Thank you! Be the change people, damit. Im so burnt out on these sort of headlines/articles.

I've been all over Canada, and most folks are nice enough and what you think of when you imagine a stereotypical Canada... if you're not in a major city. The major cities are decidedly rougher. Toronto specifically was full of some of the rudest people I've ever met on earth--and a lot of them.

I dont disagree with you annoyingnerd, however that's not the argument they're making here. They're arguing that its 100% the womans right and responsibility. Subsequently, if the father has no rights or choices then why should he have any responsibility? If it was an independent decision on the part of the woman, then she should follow through with that independence when caring for the child--thats the argument they're making.

The really scary part of this? People this stupid can drive on public roads, vote... and the more I think about it the more nauseated I get.

Well, again, looking at this from a legal standpoint, she could have pushed back on him in a number of different ways to combat this... sue for child support, push back legal expenses on him for waiting until the last minute to choose 'involvement' if he knew it was his, and frankly if the knowledge was there, knowing before she did because the office contacted him, they could argue that he attempted to entrap her to push for leverage during the divorce settlement by contacting the judge and not her first. Furthermore, if he had knowledge of the child and didnt immediately establish paternity rights, not just postponing the divorce proceedings, I would tack on reckless abandonment just to screw him to the wall. Would all of this stick? Probably not, but it's going to bury him in legal fees. I digress though, the situation you outlined is kind of the exception to the rule regarding the topic.

People being stupid as fuck isnt a racial thing and this girl proved it.

The issue people contest is that if everyone involved has equal cause and made an equal choice, why arent there equal rights for both? Not taking sides, just saying you guys clarified the argument.

Texas law has much more to do with established precedent then some political agenda, you're messing this up a bit Celticrose. Generally, Texas courts prefer to wait until after the baby is born so that paternity can be addressed and the court can determine if appropriate child-related orders, such as child support, need to be included with the divorce. See code 160.204 under Texas law for Presumption of Paternity. More to the point, this law is specifically meant to PROTECT the woman and to establish financial responsibility on the fathers part. So if anything this helps your argument you just got the details twisted up a bit.

Side note, I'm not the one downvoting you Celticrose, I'm not sure why this is getting downvoted.

I mean, it takes two to tango. I could just as easily, with your logic, tell the woman to keep her legs crossed... but I digress. They have a point to an extent. I think everyone agrees that there should be some general compensation during gestation/pregnancy... but after that, again since carrying the child to term isnt the mans choice, I dont see a valid legal argument for him maintaining financial responsibility. Legally, if he has no say in the matter, period, I can understand how people dont think he should have any financial obligation. It's her body and her choice--okay cool... so if that's your argument then why is the man involved at all if he has no rights or say in the matter, yet you're saying you're owed something? I'm not saying I agree one way or the other but I am saying I get the argument.

If the idea is to sell it through certain insurance providers... its feasible on an 80/2] plan. Or if the goal is to make it so expensive that they have to switch to a different brand that's already more expensive, but still cheaper then the now 'older' medicine... this happens all the time if they want to tick up margin and look good to investors on pushing new products.

Yeah I think a separate category/league would definitely be the way to go. Any individual who was on Testosterone for most of their life will have significant advantages over female competitors who weren't. Until they make dosing and steroids legal in competitions.... this isnt cool and will unfairly ruin scholarship opportunities for some folks.

The insect/bug populations across the board are declining at extremely alarming rates and bees specifically play a huge role in maintaining a multitude of larger ecosystems that effect a lot of what's going on. It's not about planting more flowers or plants or just being slightly nicer to bees--the damage is done and there's a good chance we wont even have bees in another 30 years... so projects like this, while admittedly expensive, are insanely important.

Even if you dont like his acting he's a legit good guy and pretty nice to people. Him and his wife have helped raised, and personally donated, MILLIONS of dollars to a large number of charities. He also volunteers at Scottish Rite hospitals across the US. Dude is far from an asshole.

I would happily sign that petition.

Especially if you go corporate... most folks will only keep a positive relationship for a political advantage.

There's also legitimate monopolies on certain medications that dont have off brands (patent laws), and are sold at market rates that are, in some cases, 30,000.00% higher then the COM.

RT news aside, you should take a look at how bad it's gotten for white farmers in South Africa. It's not about white nationalism to see how violent things have gotten.

Was trying to get a 'yeeaahh' copter going and failed...