₦airaland Forum

JESHAL:
Yes and it's against the fathers right

JESHAL:
Mordern day Feminist are for special privilege without responsibility they want new rights at the expense of men's right

In Europe look at the Femcentric biased family court legal system with regards to child custody

HRprof:
The culture has been there for ages ... until we borrow DNA from American . When a man married a woman the kids produce under the marriage automatically becomes his
What I'd the child still prefer the father he know to the biological father? Do you think money is the only thing a child me because OP now have money more that the man who father the child does not mean the child will like him more than who he knows as a father from birth. The child still have the right yo disown his biological father when he turns 18. When we are making comment we should consider so many thing evolves around the circumstance.
American do not depends on father or villages right of a son like we do so when we want to copy them in ever thing we should think twice

JESHAL:
Mordern feminist are factual sexist with female supremacist and Marxist ideologies

bukatyne:
Christian values are Christian values.

No modifications or upgrade to them.

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.

JESHAL:
Liess
Don't judge us from an apostle sermon they are many other sermons in the Bible

Kuns84:
What kind of logic is this.

You cannot "be whatever you want" as a Christian. Christianity comes with it's own set of standards and value system. Feminism contradicts everything that Christianity stands for: the man as the head and women to be under the authority of a man, women to be dumure with a 'quiet and gentle spirit', one cannot remarry else it's termed adultery, women are forbidden from preaching on the pulpit etc..

Except you are talking about the Nigerian version of Christianity where anything goes

donbachi:
"we run the world,girls"...she is happily married to jay z.

HRprof:
Don't disturb yourself, we must not copy American in everything. Traditionally the child belong to the husband who father the child because he paid his wife brides price and see her through pregnancy and took care of the child. Op is just a sperm Donor, if the woman didn't open up will he know? The husband has every right to claim the child if the DNA turn otherwise but if he decided to give the child to OP that means OP will have to refund all expenses made on that child from birth till date. Let be wise when coping Americans their tradition is different from ours as well as our laws.

Pierocash:
Forget about the child, focus on your family by law he isn't your child.

freemanq:
I pity any man that will marry u because u just showed the world ur tru identity

Welcum:
You seem to think we should let homos be. Why? Isn't homo clearly unnatural?

Clearly unnatural? Brother, who dictates what's natural and what's unnatural? Apparently, what you see as natural is simply a function of the norm or majority. Most people are attracted to the opposite gender so those who aren't must be unnatural. But then, what if I tell you that variety has always been part of nature? That, to me, seems to be a more logical conclusion when you consider the fact that virtually everything product of nature has exception(s) including the concept of day and night. Skin colour, height, number of days in a year, etc., nature always has variations. So instead of seeing these deviations as unnatural, I see them as parts of the grand design. Gay people aren't unnatural, they are simply the minority.

The situation of things in Africa is, however, a special case. The African man is unwelcoming to variation and changes except when forced to do so. That's why you hear people killed twins at a certain point in time cause the majority were having one child at a time and therefore any deviation was considered devilish. Hunchback, albinos, blue eyes, intersex, dwarves, etc., these are deviations that have, at some point in time, been perceived as unnatural and discriminated against in Africa. There's a very deep fear of questioning the status quo over there. Conformity is overly emphasized and nobody wants to be seen differently. This could be good in a way but in more ways than one, it has kept the continent stagnant and hostile to the minority.

In summary, what I consider unnatural is the idea that the more-than-one-billion people on earth were born straight. That's not how nature works.

germaphobe:
. i really look forward to reading your comments but how you always rush to defend women without trying to reason with that other sense that makes me think of you as great is abit not ok. from all the woman said one should know that there's another version of this story. try to read up the mans version and come back here with the best comment someone like me would expect from you.

Kriss216:
No one cares what or who you are, Venita!

Regex:
Why shouldn't I blame both parties? Why shouldn't I blame the married woman more? Is a married woman supposed to break her marital vows?

If the man refuses to use condom, then the woman should be blamed for having that sex when she could insist on "the no condom no sex". Let's first look at STDs that could kill and restrict one like HIV.

I don't understand how a woman could insist you first provide her with whatever she is willing to exchange with sex but would never insist on condom or contraceptive. Na wa oh.

RisenPhoenix1:
Your logic was clear enough, but you shifted the goal post, for the sole purpose of bringing the lover into the scene and holding him equally culpable for the crime of paternity fraud; which is entirely fallacious. The argument is not about finding the guilty party in the act of extra marital sex; obviously both are guilty there; no question. The argument is all about finding the guilty party in paternity fraud, which is the subject of this thread. The 'logic' you presented was about an entirely different crime altogether, and you deceitfully tried to portray the man as guilty of the second crime by association. Your actual 'logic' was; "he was guilty of the first crime, and the first crime led to a situation, which led to the second crime. Therefore, he must be guilty of the second crime as well". False, ma! ... and maybe if I show you why, you can have more faith in the logic behind tasteless, testosterone filled Nairaland responses.

Let me give you an analogy. I persuade you to go to a bar with me pay for lots of drinks. We both get roaring drunk; which is a natural known consequence of so many shots of expensive vodka. Afterwards, YOU choose to drive back home, subsequently get into an accident and run over a pedestrian, killing him. Now question for you: Am I also guilty of negligent manslaughter because I drank with you, and even bought you drinks?
Now reapply your logic here. The answer is...

Regex:
What do you it's only women that get pregnant hence not an equal playing ground?

Do you stand in the middle of the road so that you can blame a car for hitting you? You are very much aware if a car hit you, you'd be dead hence your need for safety. There are measures to take for this case of pregnancy in women which is called protection (condom, contraceptives and morning after pills) that are accessible to women. What stops those married women from taking those drugs?

You are making it look as if it's men responsibility for women not to get pregnant against their wish. It's a not so OK.

When it comes to sex and flaunting body parts, it becomes "It's my body" , but when it comes to the consequences, men have to take responsibility of a body that isn't his.

RisenPhoenix1:
The same old tired clichés:

"Women are soft and cuddly things and should not be held to account for their pretence and deceit. Look how cute they are and how vulnerable in front of all those big strong men who seduce and overpower them into bed and later abandon them. They are forced to protect themselves from their illicit wildcat pregnancies by deceiving their husbands. Totally not their faults, but the faults of those men who seduced them in the first place".