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

[Syriusly]

A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.


Does that about sum it up?

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

LOL......yeah- declare victory!

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I am a winner. Thanks for noticing. Now kindly **** off

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

 

[BlueGin]

A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.


Does that about sum it up?

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

Pretty much.

 

[Valerie]

funny considering equality isn't even the issue...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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

What you're missing sweety, is the entire argument, wherein Roe rejects the woman's responsibility for the child she conceived, through her own willful and wanton CHOICE; wherein she joined with a man, while being unprepared to conceive a child. Any reasoning which says that the woman can rightfully murder her child, relives a man of any responsibility for a child she failed to murder.

You want to believe that Roe relates purely to women... and you may be correct. BUT > IF < you are correct, then Roe is purely subjective, thus fails to serve justice, therefore is invalid law, ergo: does not enjoy the consent of those it seeks to govern.

Now, personally... I recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the natural law, wherein sexual intercourse is clearly designed for procreation and without regard to the entertainment value of the hormonal rush that such provides, inducing intense pleasure... the joining of a man and a woman is purely a function of procreation and given the life altering nature of such, sexual intercourse should ONLY be engaged by the female who trusts the man with whom she joins, with her life... that is what she is risking, through her consent to join with him.

Others, of the intellectually less fortunate variety, feel that sex is all about the 'hookin' up' for some fun... but, let's be honest, those people are idiots and anyone who listens to them, are fools... and vice versa of course.

 

[Skylar]

What you're missing sweety, is the entire argument, wherein Roe rejects the woman's responsibility for the child she conceived, through her own willful and wanton CHOICE; wherein she joined with a man, while being unprepared to conceive a child.

Nah, sweetie....you're missing the entire argument, wherein nothing you've posted has the slightest relevance to a man's responsibility to support his own kid.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

What you're missing sweety, is the entire argument, wherein Roe rejects the woman's responsibility for the child she conceived, through her own willful and wanton CHOICE; wherein she joined with a man, while being unprepared to conceive a child. Any reasoning which says that the woman can rightfully murder her child, relives a man of any responsibility for a child she failed to murder.

You want to believe that Roe relates purely to women... and you may be correct. BUT > IF < you are correct, then Roe is purely subjective, thus fails to serve justice, therefore is invalid law, ergo: does not enjoy the consent of those it seeks to govern.

Now, personally... I recognize, respect, defend and adhere to the natural law, wherein sexual intercourse is clearly designed for procreation and without regard to the entertainment value of the hormonal rush that such provides, inducing intense pleasure... the joining of a man and a woman is purely a function of procreation and given the life altering nature of such, sexual intercourse should ONLY be engaged by the female who trusts the man with whom she joins, with her life... that is what she is risking, through her consent to join with him.

Others, of the intellectually less fortunate variety, feel that sex is all about the 'hookin' up' for some fun... but, let's be honest, those people are idiots and anyone who listens to them, are fools... and vice versa of course.

I have a major bone to pick with this.

My days of having Intercourse for procreation are over. It is now all about the rush of the moment.
That of course has nothing to do with this thread but your interpretation of what sex is for is very rigid & 1950's

 

[Skylar]

A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.


Does that about sum it up?

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

And while you dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back, nothing you've posted is remotely relevant to the real world. As your argument doesn't work.

50 of 50 States reject it.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.


Does that about sum it up?

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

LOL......yeah- declare victory!

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I am a winner. Thanks for noticing. Now kindly **** off

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I neither killed my babies nor did I fail to support them.

You remain incapable of articulating an argument to counter my opinion

 

[imawhosure]

Grampa Murked, why are you surprised that society works this way? Women, even those that think they are all wrong, have advocacy groups everywhere. Men are still in the dark ages, and do not. Ever hear of the "war on women?" How many men do you know that hate women, lol; and yet this nonsense flies.

How do we know we have been screwed? Easy----------->about 40 years ago, the court decided that in divorce litigation, no difference or deference could be shown between the sexes when it came to child rearing. Fair enough we say!

And so, let us say if both parents are equal in child rearing, both work, and both have the same amount of remaining hours to spend with the child; and remember, the courts have stated no deference, no difference, THAT IS THE SUPPOSED LAW LADIES!

Let us create a scenario then..........man has an affair, wife catches him, man says screw you I am going with my new hottie breaking up the nuclear family. What is the % woman gets the kids? What say you 95%?

Now change a few words in the scenario. In the above example change man to woman, wife to husband, and him to her. What say you now? Yep, she still gets kids, 95%.

You see, the wink-wink, nod-nod by the courts is easily evident, and yet guys like you/us ask how all of this can be. You are dealing with lefties my friend, and regardless if it is killing babies, screwing over men in the courts, transferring wealth, or keeping African Americans on their political plantation through give aways, you aren't asking the correct question. You should be asking instead who is tired of all this leftie nonsense, and aren't you ready to throw their political leaders out of power, and in the process wipe that smug look off their faces-)

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

funny considering equality isn't even the issue...

Read the title & say that again without going....oh wait

 

[Skylar]

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.

False... and pitifully so.

In what POSSIBLE WAY, does my recognition of natural law serve me, personally?

But you don't recognize 'natural law'. You merely call your subjective personal opinion 'natural law'. And you can call your subjective personal opinion anything you'd like.

Its still your subjective personal opinion. That's where your entire argument just shatters. As your subjective personal opinion means nothing objectively. No matter what label you apply to it.

 

[Valerie]

face it guys, y'all just can't handle you're overwhelming placenta envy!

 

[Valerie]

funny considering equality isn't even the issue...

Read the title & say that again without going....oh wait

nope, it's a stupid OP, no offense... look up false dichotomy.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I have a major bone to pick with this.

My days of having Intercourse for procreation are over. It is now all about the rush of the moment.
That of course has nothing to do with this thread but your interpretation of what sex is for is very rigid & 1950's

Hey... natural law is not subject to antiquation, dad. What was right and true in 1950, was right and true in 1850, 1250, 50, -50, -1850, -1950.

If you're prepared to bear the responsibility common to intercourse... go for it. If you're sending your active seed into the womb of a female, you've got the same responsibility ya did when you 18. My guess being that was WELL prior to the addled notions of Roe.

Now, on the other hand, > IF < you're sufficiently long in the tooth and you're tapping the post menopause ass... then by all means, swing away. That's what it's there for... . Hump in good health.

 

[Skylar]

A woman can choose to not be inconvenienced for 18yrs & 9 months. But if a man voices that same opinion he is a pig or just being selfish.


Does that about sum it up?

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

LOL......yeah- declare victory!

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I am a winner. Thanks for noticing. Now kindly **** off

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I neither killed my babies nor did I fail to support them.

You remain incapable of articulating an argument to counter my opinion

Oh, your argument has already been shredded on the basis of unequal obligation and a false premise. Currently the obligation of both parents is equal. A woman can never create an unequal obligation: either they're both responsibible or neither are.

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

Nope. That's unequal obligation.

Second, you use a false premise as your basis of obligation. Your argument uses a man's feelings about being a father as his basis of obligation to support his kids. But that's not it. The right of his child to support from both parents is the basis of his obligation.

Your argument breaks twice.

 

[Skylar]

I have a major bone to pick with this.

My days of having Intercourse for procreation are over. It is now all about the rush of the moment.
That of course has nothing to do with this thread but your interpretation of what sex is for is very rigid & 1950's

Hey... natural law is not subject to antiquation, dad. What was right and true in 1950, was right and true in 1850, 1250, 50, -50, -1850, -1950.

But your subjective personal opinion certainly is. And you can call your subjective personal opinion 'natural law' or 'objective truth', or any other colorful label you wish.

Its still your subjective personal opinion.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Grampa Murked, why are you surprised that society works this way? Women, even those that think they are all wrong, have advocacy groups everywhere. Men are still in the dark ages, and do not. Ever hear of the "war on women?" How many men do you know that hate women, lol; and yet this nonsense flies.

How do we know we have been screwed? Easy----------->about 40 years ago, the court decided that in divorce litigation, no difference or deference could be shown between the sexes when it came to child rearing. Fair enough we say!

And so, let us say if both parents are equal in child rearing, both work, and both have the same amount of remaining hours to spend with the child; and remember, the courts have stated no deference, no difference, THAT IS THE SUPPOSED LAW LADIES!

Let us create a scenario then..........man has an affair, wife catches him, man says screw you I am going with my new hottie breaking up the nuclear family. What is the % woman gets the kids? What say you 95%?

Now change a few words in the scenario. In the above example change man to woman, wife to husband, and him to her. What say you now? Yep, she still gets kids, 95%.

You see, the wink-wink, nod-nod by the courts is easily evident, and yet guys like you/us ask how all of this can be. You are dealing with lefties my friend, and regardless if it is killing babies, screwing over men in the courts, transferring wealth, or keeping African Americans on their political plantation through give aways, you aren't asking the correct question. You should be asking instead who is tired of all this leftie nonsense, and aren't you ready to throw their political leaders out of power, and in the process wipe that smug look off their faces-)

Yep... It's Relativism and it's been killing cultures since there were cultures to be killed.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I win the thread.
Course I knew that when I started this thread. You lefties don't give a rats ass about equality. You just want a wedge issue that gets you votes

LOL......yeah- declare victory!

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I am a winner. Thanks for noticing. Now kindly **** off

You believe you should be able to kill babies or just not support your offspring- what a winner!

I neither killed my babies nor did I fail to support them.

You remain incapable of articulating an argument to counter my opinion

Oh, your argument has already been shredded on the basis of unequal obligation and a false premise. Currently the obligation of both parents is equal. A woman can never create an unequal obligation: either they're both responsibible or neither are.

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

Nope. That's unequal obligation.

Second, you use a false premise as your basis of obligation. Your argument uses a man's feelings about being a father as his basis of obligation to support his kids. But that's not it. The right of his child to support from both parents is the basis of his obligation.

Your argument breaks twice.

It has not lol. A couple of you have made some valid points but those in no way have invalidated mine.
Get on my level

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

False... and pitifully so.

In what POSSIBLE WAY, does my recognition of natural law serve me, personally?

You know what those beliefs are; lord knows I've explained them to you enough.

- "Sexual Intercourse comes with life altering consequences, thus such should only be considered by a woman
who is able to reasonably trust her man with her life."

How does that STATED: OBJECTIVE FACT, in ANY WAY serve my interests, over the interests of someone else, Skylar?

 

[Valerie]

face it guys, y'all just can't handle you're overwhelming placenta envy!

someone ought to make a law!!!