements are honored. Secondly, when they aren't honored, it's generally without malice - such as the child was sick, or a spur of the moment trip - and the custodial parent generally seeks to reschedule the visitation so that the noncustodial parent still has their parenting time.…

*Hearted* In my experience in family court, I absolutely agree!

"It's less "Oh they should scrutinize everything!" and more "Could people butt the fuck out, please?"" <—- absolutely!

I didn't mean to imply that consultations do not happen. I was merely pointing out that in order to have children no consultation is necessary yet to not have kids requires numerous and continued consultations. I'm not suggesting more consultations, leading towards the eugenics line of thinking, but more that…

IUDs are more effective...? at what? The factors that go into deciding whether a woman gets a tubal ligation are numerous and personal. Without knowing those factors, how can anyone decide what is "better" or more "effective"?

Honestly, i agree. I wouldn't make this choice even though I cannot see myself wanting to have kids. However what gets me, is we allow all sorts of other elective surgeries and other procedures that can have drastic and permanent consequences without this sort of hubbub. How many people regret tattoos? Cosmetic…

"But there are many better ways to avoid kids than getting your tubes tied." says who? you? How can you possibly know that it's "better." There is no denying it's an invasive procedure. So is pregnancy. I, as well as many other people, can provide you with a laundry list of reasons as to why one may choose…

I love the hypocrisy - no consultation to people seeking to become parents, which is absolutely a life changing event. But a never ending line of consultations for any attempt to not become a parent under the guise that it's a life changing decision. Mind boggling

I love the nerd boys being a nerd girl myself. But anti-female culture reigns supreme in nerddom. There men are routinely shocked and amazed that I know anything aside from how to do my hair, blame women for the reason they are still single, and engage in pretty horrendous game terminology like "haha he got f*cking…

lol no problem, i was just confused!

you don't think what is implied?

if the criteria were changed to be based on combat fitness requirements which were determined to be fairly and non-biasedly calculated, and then it were determined that continuously women failed to meet this requirement but for a few outliers and it is just simply not pragmatic to make accommodations for the few that…

I would agree with that. I really don't know specific about physiology or its impact in combat. What I do know is splitting along gender lines is preposterous. So whatever divisions they thing is appropriate for determining which soldiers go where based on physical requirements, I defer to the experts. But "she's a…