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

[Skylar]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

 

[martybegan]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

So what your saying is men have to be more responsible for all of this then women do, because why? Are you really going to go down the "fairer/weaker" sex line of logic?

 

[martybegan]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

But only one gets the choice, and that is inherently unfair.

So you really don't want an equal society, or more accurately you want one where "some animals are more equal than others"

 

[bedowin62]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

again why? the woman chose to leave her body unprotected from baby-producing sperm. men dont say "my body my choice". why should they only be responsible when and if the mother decides not to kill it by abortion?

 

[martybegan]

Yes there is, she carries the baby to term, and he takes it over.

She's still responsible for every child she bears. Just as a man is responsible for every child he fathers. Their obligations are always equal. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Your demand for unequal obligation has been rejected every time its been proposed. And well it should have been.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Just say you don't support equality, that you think women are fragile little birds that need big old government to come to their rescue for their own choices.

 

[Skylar]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

But only one gets the choice, and that is inherently unfair.

They both get to choose the use of their own body, which inherently fair. If a man wants to decide not to carry a child to term within his body, he's as free to make that choice as a woman.

So you really don't want an equal society, or more accurately you want one where "some animals are more equal than others"

Holding a woman responsible for every child she bears but never holding a father responsible for any child he fathers isn't 'equality'.

But inequality that hurts kids. As I said, your entire argument is useless nonsense that has been rejected by every state legislature, without exception.

As it should be.

 

[Skylar]

She's still responsible for every child she bears. Just as a man is responsible for every child he fathers. Their obligations are always equal. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Your demand for unequal obligation has been rejected every time its been proposed. And well it should have been.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

 

[bodecea]

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

I don't understand why keeping those pants zipped is such a hard alternative for them.

 

[Skylar]

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

I don't understand why keeping those pants zipped is such a hard alternative for them.

Because it involves personal responsibility. And in the 'party of personal responsibility', its always someone else's fault.

 

[martybegan]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

But only one gets the choice, and that is inherently unfair.

They both get to choose the use of their own body, which inherently fair. If a man wants to decide not to carry a child to term within his body, he's as free to make that choice as a woman.

So you really don't want an equal society, or more accurately you want one where "some animals are more equal than others"

Holding a woman responsible for every child she bears but never holding a father responsible for any child he fathers isn't 'equality'.

But inequality that hurts kids. As I said, your entire argument is useless nonsense that has been rejected by every state legislature, without exception.

As it should be.

She doesn't have to bear it, she is given the information that the father doesn't want a kid, and then she gets to decide: Abort, or keep it and raise it herself.

 

[martybegan]

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

I don't understand why keeping those pants zipped is such a hard alternative for them.

I don't understand why keeping their legs crossed is such a hard alternative for them.

 

[Care4all]

Plus, in both cases, the woman has the health risks.... in pregnancy, with high blood pressure risks, ectopic pregnancies, and many other bad things that can happen to her and her body.... same with abortion...things can go wrong, she can be cut, or not properly vacuumed and hemorrhage...bleed to death.... when I worked in the blood bank, we had an abortion patient at the hospital that took 60 units of blood, what went in her, went right out of her....they finally had to give her a hysterectomy, to stop the hemorrhaging... or scarring with built up scar tissue in the uterus can happen, where she may never be able to develop another pregnancy in her womb....because her fertilized eggs won't attach....

YOU CAN'T be the decision maker on whether to carry or not carry a pregnancy, because you can't get pregnant....you can get someone pregnant, but you can't get pregnant yourself....

now maybe that part is what you are deeming UNFAIR....that your body can't get pregnant....? I know women who would agree with that....

regardless, there is nothing unfair or unequal about the pregnant woman making the final choice on pregnancy....only SHE is involved in that part...your body has nothing to do with it, thus, not your decision to make for someone else.

 

[Skylar]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

And that's just it. The obligation is always equal. Either both parents are obligated. Or neither are.

But only one gets the choice, and that is inherently unfair.

They both get to choose the use of their own body, which inherently fair. If a man wants to decide not to carry a child to term within his body, he's as free to make that choice as a woman.

So you really don't want an equal society, or more accurately you want one where "some animals are more equal than others"

Holding a woman responsible for every child she bears but never holding a father responsible for any child he fathers isn't 'equality'.

But inequality that hurts kids. As I said, your entire argument is useless nonsense that has been rejected by every state legislature, without exception.

As it should be.

She doesn't have to bear it, she is given the information that the father doesn't want a kid, and then she gets to decide: Abort, or keep it and raise it herself.

And if she doesn't bear it, the man is absolved of his obligation as well. There's never a situation where they have unequal obligation.

You demand unequal obligation as part of your 'equal society'. Which obviously isn't equal.And of course hurts kids as part of the ludicrous bargain.

We're simply not implementing any of that simple nonsense. Get used to the idea.

 

[martybegan]

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

How is he controlling her body? She gets to make an informed decision, and still has the total control of keeping or getting rid of the pregnancy.

What you want is for women to have consequence free sex, but not men. It's that simple.

 

[Skylar]

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

I don't understand why keeping those pants zipped is such a hard alternative for them.

I don't understand why keeping their legs crossed is such a hard alternative for them.

They're responsible for every child they bear. Just like a father is responsible for any child he fathers. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

[Skylar]

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

How is he controlling her body? She gets to make an informed decision, and still has the total control of keeping or getting rid of the pregnancy.

What you want is for women to have consequence free sex, but not men. It's that simple.

What I want is for women to control the use of their own body. And for the obligation for support of any child to apply to both parents equally.

You're demanding that a woman is always responsible for every child she bears but a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. We're not doing that. Its blatantly unequal, unfair, and punishes children. Rendering it both harmful as well as deeply foolish.

 

[martybegan]

Plus, in both cases, the woman has the health risks.... in pregnancy, with high blood pressure risks, ectopic pregnancies, and many other bad things that can happen to her and her body.... same with abortion...things can go wrong, she can be cut, or not properly vacuumed and hemorrhage...bleed to death.... when I worked in the blood bank, we had an abortion patient at the hospital that took 60 units of blood, what went in her, went right out of her....they finally had to give her a hysterectomy, to stop the hemorrhaging... or scarring with built up scar tissue in the uterus can happen, where she may never be able to develop another pregnancy in her womb....because her fertilized eggs won't attach....

YOU CAN'T be the decision maker on whether to carry or not carry a pregnancy, because you can't get pregnant....you can get someone pregnant, but you can't get pregnant yourself....

now maybe that part is what you are deeming UNFAIR....that your body can't get pregnant....? I know women who would agree with that....

regardless, there is nothing unfair or unequal about the pregnant woman making the final choice on pregnancy....only SHE is involved in that part...your body has nothing to do with it, thus, not your decision to make for someone else.

This is not about her not being able to make a choice on the pregnancy, this is about the man being able to say "i don't want the kid" in enough time for the woman to still have a choice to have the kid or not. With that information, she would be able to "control her own body", but not be able to control the wallet of the man in question, using government force.

Assumptions have to be made for my scenarios to work.

1. The sex is consensual
2. The woman tells the man about the resulting pregnancy
3. The man indicates, within a time frame that allows the woman to decide on an abortion, that he does not want a kid
4. The woman gets to decide, abortion, or have the kid on her own.
5. A most the guy pays for the abortion, (1/2 if they both agree to it, all of it if she decides not to have the kid because of his choice). Any complications should be paid for based on the formula above.

 

[martybegan]

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

How is he controlling her body? She gets to make an informed decision, and still has the total control of keeping or getting rid of the pregnancy.

What you want is for women to have consequence free sex, but not men. It's that simple.

What I want is for women to control the use of their own body. And for the obligation for support of any child to apply to both parents equally.

You're demanding that a woman is always responsible for every child she bears but a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. We're not doing that. Its blatantly unequal, unfair, and punishes children. Rendering it both harmful as well as deeply foolish.

If she can't support the kid, on her own, after being told he doesn't want it, then should should make a CHOICE. Or as others have said about men, the female equivalent of "keep it in your pants"

What you want is your cake, and to eat it too.

 

[Skylar]

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.

before sex both have a choice, have sex, or don't have sex. after only one has the choice, and if you support an equal society that is inherently unequal.

Your concept of an 'equal society' either grants a man control of his body AND control of a womans. While a woman in control of neither a man's body nor her own. Or holds that a woman is responsible for every child she bears, while a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not an equal society. But an unequal one.

Which is why we rejected it perfectly. Every single legislature. Every single time.

How is he controlling her body? She gets to make an informed decision, and still has the total control of keeping or getting rid of the pregnancy.

What you want is for women to have consequence free sex, but not men. It's that simple.

What I want is for women to control the use of their own body. And for the obligation for support of any child to apply to both parents equally.

You're demanding that a woman is always responsible for every child she bears but a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. We're not doing that. Its blatantly unequal, unfair, and punishes children. Rendering it both harmful as well as deeply foolish.

If she can't support the kid, on her own, after being told he doesn't want it, then should should make a CHOICE.

False Choice fallacy. As she doesn't have to support the kid on her own. A father is equally responsible. You're spouting illogical and pseudo-legal gibberish, holding her to standards that don't exist nor should.

Rendering your entire argument meaningless and gloriously irrelevant.

 

[Londoner]

States have been slashing welfare on child services to make room for the subsidies and tax breaks they must provide to keep businesses. In practice, this means businesses are offering to provide low wage jobs in exchanges for not having to pay for the advanced infrastructure upon which their profit depends. So you don't have to worry, because if present trends continue, child services will be eliminated altogether. And some day you won't have to pay for public education because our big corporations don't need an educated workforce: they'd rather outsource to criminally cheap labor markets in Communist China (the best friend capitalism ever had, ironically).