Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

[Skylar]

[

A man's choice or 'feelings' about being a father aren't the basis of his obligation. His child being born is. If the child exists, his obligation exists. As his obligation is to the child.

That obligation is always the same as the mother's.

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

Oh I bet he felt it when she let him inseminate her.

Doesn't matter. If his kid is born, he's obligated to support his own child.

And that's completely reasonable.

If he has the same choice as woman does------an equal choice it might be reasonable. But since women love the bogus argument that everything in their body is theirs we don't have anything like equality.

And your argument breaks in the exact same place is always does: Choice isn't the basis of his obligation. His child's right to support from its parents is the basis.

You can't get around that. Any argument you make on the premise that a man's choice is the basis of his obligation to support his own children is already dead. And that's all you have.

 

[Political Junky]

Of course Keith Ablow, like many men on the Right, feel they should have total control over a woman's body for nine months. Treat her like a brood mare.

 

[dilloduck]

That's BS. How can a man have an obligation to raise a child when he had no say so in the birth?. That's entirely the mothers choice. THINK

Simple: the kid is his. And its completely reasonable for a man to be responsible for his own child.

Whether or not a man has a 'say' is irrelevant. His 'feelings' about being a father are irrelevant. His sole basis of obligation is that is his kid was born. That's it. If the kid is born, his obligation exists.

His 'feelings' never play a part in it.

Oh I bet he felt it when she let him inseminate her.

Doesn't matter. If his kid is born, he's obligated to support his own child.

And that's completely reasonable.

If he has the same choice as woman does------an equal choice it might be reasonable. But since women love the bogus argument that everything in their body is theirs we don't have anything like equality.

And your argument breaks in the exact same place is always does: Choice isn't the basis of his obligation. His child's right to support from its parents is the basis.

You can't get around that. Any argument you make on the premise that a man's choice is the basis of his obligation to support his own children is already dead. And that's all you have.

no baby----no obligation.
You know what is reasonable ? It's reasonable for both parents to consent to have a child. When only one chooses it's a recipe for disaster.

 

[Skylar]

You know what is reasonable ? It's reasonable for both parents to consent to have a child.

When both parents are carrying that child, then it will be reasonable. But your scenario as it stands now is wildly unreasonable. As it means a man has control of his own body and that of a woman. While a woman has control of neither his body nor her own.

Nope. We're not doing that. As its completely unreasonable.

 

[dilloduck]

You know what is reasonable ? It's reasonable for both parents to consent to have a child.

When both parents are carrying that child, then it will be reasonable. But your scenario as it stands now is wildly unreasonable. As it means a man has control of his own body and that of a woman. While a woman has control of neither his body nor her own.

Nope. We're not doing that. As its completely unreasonable.

ahhh the old "it's my body" issue. Then what in the hell are you doing letting a man shoot sperm in it ? Did he give you permission to use the sperm that came from HIS body ?

I'm so sorry women were born with vaginas. Is there some kind of therapy they can go to and learn how to accept their vaginas ?

 

[Skylar]

You know what is reasonable ? It's reasonable for both parents to consent to have a child.

When both parents are carrying that child, then it will be reasonable. But your scenario as it stands now is wildly unreasonable. As it means a man has control of his own body and that of a woman. While a woman has control of neither his body nor her own.

Nope. We're not doing that. As its completely unreasonable.

ahhh the old "it's my body" issue.

Its the only relevant one. A man and woman have equal control of their own bodies. They have no control over anyone else's.

If a man wants to decide if he'll use his body to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant. But he doesn't make that decision for anyone else.

 

[dilloduck]

You know what is reasonable ? It's reasonable for both parents to consent to have a child.

When both parents are carrying that child, then it will be reasonable. But your scenario as it stands now is wildly unreasonable. As it means a man has control of his own body and that of a woman. While a woman has control of neither his body nor her own.

Nope. We're not doing that. As its completely unreasonable.

ahhh the old "it's my body" issue.

Its the only relevant one. A man and woman have equal control of their own bodies. They have no control over anyone else's.

If a man wants to decide if he'll use his body to carry a fetus to term, he should get pregnant. But he doesn't make that decision for anyone else.

but a woman has control over a mans sperm---- if she's disappointed with any outcum she only has herself to blame. If A woman wants a baby with a consenting husband there are plenty of reasonable was to go about it.

 

[Skylar]

but a woman has control over a mans sperm---- if she's disappointed with any outcum she only has herself to blame. If A woman wants a baby with a consenting husband there are plenty of reasonable was to go about it.

'Consent' is irrelevant to a father's obligation to support his child, as you well know. So his ''choice'. Or his 'feelings' about being a father. A child's right to support from its parents is the basis of obligation.

Making your entire argument moot. If a man's child is born, he's responsible for it.

 

[dilloduck]

but a woman has control over a mans sperm---- if she's disappointed with any outcum she only has herself to blame. If A woman wants a baby with a consenting husband there are plenty of reasonable was to go about it.

'Consent' is irrelevant to a father's obligation to support his child, as you well know. So his ''choice'. Or his 'feelings' about being a father. A child's right to support from its parents is the basis of obligation.

Making your entire argument moot. If a man's child is born, he's responsible for it.

It's relevant to e existence of one tho. When did the man ever consent to having his sperm to be used make a baby ? Please try to address point..

 

[Skylar]

but a woman has control over a mans sperm---- if she's disappointed with any outcum she only has herself to blame. If A woman wants a baby with a consenting husband there are plenty of reasonable was to go about it.

'Consent' is irrelevant to a father's obligation to support his child, as you well know. So his ''choice'. Or his 'feelings' about being a father. A child's right to support from its parents is the basis of obligation.

Making your entire argument moot. If a man's child is born, he's responsible for it.

It's relevant to e existence of one tho. When did the man ever consent to having his sperm to be used make a baby ? Please try to address point..

A man 'granting consent to have his sperm used to make a baby' is irrelevant to his obligation to support his own children. The child's right to support from its parents is the basis of that obligation.

You keep falling back on the same fallacy. That 'a man's choice' is the basis of his obligation'. And you keep getting it wrong. There's a reason why 50 of 50 state legislatures are on one side of this issue. And you're on the other: you've got the wrong basis of obligation. The one you imagine doesn't actually exist.

 

[dilloduck]

LMAO---"irrelevant" again. Get off your pedantic high horse and try discussing the issue as if you were human.

 

[Skylar]

LMAO---"irrelevant" again. Get off your pedantic high horse and try discussing the issue as if you were human.

When you start babbling about things that have nothing to do with a man's basis of obligation to his children, what would you suggest I call them?

The basis of a man's obligation to his children is his child's right to support from both his parents. You can't get around this.

You're stuck.

 

[dilloduck]

In your dreams. Tell you what----if a woman is so irresponsible that in spite of not wanting a baby she ends up having one anyway knowing full well that the father has clearly stated he wants no part of it, she deserves every bit of misery she suffers because of it. She's one selfish bitch.

 

[Skylar]

In your dreams.

I'm not dreaming about the laws of 50 of 50 states contradicting you and affirming my claims. That's quite real. Your imaginary basis of a man's obligation to support his kids being his 'permission to use his sperm'? That's a pseudo-legal fever dream that doesn't actually exist.

This is why you keep losing: you keep offering us fallacies. And keep ignoring the actual basis of a man's obligation: his child's right to support from its parents.

What you can't do is make us or the law ignore that basis. But hey...keep dreaming!

Tell you what----if a woman is so irresponsible that in spite of not wanting a baby she ends up having one anyway knowing full well that the father has clearly stated he wants no part of it, she deserves every bit of misery she suffers because of it. She's one selfish bitch.

You're insisting that a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers......and you're calling women selfish?

Um, wow. Just....wow.

 

[dilloduck]

at least you've gone from screaming "irrelevant" to just plain lying like a true liberal.

 

[Skylar]

at least you've gone from screaming "irrelevant" to just plain lying like a true liberal.

Laughing....at least you're no longer trying to polish that little turd of an argument of yours. Abandoning your claims and trying to make the conversation about me.

What else can you do? Your imaginary basis of obligation was just a fallacy you made up. It has nothing to do with the actual basis of obligation: a child's right to support from its parents.

 

[ShootSpeeders]

What else can you do? Your imaginary basis of obligation was just a fallacy you made up. It has nothing to do with the actual basis of obligation: a child's right to support from its parents.

But the money is paid to the ex-wife and she just keeps it for herself. So the father is still not supporting his kid. We need some oversight on child support payments.

 

[Skylar]

What else can you do? Your imaginary basis of obligation was just a fallacy you made up. It has nothing to do with the actual basis of obligation: a child's right to support from its parents.

But the money is paid to the ex-wife and she just keeps it for herself. So the father is still not supporting his kid. We need some oversight on child support payments.

That's a totally different issue. As you're not debating if a father should support a child. But insuring that the support gets to the kid.

 

[SwimExpert]

His obligation isn't to the woman. Its to the child. A mother can't 'waive' a child's right to support. Again, you guys aren't quite clear on the basis of obligation. You keep assuming its choice. You're wrong.

Its the existence of the child.

The existence of the child is 100% a choice of the mother.

 

[Skylar]

His obligation isn't to the woman. Its to the child. A mother can't 'waive' a child's right to support. Again, you guys aren't quite clear on the basis of obligation. You keep assuming its choice. You're wrong.

Its the existence of the child.

The existence of the child is 100% a choice of the mother.

Which has nothing to do with a father's obligation to support his children when they're born.

Again, your argument breaks in the same place every time: you assume that a father's choice to become a father is the basis of his obligation to care for his kids.

Nope. Its the child's right to support from both parents. That's why you fail.