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

[Ravi]

Because it is not the man's body that has to carry the child. They both have a financial stake, but only she has to physically put herself at risk. The man gets no say in this because it is not his person that is on the line. If a man ever gets pregnant, then he gets a say.

So ever even consider the kids right to live??

No. I don't. No one has the right to the use of the body of another without their consent, no matter what the need. If anyone does, then everyone does.

Horseshit. Infants aren't *squatters* or parasites. They are human beings created at least in part by the one that carries them. Once they're created, the manner of their creation doesn't matter, it's our responsibility to protect them. Get over it, death cultist.

Not up to you. Its up to the woman involved and no one else. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion. But you have no more right to determine how a woman's body is to be used than I have over how your body is to be used.

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

 

[martybegan]

So ever even consider the kids right to live??

No. I don't. No one has the right to the use of the body of another without their consent, no matter what the need. If anyone does, then everyone does.

Horseshit. Infants aren't *squatters* or parasites. They are human beings created at least in part by the one that carries them. Once they're created, the manner of their creation doesn't matter, it's our responsibility to protect them. Get over it, death cultist.

Not up to you. Its up to the woman involved and no one else. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion. But you have no more right to determine how a woman's body is to be used than I have over how your body is to be used.

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

If the mother isn't able to support the kid herself without the father, and the father doesn't want the kid, she should terminate the pregnancy.

You have to remember my opposition isn't to abortion per se, but the cluster-frack of a decision Roe V Wade was. States should decide abortion policy. (That being said if, in some theoretical world abortion became illegal again, THEN forcing papa to pony up becomes acceptable. In that case you have equality of outcomes.

 

[Pop23]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

I would agree with that the moment a man ends up pregnant- then he can decide what to do with his body.

That would be equal treatment.

Until then- men and women control their own bodies- and when a baby is born- then they both have responsibility for the baby.

I have destroyed that argument with one simple point.

If a woman can walk away from an unwanted pregnancy then a man should have an equal right to do so.

You can not argue that point. You simply cant. You fuckers are always screaming about equal rights yet on this issue you falter. That is hypocrisy plain & simple

You are an idiot.

A foul mouthed, whiney, infantile idiot.

You lash out like a 12 year old boy on a playground at anyone who disagrees with you.

You just don't want men to be responsible for their actions and refuse to listen or acknowledge anything other than your sense of victimhood.

If you have a child- it is your responsiblity to take care of it.

Period.

Odd actually....

"If you have a child......"

Only one gender is allowed certainty, the other gender has no certainty.

 

[Ravi]

No. I don't. No one has the right to the use of the body of another without their consent, no matter what the need. If anyone does, then everyone does.

Horseshit. Infants aren't *squatters* or parasites. They are human beings created at least in part by the one that carries them. Once they're created, the manner of their creation doesn't matter, it's our responsibility to protect them. Get over it, death cultist.

Not up to you. Its up to the woman involved and no one else. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion. But you have no more right to determine how a woman's body is to be used than I have over how your body is to be used.

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

If the mother isn't able to support the kid herself without the father, and the father doesn't want the kid, she should terminate the pregnancy.

You have to remember my opposition isn't to abortion per se, but the cluster-frack of a decision Roe V Wade was. States should decide abortion policy. (That being said if, in some theoretical world abortion became illegal again, THEN forcing papa to pony up becomes acceptable. In that case you have equality of outcomes.

If abortion becomes illegal, then the state should pay for the kid.

But you didn't answer my question. If you have a living child, should the child be able to force the parents to pay for his or her upbringing? No matter who does or does not want the child.

 

[Coyote]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

 

[martybegan]

Horseshit. Infants aren't *squatters* or parasites. They are human beings created at least in part by the one that carries them. Once they're created, the manner of their creation doesn't matter, it's our responsibility to protect them. Get over it, death cultist.

Not up to you. Its up to the woman involved and no one else. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion. But you have no more right to determine how a woman's body is to be used than I have over how your body is to be used.

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

If the mother isn't able to support the kid herself without the father, and the father doesn't want the kid, she should terminate the pregnancy.

You have to remember my opposition isn't to abortion per se, but the cluster-frack of a decision Roe V Wade was. States should decide abortion policy. (That being said if, in some theoretical world abortion became illegal again, THEN forcing papa to pony up becomes acceptable. In that case you have equality of outcomes.

If abortion becomes illegal, then the state should pay for the kid.

But you didn't answer my question. If you have a living child, should the child be able to force the parents to pay for his or her upbringing? No matter who does or does not want the child.

I figure you get to make the choice in the first two trimesters. If you are a woman, you get to have an abortion. If you are a man, you declare you don't want the kid, thus placing the decision back on the mother. Figure the man has to make up his mind 2 weeks earlier to be fair.

That would be the cut off, so basically "no backsies" either they both want the kid and are responsible for it, or the mom goes on her own. The child only gets to force the party or parties that decided they wanted to have them.

 

[martybegan]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Or figure out reliable chemical male birth control, but to be honest I fail to see the difficulty in preventing children through even condom usage.

 

[Ravi]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

 

[Ravi]

Not up to you. Its up to the woman involved and no one else. If you don't like it, then don't have an abortion. But you have no more right to determine how a woman's body is to be used than I have over how your body is to be used.

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

If the mother isn't able to support the kid herself without the father, and the father doesn't want the kid, she should terminate the pregnancy.

You have to remember my opposition isn't to abortion per se, but the cluster-frack of a decision Roe V Wade was. States should decide abortion policy. (That being said if, in some theoretical world abortion became illegal again, THEN forcing papa to pony up becomes acceptable. In that case you have equality of outcomes.

If abortion becomes illegal, then the state should pay for the kid.

But you didn't answer my question. If you have a living child, should the child be able to force the parents to pay for his or her upbringing? No matter who does or does not want the child.

I figure you get to make the choice in the first two trimesters. If you are a woman, you get to have an abortion. If you are a man, you declare you don't want the kid, thus placing the decision back on the mother. Figure the man has to make up his mind 2 weeks earlier to be fair.

That would be the cut off, so basically "no backsies" either they both want the kid and are responsible for it, or the mom goes on her own. The child only gets to force the party or parties that decided they wanted to have them.

So that, in your opinion, makes it fair to the man. But what about fairness to the child?

 

[martybegan]

Then a woman should have no right to force a man to pay for a kid she want's to keep, and he doesn't. With great power comes great responsibility.

What about the kid? Can the kid force the father to pay?

If the mother isn't able to support the kid herself without the father, and the father doesn't want the kid, she should terminate the pregnancy.

You have to remember my opposition isn't to abortion per se, but the cluster-frack of a decision Roe V Wade was. States should decide abortion policy. (That being said if, in some theoretical world abortion became illegal again, THEN forcing papa to pony up becomes acceptable. In that case you have equality of outcomes.

If abortion becomes illegal, then the state should pay for the kid.

But you didn't answer my question. If you have a living child, should the child be able to force the parents to pay for his or her upbringing? No matter who does or does not want the child.

I figure you get to make the choice in the first two trimesters. If you are a woman, you get to have an abortion. If you are a man, you declare you don't want the kid, thus placing the decision back on the mother. Figure the man has to make up his mind 2 weeks earlier to be fair.

That would be the cut off, so basically "no backsies" either they both want the kid and are responsible for it, or the mom goes on her own. The child only gets to force the party or parties that decided they wanted to have them.

So that, in your opinion, makes it fair to the man. But what about fairness to the child?

That assumes, under my system, that the mother decides to keep the child without support from the father. In that case its on her.

 

[martybegan]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

can we also trade our higher propensity for heart disease/high blood pressure and shorter lifespans?

 

[Ravi]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

can we also trade our higher propensity for heart disease/high blood pressure and shorter lifespans?

Not sure if that is a propensity or the average male's punishment for being pigs.

 

[martybegan]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

can we also trade our higher propensity for heart disease/high blood pressure and shorter lifespans?

Not sure if that is a propensity or the average male's punishment for being pigs.

No, the punishment for that is the pain we feel when getting whack in the nuts. And not just when in anger, my Fiance is a zen master of the "while asleep attempted cuddle resulting in a knee to the crotch" maneuver.

 

[Care4all]

All this talk and these men are just forcing even MORE WOMEN to ABORT.....

BRAVO, (supposed) PRO lifers

 

[martybegan]

All this talk and these men are just forcing even MORE WOMEN to ABORT.....

BRAVO, (supposed) PRO lifers

Actually my point is that if abortion is legal, men being able to have a choice as well is only fair. If abortion is illegal, then both sides are equally to be held responsible.

While I don't like abortion in general, and would never welch on any kid I had accidentally, the fact that women have more legal options than men in the decision is unfair, and un-maintainable if we seek true gender equality.

Of course, the obvious solution is to not have unprotected sex if you aren't willing to risk a kid, but pointing out a solution that requires a bare minimum of pre-planning or modified coitus will get you branded as some sort of prude.

 

[Ravi]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

can we also trade our higher propensity for heart disease/high blood pressure and shorter lifespans?

Not sure if that is a propensity or the average male's punishment for being pigs.

No, the punishment for that is the pain we feel when getting whack in the nuts. And not just when in anger, my Fiance is a zen master of the "while asleep attempted cuddle resulting in a knee to the crotch" maneuver.

Sounds like you need a cup!

 

[martybegan]

Easy solution: put pressure on science to find ways for men to safely (or at least as safe as it is for women) carry a child to term, then transplant the fetus. Strange though...there's been no pressure to develop this.

Where can I send money?

can we also trade our higher propensity for heart disease/high blood pressure and shorter lifespans?

Not sure if that is a propensity or the average male's punishment for being pigs.

No, the punishment for that is the pain we feel when getting whack in the nuts. And not just when in anger, my Fiance is a zen master of the "while asleep attempted cuddle resulting in a knee to the crotch" maneuver.

Sounds like you need a cup!

I have actually considered it....

 

[Ravi]

Put it on your wedding gift registry. That may be a first

 

[Care4all]

All this talk and these men are just forcing even MORE WOMEN to ABORT.....

BRAVO, (supposed) PRO lifers

Actually my point is that if abortion is legal, men being able to have a choice as well is only fair. If abortion is illegal, then both sides are equally to be held responsible.

While I don't like abortion in general, and would never welch on any kid I had accidentally, the fact that women have more legal options than men in the decision is unfair, and un-maintainable if we seek true gender equality.

Of course, the obvious solution is to not have unprotected sex if you aren't willing to risk a kid, but pointing out a solution that requires a bare minimum of pre-planning or modified coitus will get you branded as some sort of prude.

They, the men had their choice at the time they had to decide to lay their seed inside the woman.........................................................

Without the seed being deposited inside of her, no matter how many times the two of them screw, there will be no baby... the man has much more control of the matter than you give them credit...

And yes, she does have an additional choice with abortion being legal, but that choice also goes to cover an additional step in the process that the man never has to face or do, her having to carry her pregnancy to term in her body, not his.

They are separate steps.

you take away men having to support their own offspring from THEIR escapades, then you take all responsibility off of the man and make him irresponsible in every case, and give him a free pass to screw all the women in the world with no consequences.

Those women willing to own up to their responsibility in this unplanned Pregnancy and carry it through to term and raise their and the father's child and not abort, should be rewarded, not penalized, if you are a pro-lifer.

So, I don't understand your and others thinking....i just don't... you claim science says this fetus is a separate human being, while you try to deny your sperm created it and should support this human being?

No seed, no baby....no matter how much the woman may want one.

 

[martybegan]

All this talk and these men are just forcing even MORE WOMEN to ABORT.....

BRAVO, (supposed) PRO lifers

Actually my point is that if abortion is legal, men being able to have a choice as well is only fair. If abortion is illegal, then both sides are equally to be held responsible.

While I don't like abortion in general, and would never welch on any kid I had accidentally, the fact that women have more legal options than men in the decision is unfair, and un-maintainable if we seek true gender equality.

Of course, the obvious solution is to not have unprotected sex if you aren't willing to risk a kid, but pointing out a solution that requires a bare minimum of pre-planning or modified coitus will get you branded as some sort of prude.

They, the men had their choice at the time they had to decide to lay their seed inside the woman.........................................................

Without the seed being deposited inside of her, no matter how many times the two of them screw, there will be no baby... the man has much more control of the matter than you give them credit...

And yes, she does have an additional choice with abortion being legal, but that choice also goes to cover an additional step in the process that the man never has to face or do, her having to carry her pregnancy to term in her body, not his.

They are separate steps.

you take away men having to support their own offspring from THEIR escapades, then you take all responsibility off of the man and make him irresponsible in every case, and give him a free pass to screw all the women in the world with no consequences.

Those women willing to own up to their responsibility in this unplanned Pregnancy and carry it through to term and raise their and the father's child and not abort, should be rewarded, not penalized, if you are a pro-lifer.

So, I don't understand your and others thinking....i just don't... you claim science says this fetus is a separate human being, while you try to deny your sperm created it and should support this human being?

No seed, no baby....no matter how much the woman may want one.

So basically men have to be held more responsible, just because they are men..... How about we turn that around and say if a woman doesn't want a kid, keep your legs closed? If you are offended by one, and OK with the other, regardless of the direction, you are a hypocrite.

I am not a pro-lifer, I am a pro-let the States decide the issue- Roe V Wade is terrible law-er.