If it is your body & your choice why the he'll do I have to pay for the next 18 years?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“No force them to either have the abortion or absolve men any responsibility should they have the child.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, hateful, and ridiculous.

The state can no more 'force' a woman to have an abortion than 'force' her to have a child.

And the issue of a woman's right to privacy has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of child support enforcement and the responsibility of fathers.

 

[imawhosure]

correct---because that is exactly what a woman is doing when she has an abortion.

A man has the exact same authority that a woman does. He can refuse to use his body to carry a fetus to full term just like a woman can.

And a man's feelings are irrelevant to his obligation. His obligation isn't created by his 'consent to use sperm' or whatever other pseudo-legal gibbersh you've made up. His obligated is created by the child's right to support from both parents when born.

Your 'sperm consent' model is quite imaginary. And has zero relevance to a man's obligation to support his own children.

That is right folks, let us all say cumbaya! She has the right to end a life. She has more of a right to do it than your federal government does to John Wayne Gacy. At least he had a right to live long enough to appeal his sentence for more than 5 years; this woman wants the right to terminate a regular person in less than 3 months.

Hurray for you lady! A star is born!

 

[dilloduck]

SLYHUNTER SAID:

“No force them to either have the abortion or absolve men any responsibility should they have the child.”

This is unsurprisingly ignorant, hateful, and ridiculous.

The state can no more 'force' a woman to have an abortion than 'force' her to have a child.

And the issue of a woman's right to privacy has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of child support enforcement and the responsibility of fathers.

If you're blind and stupid I'm sure you will miss the connection.

 

[Muhammed]

"See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there."


women have the womb, thus the ultimate control via that natural 'imbalance', so to speak...

but we give them a legal choice for that control, i.e. legal abortion. How is denying men the same legal equivalent, and control over their sex life somehow a bad idea?

men don't have wombs thus the circumstances will never be 'equal'.

no one GAVE women that choice, it is a natural circumstance constitutionally protected from government intrusion in the first trimester.

once a baby is born, an entirely different legal matter arises as to the responsibility for the well being of the child.

What about the child's rights?

And men can be given a legal way out, a paper "abortion" if you will, if they don't want the kid but she does.

How is that unfair?

What about the child's rights?

 

[Skylar]

"See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there."


women have the womb, thus the ultimate control via that natural 'imbalance', so to speak...

but we give them a legal choice for that control, i.e. legal abortion. How is denying men the same legal equivalent, and control over their sex life somehow a bad idea?

men don't have wombs thus the circumstances will never be 'equal'.

no one GAVE women that choice, it is a natural circumstance constitutionally protected from government intrusion in the first trimester.

once a baby is born, an entirely different legal matter arises as to the responsibility for the well being of the child.

What about the child's rights?

And men can be given a legal way out, a paper "abortion" if you will, if they don't want the kid but she does.

How is that unfair?

What about the child's rights?

In Sly and Dill's world, there is no such thing. Alas, in the law there is. Its the fundamental folly of their entire basis of argument. They assume that the basis of their obligation to support a child is their choice to be a father. If they don't make this choice, they have no obligation.

Its the purest bullshit.

Back in reality, the basis of their obligation is the child's right to support. Every state recognizes this right. And the obligation to support one's child is one owned to the child. Not the mother or anyone else. When the child is born, the obligation begins.

 

[Slyhunter]

The child has a right to life and the mothre through abortion is taking that life away. As long as abortion is legal its only fair to giv men and opt out. It isnt fair that only women get to opt out.

 

[Skylar]

The child has a right to life and the mothre through abortion is taking that life away. As long as abortion is legal its only fair to giv men and opt out. It isnt fair that only women get to opt out.

Nope. As any child that is born has a right to support from both its parents. And there's zero reason to punish a child because you don't like abortion rights and want to throw a little tantrum about it.

Your choice to be a father means nothing in terms of your obligation to support your own kid. You're using the wrong basis of obligation.

 

[Slyhunter]

The child has a right to life and the mothre through abortion is taking that life away. As long as abortion is legal its only fair to giv men and opt out. It isnt fair that only women get to opt out.

Nope. As any child that is born has a right to support from both its parents. And there's zero reason to punish a child because you don't like abortion rights and want to throw a little tantrum about it.

Your choice to be a father means nothing in terms of your obligation to support your own kid. You're using the wrong basis of obligation.

Then the same thing should be said about the mother and she should not be permitted to abort. That way everything is equal.

 

[AntiParty]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

Grandpa Murked U, by title, are you talking about indoor smoking or seat belts or biker helmets.

Biker doesn't wear a helmet, falls, nearly dies, drives up Insurance costs for the rest of us.

Driver doesn't wear a seatbelt, crashes, nearly dies, drives up Insurance costs for the rest of us.

Those were life&death issues.

So let's step into "pregnancy".

Did you have hormones once? Those things are science and they won't go away. Because today the topic is Catholics fighting against birth control. It seems to me that birth control would stop others arguments for Abortion. I know the hormone ignorant prists that rape kids that sit on their lap aren't doing much good.

 

[AntiParty]

The Constitution put the PEOPLE in control. Not the Government. Sorry you rely on the STATE.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nope. And if you don't think that is fair, then talk to the person who came up with the division of labor on making babies. You don't want the responsibility, then get snipped or keep it in your pants. But don't pretend that how babies are born is an equal thing between men and women. It isn't and the women don't get to make you carry it half way because it's not fair. The man gets no say, and that's just too bad.

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

 

[bedowin62]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

 

[martybegan]

Or the woman can simply keep her legs crossed. Problem solved. For some reason you think women are somehow unable to control their sexuality, but men somehow can.

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist. if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

Republicans don't believe women have the right to decide what is good for their own bodies. How can you not know that?

And Democrats believe it's ok to procreate like wild animals and then kill off your offspring as a matter of convenience. How can you not know that?

 

[Skylar]

You keep saying that- but what we keep saying is that both men and women are equally responsible.

When having sex- both are equally responsible deciding whether to have sex and whether to use protection- both are equally responsible for the consequences of those decisions(pregnancy/std's)
After having sex- both are responsible for their own bodies- uniquely only the woman can get pregnant- so we either allow a woman to control her body- or we do not allow it. She is responsible for whatever decisions she makes with her body though.
After a baby is born- both are responsible for the baby.

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

 

[Skylar]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

 

[bedowin62]

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

why are you idiots so adept at saying a whole bunch of nothing?
the woman's body being the ultimate factor according to the Left; that is the same thing that should release them from any responsibility for child expenses.

bottom line; you let your body get pregnant

 

[bedowin62]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

yes loon. politics has nothing to do with it

you let your body get pregnant, period

end of discussion

 

[martybegan]

Exactly. What Marty and others are arguing for is unequal responsibility. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Or, even more laughably....that a man has control over his own body AND that of a woman. While a woman has no control over a man's body, nor her own.

Neither of these situations is 'equal'. Both are comically unequal. The former proposal overwhelmilngly encouraging abortion by dramatically reducing the resources available for raising a child. The latter making women into mere meat puppets controlled by men. Where a man has complete control over the reproduction of any woman he impregnates. While a woman lacks the ability to control even her own body.

Um, no. There's a reason that every single state, without exception, has rejected this nonsense proposal: its a stupid idea. So stupid that its idiocy transcends politics. With those on the right and the left both recognizing how awful it is. And every state legislature, democrat or republican, rejecting it.

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

 

[Skylar]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

yes loon. politics has nothing to do with it

you let your body get pregnant, period

He let his body impregnate her, loon.

end of discussion

Laughing....tell that to the legislators that have rejected your nonsense 50 of 50 times. A perfect record of hapless failure. The discussion truly is over.

And your ilk lost just as perfectly.