Yes… anyone can observe it. ? You’re a trip, dude.I haven't avoided a single question you've asked, and you know it. Anyone can observe it. You're just outright making this shit up, instead of ending the debate cordially.
How do you mean? The father, if he's even known, gets so say legally as I understand it. Other than that, I'm not sure what specifically you're asking.@Mirage, what is the father’s play in all this?
Well, if the women have to sacrifice autonomy over their body, giving partial control to society (their neighbors, etc.) what are the men required to sacrifice? Or do they have no play in this? It’s all on the women?How do you mean? The father, if he's even known, gets so say legally as I understand it. Other than that, I'm not sure what specifically you're asking.
A great turn-of-the-century American thinker said this regarding the man’s minimum obligation:Well, if the women have to sacrifice autonomy over their body, giving partial control to society (their neighbors, etc.) what are the men required to sacrifice? Or do they have no play in this? It’s all on the women?
Ah yes. Truly a genius and the voice of a generation.A great turn-of-the-century American thinker said this regarding the man’s minimum obligation:
“18 years, 18 years
She got one of yo' kids, got you for 18 years
I know somebody payin' child support for one of his kids
His baby momma car and crib is bigger than his
You will see him on TV any given Sunday
Win the Super Bowl and drive off in a Hyundai.”
The men are required to pay child support if the woman keeps the child, as well as help with the medical expenses. He should also be there to support her in other ways, but society can't enforce that.Well, if the women have to sacrifice autonomy over their body, giving partial control to society (their neighbors, etc.) what are the men required to sacrifice? Or do they have no play in this? It’s all on the women?
I'm not a lawyer, but I imagine it would be in the power of the Secretary to establish some sort of reimbursement for impacts to firearm ownership caused by PCS. Probably not a policy the current administration would be interested in, but you can ask. Personally, as an officer, I'd probably find such a policy to be just another added-on to a long list of relatively niche things we do to minimize the impacts of PCS that don't impact my life.Can I now ask the DoD to fund my travel to Florida so I can fully exercise my 2A rights?
Obviously not the same as the abortion debate. The comments about servicemembers being restricted in rights based upon where they are stationed made me think about what other situations could apply.
Short answer: there are definitely means to make it more fair, and that would be in the child’s interest.What else are you arguing they should have to do? Or are you just saying that it's unfair that mother nature dealt women that hand, and if I can't think of a way to make the man suffer as much as the woman then that somehow justifies the woman ending another person's life prematurely?
I’m only half tuned into this conversation, but, have any stars been pinned on shoulders since this debate started? If not, how is the U.S. military functioning without all those missing flag officers? ?
I know of one MPRA O7 select who is still waiting . . .While the question is in jest I believe that the hold is only for O-9 & O-10's since each one of those appointments, promotions and retirements has to be individually approved unlike for most O-7's & O-8's, though I could be mistaken. As for it impacting readiness, it certainly is though your average soldier or sailor may not see it.
I know of one MPRA O7 select who is still waiting . . .