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

[bedowin62]

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.

exactly why nobody outside of a marriage should be required to pay child support for a baby that isnt born yet once it is born

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

This is utterly true (and I have no idea why it is so hard for the liberals to admit this).

HOWEVER, the reality here is that those differences are biologically driven. This is not a case f equality because men and women are not equal in child bearing. That FACT is not going to change. Nothing in this arena is going to be equal nor should we try and force some idiotic idea of equality into it.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

Unless she puts it up for adoption...

 

[Clementine]

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.

But, as it is, the woman chooses whether the father will have an obligation and whether the tax payers will have an obligation. Only the woman can choose whether people will pay to raise the child in many cases. Her choice, but ultimately the responsibility gets passed on to others. Shame that better choices aren't made in advance. With so many abortions each year, it's obvious that too many are just downright irresponsible. They chose to be foolish and unprepared

 

[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. 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.

But, as it is, the woman chooses whether the father will have an obligation and whether the tax payers will have an obligation. Only the woman can choose whether people will pay to raise the child in many cases. Her choice, but ultimately the responsibility gets passed on to others. Shame that better choices aren't made in advance. With so many abortions each year, it's obvious that too many are just downright irresponsible. They chose to be foolish and unprepared

My point is that as a question of equality between the sexes, the fact that the woman has a choice over the man is inherently unfair. I do realize that my argument is theoretical in nature, due to the resulting child, and the fact that many women in this situation are with men who won't take care of those kids regardless.

 

[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.

This is utterly true (and I have no idea why it is so hard for the liberals to admit this).

HOWEVER, the reality here is that those differences are biologically driven. This is not a case f equality because men and women are not equal in child bearing. That FACT is not going to change. Nothing in this arena is going to be equal nor should we try and force some idiotic idea of equality into it.

They can't admit it because they can't admit that some things are not equal. To, me there should be some form of equality for men in this situation, however implementing it is challenging.

 

[martybegan]

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.

It's not irrelevant, you just aren't mature enough to discuss it without resorting to ignoring it.

 

[amrchaos]

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

Period

That is just a small, really insignificant, part of the reason why I argue that parents have the right to do whatever they wish to their child.

They created, they have natural rights to destroy it. Come to think about it, "natural" is not intrinsic enough.

 

[FA_Q2]

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.

This is utterly true (and I have no idea why it is so hard for the liberals to admit this).

HOWEVER, the reality here is that those differences are biologically driven. This is not a case f equality because men and women are not equal in child bearing. That FACT is not going to change. Nothing in this arena is going to be equal nor should we try and force some idiotic idea of equality into it.

They can't admit it because they can't admit that some things are not equal. To, me there should be some form of equality for men in this situation, however implementing it is challenging.

While I can agree that there *should* be some sort of equality here for the men in practice it will only lead to grater number of abortions and grater number of single parent families that have no support.

The outcome here is just not tenable.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

This is utterly true (and I have no idea why it is so hard for the liberals to admit this).

HOWEVER, the reality here is that those differences are biologically driven. This is not a case f equality because men and women are not equal in child bearing. That FACT is not going to change. Nothing in this arena is going to be equal nor should we try and force some idiotic idea of equality into it.

They can't admit it because they can't admit that some things are not equal. To, me there should be some form of equality for men in this situation, however implementing it is challenging.

While I can agree that there *should* be some sort of equality here for the men in practice it will only lead to grater number of abortions and grater number of single parent families that have no support.

The outcome here is just not tenable.

Then we'd have more people who don't know how to spell greater.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

I generally believe that if men couldn't be forced to support there kids that women would be more careful in over who they procreate with.