Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to her memoir and had a better impression of her and then I read this regarding the new baby:
“When I was in ‘The Simple Life,’ I had to be in a room when a woman was giving birth and that traumatized me as well,” she told the publication. “But I want a family so bad, it’s just the physical part of doing it. I’m just so scared… childbirth and death are the two things that scare me more than anything in the world.”

She also talked a lot about wanting a girl in the memoir. Didn't come out and say they gender selected but definitely hinted at it.

And now I'm back to thinking she's too vain and selfish to have two children.

She said they have a lot of frozen eggs and embryos so she could have easily picked her preferred gender. I’m inclined to be a bit sympathetic to her after reading about her terrible experience at that boarding school.

She said they had 20 boy embryos. Wonder what is happening to them now that she got her girl? I guess she doesn’t care.

Same thing that happens to 19 of them if she had a boy, and all the sperm a man makes almost every week as the egg a woman ejects almost every month.

Wtf are you talking about? A woman “ejects” an egg?

What is happening to the frozen boy embryos that they made and are on ice now? That is completely different from an unfertilized egg being released every month and not being fertilized.

You are an idiot.

They get rid of them.

Or they have another boy. They had a boy first, then went for the girl. Pretty reasonable. We can presume they're not going to try to have 20 kids so embryos will be trashed either way. A lot of us have no problem with that.

I think they’ll have at least one more too. But if they really have 20 embryos left, then yea, they’re going to destroy the bulk of them at some point. Not sure what PP is expecting by asking what is going to happen to the leftover embryos.

Why make 20 when there’s no way to possibly use them all?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to her memoir and had a better impression of her and then I read this regarding the new baby:
“When I was in ‘The Simple Life,’ I had to be in a room when a woman was giving birth and that traumatized me as well,” she told the publication. “But I want a family so bad, it’s just the physical part of doing it. I’m just so scared… childbirth and death are the two things that scare me more than anything in the world.”

She also talked a lot about wanting a girl in the memoir. Didn't come out and say they gender selected but definitely hinted at it.

And now I'm back to thinking she's too vain and selfish to have two children.

She said they have a lot of frozen eggs and embryos so she could have easily picked her preferred gender. I’m inclined to be a bit sympathetic to her after reading about her terrible experience at that boarding school.

She said they had 20 boy embryos. Wonder what is happening to them now that she got her girl? I guess she doesn’t care.

Same thing that happens to 19 of them if she had a boy, and all the sperm a man makes almost every week as the egg a woman ejects almost every month.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Truly bizarre to cheerlead deadbeat dads while demonizing adoption. Pick a lane - do you care about the quality of life for existing kids or the rights of the adults involved to be footloose and unencumbered?

The anti-adoption poster was a different person. I’m the truly pro-choice one. In my view, an unmarried man is legally equivalent to a sperm donor if the woman decides to keep a surprise pregnancy. If you want a man to father your kids together, get a legal contract called a marriage certificate.

As for the kids, you cannot make a man love your children if he doesn’t love you. That’s sadly even true for the children of divorced parents. In this case, the unwilling sperm donor, Paris’ husband, is providing financial support. What else do you want from him? He doesn’t love her or the kid. He didn’t agree to love them at any point. That is his choice.

Everything about this is untethered from reality. You think that you can legally force a man to father kids with you if you're married? Or is the idea that you can enforce a "make him love the issue of this union" decree if you show up with a marriage contract in court? Once you're divorced, does he no longer have to be a dad or love the kids, since he's over it and the contract is null and void?

And when did your argument become about love? You can't make a woman love her child either, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why are you so determined to make accidental pregnancy some kind of "mantrap" situation when it is just about the bare minimum legal obligation to provide for the issue of your body? We can stop this back and forth because you're just in la la land trying to create an equivalence between women's right to bodily autonomy and your idea of men's god-given right to not GAF about the consequences of their actions. These things are not the same, and it doesn't make you "truly" pro choice to think that men should be able to demand abortions for someone else's uterus, so long as they're not, like, boyfriend-girlfriend or anything!

You are taking my statements and running away with them. In the case of Paris Hilton’s husband, he had an unwanted pregnancy in a casual relationship. He did not want to father the child, but financially supports her anyway.

He loves Paris and married her. They have gone to great lengths to have children together. He wants to parents these children. He loves their mother and made a decision to start a family with her.

He did not abandon the first child as he never made a decision to start a family with her mother and or to be her parent.

There is something to be said for being the legal contract of marriage. No, you cannot force anyone to love anyone. But you do gain a lot more legal rights with a marriage contract.

Furthermore, if someone agrees to be married with you, there is a far greater likelihood that he or she loves you and wants to start a family with you.

That’s all I’m saying. You seem to want to vilify this guy because he doesn’t love a child he never agreed to father. I see nothing evil in his CHOICE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Truly bizarre to cheerlead deadbeat dads while demonizing adoption. Pick a lane - do you care about the quality of life for existing kids or the rights of the adults involved to be footloose and unencumbered?

The anti-adoption poster was a different person. I’m the truly pro-choice one. In my view, an unmarried man is legally equivalent to a sperm donor if the woman decides to keep a surprise pregnancy. If you want a man to father your kids together, get a legal contract called a marriage certificate.

As for the kids, you cannot make a man love your children if he doesn’t love you. That’s sadly even true for the children of divorced parents. In this case, the unwilling sperm donor, Paris’ husband, is providing financial support. What else do you want from him? He doesn’t love her or the kid. He didn’t agree to love them at any point. That is his choice.

Everything about this is untethered from reality. You think that you can legally force a man to father kids with you if you're married? Or is the idea that you can enforce a "make him love the issue of this union" decree if you show up with a marriage contract in court? Once you're divorced, does he no longer have to be a dad or love the kids, since he's over it and the contract is null and void?

And when did your argument become about love? You can't make a woman love her child either, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why are you so determined to make accidental pregnancy some kind of "mantrap" situation when it is just about the bare minimum legal obligation to provide for the issue of your body? We can stop this back and forth because you're just in la la land trying to create an equivalence between women's right to bodily autonomy and your idea of men's god-given right to not GAF about the consequences of their actions. These things are not the same, and it doesn't make you "truly" pro choice to think that men should be able to demand abortions for someone else's uterus, so long as they're not, like, boyfriend-girlfriend or anything!

You are taking my statements and running away with them. In the case of Paris Hilton’s husband, he had an unwanted pregnancy in a casual relationship. He did not want to father the child, but financially supports her anyway.

He loves Paris and married her. They have gone to great lengths to have children together. He wants to parents these children. He loves their mother and made a decision to start a family with her.

He did not abandon the first child as he never made a decision to start a family with her mother and or to be her parent.

There is something to be said for being the legal contract of marriage. No, you cannot force anyone to love anyone. But you do gain a lot more legal rights with a marriage contract.

Furthermore, if someone agrees to be married with you, there is a far greater likelihood that he or she loves you and wants to start a family with you.

That’s all I’m saying. You seem to want to vilify this guy because he doesn’t love a child he never agreed to father. I see nothing evil in his CHOICE.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to her memoir and had a better impression of her and then I read this regarding the new baby:
“When I was in ‘The Simple Life,’ I had to be in a room when a woman was giving birth and that traumatized me as well,” she told the publication. “But I want a family so bad, it’s just the physical part of doing it. I’m just so scared… childbirth and death are the two things that scare me more than anything in the world.”

She also talked a lot about wanting a girl in the memoir. Didn't come out and say they gender selected but definitely hinted at it.

And now I'm back to thinking she's too vain and selfish to have two children.

She said they have a lot of frozen eggs and embryos so she could have easily picked her preferred gender. I’m inclined to be a bit sympathetic to her after reading about her terrible experience at that boarding school.

She said they had 20 boy embryos. Wonder what is happening to them now that she got her girl? I guess she doesn’t care.

Same thing that happens to 19 of them if she had a boy, and all the sperm a man makes almost every week as the egg a woman ejects almost every month.

Wtf are you talking about? A woman “ejects” an egg?

What is happening to the frozen boy embryos that they made and are on ice now? That is completely different from an unfertilized egg being released every month and not being fertilized.

You are an idiot.

They get rid of them.

Or they have another boy. They had a boy first, then went for the girl. Pretty reasonable. We can presume they're not going to try to have 20 kids so embryos will be trashed either way. A lot of us have no problem with that.

I think they’ll have at least one more too. But if they really have 20 embryos left, then yea, they’re going to destroy the bulk of them at some point. Not sure what PP is expecting by asking what is going to happen to the leftover embryos.

Why make 20 when there’s no way to possibly use them all?

Because they wanted to. Why do you care?

Because Republicans want to control women's bodies and this should absolutely be included. You don't get to make as many embryos as you want and then destroy the ones you don't use. You don't get a loophole because they are in a deep freezer.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Truly bizarre to cheerlead deadbeat dads while demonizing adoption. Pick a lane - do you care about the quality of life for existing kids or the rights of the adults involved to be footloose and unencumbered?

The anti-adoption poster was a different person. I’m the truly pro-choice one. In my view, an unmarried man is legally equivalent to a sperm donor if the woman decides to keep a surprise pregnancy. If you want a man to father your kids together, get a legal contract called a marriage certificate.

As for the kids, you cannot make a man love your children if he doesn’t love you. That’s sadly even true for the children of divorced parents. In this case, the unwilling sperm donor, Paris’ husband, is providing financial support. What else do you want from him? He doesn’t love her or the kid. He didn’t agree to love them at any point. That is his choice.

Everything about this is untethered from reality. You think that you can legally force a man to father kids with you if you're married? Or is the idea that you can enforce a "make him love the issue of this union" decree if you show up with a marriage contract in court? Once you're divorced, does he no longer have to be a dad or love the kids, since he's over it and the contract is null and void?

And when did your argument become about love? You can't make a woman love her child either, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Why are you so determined to make accidental pregnancy some kind of "mantrap" situation when it is just about the bare minimum legal obligation to provide for the issue of your body? We can stop this back and forth because you're just in la la land trying to create an equivalence between women's right to bodily autonomy and your idea of men's god-given right to not GAF about the consequences of their actions. These things are not the same, and it doesn't make you "truly" pro choice to think that men should be able to demand abortions for someone else's uterus, so long as they're not, like, boyfriend-girlfriend or anything!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Truly bizarre to cheerlead deadbeat dads while demonizing adoption. Pick a lane - do you care about the quality of life for existing kids or the rights of the adults involved to be footloose and unencumbered?

The anti-adoption poster was a different person. I’m the truly pro-choice one. In my view, an unmarried man is legally equivalent to a sperm donor if the woman decides to keep a surprise pregnancy. If you want a man to father your kids together, get a legal contract called a marriage certificate.

As for the kids, you cannot make a man love your children if he doesn’t love you. That’s sadly even true for the children of divorced parents. In this case, the unwilling sperm donor, Paris’ husband, is providing financial support. What else do you want from him? He doesn’t love her or the kid. He didn’t agree to love them at any point. That is his choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Right, because most pregnancies are life threatening. It sounds like you’re saying that women can only get abortion if they have a life threatening medical emergency?!?

And what about adoption? Are women not allowed to put their child up for adoption? Must they keep the child if they’ve birthed it? Or is it okay for a woman to give up custody to her newborn? I think it should be.

Why can’t an unmarried man decide that he doesn’t want to father the unborn child of a woman he had a fling with?

According to you, his choices end when he has sex, but hers continue indefinitely….why?

You're not even making sense. I literally said that both parents have the same rights, or lack of rights when the state steps in, not to be parents. I didn't say that only life-threatening pregnancies have the right to be terminated, I said that ONLY women can be pregnant, and that's why only women can get an abortion. That's why there's an *additional* right to abortion that you think it's unfair men don't get - there's an additional danger to pregnancy that men do not face. Men aren't being cheated by not being able to get an abortion any more than women are cheated out of prostate cancer awareness month.

His choices end when he has sex because then the issue is not inside of his body. Once the baby is born, the *baby* has rights. That's a separate issue from abortion. You think that men should be able to force a woman to have an abortion and then you try to frame it as a gender equality take. Get a grip.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Truly bizarre to cheerlead deadbeat dads while demonizing adoption. Pick a lane - do you care about the quality of life for existing kids or the rights of the adults involved to be footloose and unencumbered?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Right, because most pregnancies are life threatening. It sounds like you’re saying that women can only get abortion if they have a life threatening medical emergency?!?

And what about adoption? Are women not allowed to put their child up for adoption? Must they keep the child if they’ve birthed it? Or is it okay for a woman to give up custody to her newborn? I think it should be.

Why can’t an unmarried man decide that he doesn’t want to father the unborn child of a woman he had a fling with?

According to you, his choices end when he has sex, but hers continue indefinitely….why?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Adoption is not a solution.

Too many kids in orphanages and abusive homes already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.

This is a false equivalence. Both men and women have the same opportunity (or lack thereof, if the state decides to go after them for support) not to be a parent - adoption, leaving the kid at a fire station, severing parental rights legally. Abortion is an opportunity not to be pregnant, a life-threatening medical condition that men cannot experience and do not have any right to opt out of for that reason.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I just listened to her memoir and had a better impression of her and then I read this regarding the new baby:
“When I was in ‘The Simple Life,’ I had to be in a room when a woman was giving birth and that traumatized me as well,” she told the publication. “But I want a family so bad, it’s just the physical part of doing it. I’m just so scared… childbirth and death are the two things that scare me more than anything in the world.”

She also talked a lot about wanting a girl in the memoir. Didn't come out and say they gender selected but definitely hinted at it.

And now I'm back to thinking she's too vain and selfish to have two children.

She said they have a lot of frozen eggs and embryos so she could have easily picked her preferred gender. I’m inclined to be a bit sympathetic to her after reading about her terrible experience at that boarding school.

She said they had 20 boy embryos. Wonder what is happening to them now that she got her girl? I guess she doesn’t care.

Same thing that happens to 19 of them if she had a boy, and all the sperm a man makes almost every week as the egg a woman ejects almost every month.

Wtf are you talking about? A woman “ejects” an egg?

What is happening to the frozen boy embryos that they made and are on ice now? That is completely different from an unfertilized egg being released every month and not being fertilized.

You are an idiot.

They get rid of them.

Or they have another boy. They had a boy first, then went for the girl. Pretty reasonable. We can presume they're not going to try to have 20 kids so embryos will be trashed either way. A lot of us have no problem with that.

I think they’ll have at least one more too. But if they really have 20 embryos left, then yea, they’re going to destroy the bulk of them at some point. Not sure what PP is expecting by asking what is going to happen to the leftover embryos.

Why make 20 when there’s no way to possibly use them all?

They probably made way more than 20, just to blow your mind. They likely made as many embryos as she had eggs for, sent them all off for testing, and trashed the 40-60% that came back aneuploid. Because that's how IVF with testing works. Now they have a truly impressive number of embryos, some of which may be transplanted, and some of that number may ever implant, and of that number develop into a fetus, and of that number result in a live birth.

Your fantasy that every embryo created is a living child that must be protected by internet strangers is strange, and false. It would be great if a person going through IVF could say "just create two embryos, because I only want two children" but that's not how it works. If only.

- currently injecting myself with hormones nightly in the hope that some of my current follicles become mature eggs which can be whittled away through the IVF winnowing process until I hopefully, maybe, if I'm lucky, get a single kid

I also did IVF and totally disagree. They very gratuitously made 20+ embryos bc they wanted a girl. They could have just had 2+ boys. Normal ppl who want kids are not doing a gazillion cycles for gender selection. I think that's immoral. I say that as someone who is complete pro-IVF and pro-choice. It is gross behavior that give IVF a bad rap.

Unless there's some evidence that they had all boy embryos and tried again to get a girl for transfer, you're just inventing this out of whole cloth to judge them. They may, in fact, have chosen a girl from the embryos they had (which is not something I would do, but there are many things Paris Hilton does that I would not do). But I don't know of any clinic or protocol that tells you to make fewer embryos than possible, for any reason. I don't know how old she was when her eggs were collected (I'm assuming these were from a collection at a younger age), but they have to be thawed and mixed with his forty-something sperm to get to the next stage, and there's no reason to believe they created a bunch for any goal other than to have the best chance of success.

I didn't make it up

She's openly admitted it: https://people.com/parents/paris-hilton-20-boy-embryos-frozen-still-trying-for-girl/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Surprise! Paris have a baby girl now, London. I had a feeling it would be quick after their first, considering she is already 42. I wonder if there will be a third, or is her family complete now?

I meant to say Paris and Carter have a baby girl now.

Carter already has a baby girl.

She’s not a baby and Carter isn’t part of her life. Now he has a baby girl.

He didn’t abandon anyone. He got someone pregnant. It wasn’t a serious relationship. If he’d had a choice, he would have had an abortion. The mom didn’t want one and decided to go and have the baby anyway. He provides her with financial support.

It’s not fair to force a man to be a father if it wasn’t his choice to be one anymore than it’s fair to force a woman to have an unwanted pregnancy.

Np no one forced him to have sex with the woman.

I’m so confused by this mentality. Would you only allow a woman to have an abortion if she were raped? Or do you think it’s okay for a woman to have a good time, make a mistake, get pregnant and then have an abortion to fix her mistake? I’m fully pro-choice, so I go with the latter.

But I’m not sexist and apply the same logic for men. I can see a man having a good time, making a mistake, getting a woman pregnant and then telling her that he’d prefer for her to have an abortion because he doesn’t want to be a father. I see nothing wrong with him choosing not to participate in the child’s life, if the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy and have the child despite his wishes. In this case, he’s providing financial support which is more than enough for a man who point blank said he didn’t want the pregnancy.

Why should he or she suffer more for the same mistake they made together? The woman gets the ultimate choice in deciding whether or not to keep the pregnancy, but a man should get the choice of deciding whether he wants to be a father to a child he didn’t want with a woman he wasn’t married to. He shouldn’t be obligated to father this child anymore than she should be obligated to keep the pregnancy.