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

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Youre not arguing for responsibility Skylar.

Of course I am.

No... you're not.

To argue for such, you must reacognize the child's right to its life and the responsibility for that life which is incumbant upon those who join together, in conceiving that child.

You can't reject the child's right to its life, based upon a woman's means to escape responsibility for that life, by murdering that child, because its inconvenient, then demand that the male has responsibility IF the woman chooses not to murder his child.

Yoou can try, but that's invalid subjective reasoning and it fails everytime it comes up against valid, objective reasoning and this without exception.

 

[Skylar]

and people are saying that maybe that law should be revisited and on what grounds they should be revisited on. step up and get with the program

Not enough of them to be relevant to the actual law. As the idea is wildly unreasonable and robs children of support they desperately need and have a right to. Regardless of politics, from the bluest of blue states to the reddest of red........your proposals are universally laughed out of the state buildings.

50 of 50 times. Its not a coincidence. Its that your ideas are quite awful.

 

[Skylar]

Youre not arguing for responsibility Skylar.

Of course I am.

No... you're not.

Obviously, I am. A father is responsible for any of his kids that are born.

And you've already conceded the point.

 

[dilloduck]

hey--look how long it took women to legally kill babies. Nice try at framing me for a lunatic but you know damn well how strong the pro life movement is.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

You can swallow whatever you'd like. Any kid of yours born still has a right to support from both parents.

continue to beg the question instead of answering it. Shouting "irrelevant" is the only hope you got.

Oh, I'm not begging the question. I'm citing the actual legal basis of a father's obligation to support his children:....

What you're doing is rationalizuing that because a law exist, the law is valid. Which is not true.

The only time that law is valid, thus worthy of consent, is where the law is objective; meaning that the law serves justice, by serving the interest of everyone.

Roe was inherenly subjective, thus all law stemming from it fails justice... thus no one is obligated to respect the law... therefore, the culture in which such law is set decays, suffering the unenviable consequences of fatally flawed reasoning.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The addled reasoning under Roe, removed all sense of responsibility for conception.

Such is a product of the mental disorder that presents with sexual deviancy, left-think and every othher facet of the evil OKA: Relativism.

That you're incapable of recognizing that obvious truth, merely iforms the board that you are also saddled with that same cognitive deficiency.

And in all the random ad hominem nonsense, you still never actually addressed the topic of discussion: a man's responsibility to support his own child.

Try again.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

What you're describing there is subjectivism... the fundamental basis of Relativism. Its the reasoning used to perpetuate evil for last 20,000.

 

[Skylar]

The only time that law is valid, thus worthy of consent, is where the law is objective; meaning that the law serves justice, by serving the interest of everyone.

Roe was inherenly subjective, thus all law stemming from it fails justice... thus no one is obligated to respect the law... therefore, the culture in which such law is set decays, suffering the unenviable consequences of fatally flawed reasoning.

Roe isn't the basis of a man's obligation to support his own children.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

And in all the random ad hominem nonsense, you still never actually addressed the topic of discussion: a man's responsibility to support his own child.

Try again.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

What you're describing there is subjectivism... the fundamental basis of Relativism. Its the reasoning used to perpetuate evil for last 20,000.

In comparison to what? Your baseless assumptions that any subjective opinion you have is 'objective truth'? Subjective is not objective, Keyes. And your belief that you are the universal arbiter of all truth doesn't actually make it so. You have a subjective opinion based on your own society, culture, history and personal context. .

Killing your entire basis of argument. As you are a subjective relativist.

 

[dilloduck]

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

What you're describing there is subjectivism... the fundamental basis of Relativism. Its the reasoning used to perpetuate evil for last 20,000.

In comparison to what? Your baseless assumptions that any subjective opinion you have is 'objective truth'? Subjective is not objective, Keyes. And your belief that you are the universal arbiter of all truth doesn't actually make it so. You have a subjective opinion based on your own society, culture, history and personal context. .

Killing your entire basis of argument. As you are a subjective relativist.

and you are a sophist.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The only time that law is valid, thus worthy of consent, is where the law is objective; meaning that the law serves justice, by serving the interest of everyone.

Roe was inherenly subjective, thus all law stemming from it fails justice... thus no one is obligated to respect the law... therefore, the culture in which such law is set decays, suffering the unenviable consequences of fatally flawed reasoning.

Roe isn't the basis of a man's obligation to support his own children.

Try again.

No one said it was Skylar. Natural Law is the basis for a man's obligation to support his own children. That's the same law that says the woman is the one that bears children, thus bears the full brunt of the consequences for sex, which is conception, which comes with the mnd bending responsibilites to raise a child, which is why sex is NOT DESIGNED FOR YOUR ENTERTANMENT and is to be treated as seriously as the connsequences for such DEMAND.

What ROE is... Skylar, is the LIE which said that women can escape the mind bending responsibility intrinsic in their gender and the sex they're designed to give... ONLY to the MAN she trust to care for her and her children... by taking responsibility for them, through Marriage.

Now the ass beating you're taking here, is because youre pushing a foolish line of reasoning.

But this foolishness that you're pushing here, makes your feelings on Marriage; as it relates to people of the same gender, look like PROFOUND GENIUS.

 

[Skylar]

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

What you're describing there is subjectivism... the fundamental basis of Relativism. Its the reasoning used to perpetuate evil for last 20,000.

In comparison to what? Your baseless assumptions that any subjective opinion you have is 'objective truth'? Subjective is not objective, Keyes. And your belief that you are the universal arbiter of all truth doesn't actually make it so. You have a subjective opinion based on your own society, culture, history and personal context. .

Killing your entire basis of argument. As you are a subjective relativist.

and you are a sophist.

I'm a realist: subjective is not objective. If you were to insist that your subjective personal beliefs were objective truth and natural law.....that means nothing objectively. Its still just your subjective personal beliefs. You can label them anyway you want. They're still your subjective personal beliefs.

Keyes offers his subjective personal beliefs as 'objective truth'. They're still his subjective personal beliefs.

And since subjectivism is what Keyes is condemning, and he is a subjectivist, his entire basis of argument is moot. As its subjectivism v. subjectivism. That's not 'sophism'. That's plain old reason and logic. Though give your 'consent to use sperm' nonsense, I can see why you might not be able to tell the difference.

 

[Skylar]

Roe isn't the basis of a man's obligation to support his own children.

Try again.

No one said it was Skylar.

Then your babble about Roe is irrelevant to our discussion, as it has nothing to do with a man's basis of the obligation to support for his own children.

When you're ready to join the discussion, feel free. But what you're posting has nothing to do with it.

 

[strollingbones]

Why the he will?

I disagree. Man up and pay support and raise your kids, deadbeat daddies of America.

Auto correct

Anyhow this has nothing to do with deadbeat dads. This is about fairplay between men & women.

If a woman can kill the child the man should have the option to walk away as well.

another man who cannot take responsibility for his sperm? child support is for the child simple as that....
there is nothing fair about letting a child go without cause you are some dick who cannot control his sperm

fairplay between men and women....let me type real slow...keep your sperm and you do not have to worry about so called 'fair play' ...which you seem to consider you being able to spread your sperm without regard to the consequences.....man up and take responsibly for your sperm

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Period

So you just made an argument against abortion by being against assistance?

CONvoluted thinking at it's finest.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

 

[Skylar]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

In the 'hypothetical' of a man insisting he should never be responsible for any child he fathers, that's been debunked rationally, logically and legally.

Ignore as you wish. Its not like reality is going to change just because you close your eyes.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

In the 'hypothetical' of a man insisting he should never be responsible for any child he fathers, that's been debunked rationally, logically and legally.

Ignore as you wish. Its not like reality is going to change just because you close your eyes.

I never said never. You've debunked NOTHING. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a man to have the choice, PRIOR to birth, to not be a father. Just like the mother now has that same choice independent of what the man thinks.

Get a grip.

 

[Skylar]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

In the 'hypothetical' of a man insisting he should never be responsible for any child he fathers, that's been debunked rationally, logically and legally.

Ignore as you wish. Its not like reality is going to change just because you close your eyes.

I never said never. You've debunked NOTHING. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a man to have the choice, PRIOR to birth, to not be a father.

Wow, a triple negative. When unraveled......you believe a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers. Which is exactly what I said.

And that claim has been debunked repeatedly. It creates unequal obligation and is based on a false premise.

First, the unequal obligation. Currently the obligation to support a child is always equal between parents. If a woman aborts, neither have an obligation. If she carries to term, both do. Their obligations are always the same.

You're demanding that a woman be held responsible for every child she bears. But a man never be responsible for any child he fathers. That's unequal obligation. And fails a test of basic equality.

Second, you are working under the assumption that a man's choice or feelings about being a father is the basis of his obligation. It isn't. The child's right to support is the basis of his obligation. If he wants to be a father, if he doesn't, the obligation exists if the child exists. And the child can't abdicate that right.

A father supporting his own children is completely reasonable. And 50 of 50 States agree. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue, every state rejects the 'father's feeling define obligation' standard. While all embrace the right of a child to receive support from both its parents.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

In the 'hypothetical' of a man insisting he should never be responsible for any child he fathers, that's been debunked rationally, logically and legally.

Ignore as you wish. Its not like reality is going to change just because you close your eyes.

I never said never. You've debunked NOTHING. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a man to have the choice, PRIOR to birth, to not be a father.

Wow, a triple negative. When unraveled......you believe a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers. Which is exactly what I said.

And that claim has been debunked repeatedly. It creates unequal obligation and is based on a false premise.

First, the unequal obligation. Currently the obligation to support a child is always equal between parents. If a woman aborts, neither have an obligation. If she carries to term, both do. Their obligations are always the same.

You're demanding that a woman be held responsible for every child she bears. But a man never be responsible for any child he fathers. That's unequal obligation. And fails a test of basic equality.

Second, you are working under the assumption that a man's choice or feelings about being a father is the basis of his obligation. It isn't. The child's right to support is the basis of his obligation. If he wants to be a father, if he doesn't, the obligation exists if the child exists. And the child can't abdicate that right.

A father supporting his own children is completely reasonable. And 50 of 50 States agree. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue, every state rejects the 'father's feeling define obligation' standard. While all embrace the right of a child to receive support from both its parents.

Disgusting that so many men refuse to be responsible for their own actions and, they get away with it.

Even worse is that single mothers, true cultural heroines, are punished for taking the responsibility of both parents.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

How can it be that so many posters are so stupid that they think this thread is about me?
It really is laughable that so many of you can't articulate a response to my HYPOTHETICAL situation without resorting to making it personal.
Let me be clear. My kids are grown. I raised my kids. My days of having children are over. This thread is not about my choices. Try not to be so ignorant with your responses

In the 'hypothetical' of a man insisting he should never be responsible for any child he fathers, that's been debunked rationally, logically and legally.

Ignore as you wish. Its not like reality is going to change just because you close your eyes.

I never said never. You've debunked NOTHING. I do not believe that it is unreasonable for a man to have the choice, PRIOR to birth, to not be a father.

Wow, a triple negative. When unraveled......you believe a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers. Which is exactly what I said.

And that claim has been debunked repeatedly. It creates unequal obligation and is based on a false premise.

First, the unequal obligation. Currently the obligation to support a child is always equal between parents. If a woman aborts, neither have an obligation. If she carries to term, both do. Their obligations are always the same.

You're demanding that a woman be held responsible for every child she bears. But a man never be responsible for any child he fathers. That's unequal obligation. And fails a test of basic equality.

Second, you are working under the assumption that a man's choice or feelings about being a father is the basis of his obligation. It isn't. The child's right to support is the basis of his obligation. If he wants to be a father, if he doesn't, the obligation exists if the child exists. And the child can't abdicate that right.

A father supporting his own children is completely reasonable. And 50 of 50 States agree. From the reddest of the red, to the bluest of the blue, every state rejects the 'father's feeling define obligation' standard. While all embrace the right of a child to receive support from both its parents.

Disgusting that so many men refuse to be responsible for their own actions and, they get away with it.

Even worse is that single mothers, true cultural heroines, are punished for taking the responsibility of both parents.

You are a full blown idiot