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

[Syriusly]

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.

Get on my level

Why would any of us want to wallow in the mud with you?

 

[Slyhunter]

If the woman has a right to walk away from her responsibility then so should the man.

No woman does.

A woman has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- but when a baby is born- she has no right to walk away from her responsibility.

Do you think the man should be able to force her to have an abortion if he doesn't want to be responsible?

If the man is willing to pay for the abortion and the woman wants to have the baby he should be free of all responsibilities for the baby.

 

[rdean]

What is it about Republicans that makes them so selfish?

 

[Slyhunter]

What is it about Republicans that makes them so selfish?

What is it about Republicans that makes you think they're selfish?

 

[Billy000]

The woman has the right to abort if she chooses...

There is no potential to take innocent human life. Unless one recognizes that ones own innocent life can rightfully be taken.

Now if I've 20 years of debating the Cult of Choicehaving literally queried thousands of people who claim a right to murder their pre-born child... Not one has ever recognized the right in another to take their innocent life.

But maybe you're an exception... Billy do you believe that another person is rightfully entitled to take your own innocent life?

In the first trimester, they are not innocent. They are barely anything.

 

[Skylar]

If the woman has a right to walk away from her responsibility then so should the man.

No woman does.

A woman has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- but when a baby is born- she has no right to walk away from her responsibility.

Do you think the man should be able to force her to have an abortion if he doesn't want to be responsible?

If the man is willing to pay for the abortion and the woman wants to have the baby he should be free of all responsibilities for the baby.

Nope. The child has a right to support from both parents. Whether or not a man 'wants' to be a father is gloriously irrelevant. He is one. The child's right still remains. And it utterly outweights a man's feelings.

 

[Skylar]

correct---because that is exactly what a woman is doing when she has an abortion.

A man has the exact same authority that a woman does. He can refuse to use his body to carry a fetus to full term just like a woman can.

And a man's feelings are irrelevant to his obligation. His obligation isn't created by his 'consent to use sperm' or whatever other pseudo-legal gibbersh you've made up. His obligated is created by the child's right to support from both parents when born.

Your 'sperm consent' model is quite imaginary. And has zero relevance to a man's obligation to support his own children.

 

[Skylar]

The matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.

Exactly. Every single argument that man should be able to abdicate his responsibilities to his own children is based on the same imaginary pseudo-legal nonsense: That a man's obligation is created by his desire to be a father.

Nope.

Its created by a chid's right to support from both its parents. Whether or not a man wants to be a father has no bearing nor plays any role in a child's right to support from both parents. Invalidating any argument prefaced on the blithering nonsense that a man's choice defines his obligation.

 

[Skylar]

The matter isn't about what's fair for the couple. The matter is the child. If a child is born, the father has an obligation to raise him/her. It's not about an obligation to the mother which is what you are suggesting.

Lol

Are you seriously going there? I can only assume that based on the rest of the stupidity you display on this board that you are pro choice. How exactly is pro choice about the child? Or are you just being a fraud like all your brethren

The woman has the right to abort if she chooses early on. It's her body. I am not in favor of late term abortions however. If she carries the child to term, the father is obligated to take care of the child.

I'm curious. If you are so pro life, then why do you think the father has the right not to care for the life of the child?

Equal treatment under the law. Your side bitches about it to no end. I'm simply demanding it for men too

They do have equal treatment. Both have the same obligation, always. EIther they're both obligated, or neither are. A child has a right to support from both parents equally.

Each has control over their own body. A man can refuse to allow his body to be used to carry a fetus to full term just like a woman can.

What you're demanding is wildly UNequal treatment. Where a man controls his own body AND his controls a woman's. While a woman controls neither his body nor her own.

Nope. That's unequal treatment under the law. Both have control over their own bodies, possessing the same authority over themselves.

Worse, you're insisting that a mother always be responsible for every child she bears, but a father should never be held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. That's unequal treatment under the law. Both are subject to the same obligations, as the child has a right to support from both parents equally.

 

[Skylar]

UH

So tell us again how you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.

Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)

And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

Yes this exactly.

If a woman can get pregnant by ******* me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY ******* STREET

Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope.

And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.

Nope.

The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.

Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.

Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?

Of course it shouldn't be changed. What you're demanding deprives a child of half of its support. A child's right to support vastly outweighs a man's right to to choose if he wants to be a dad AFTER he's fathered a child. A man has means of earning additional resources. A child doesn't.

A man being responsible to support his own child is reasonable.

Worse, you're demanding wildly unequal obligation and control. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculously unequal. If you're going to whine about 'fairness', your argument fails right there.

'Fairness' breaks again as he doesn't have to go through the trials, pain, tribulations, and danger of carrying and giving birth to a child. While a woman does. That's not fair. But you give it no thought.

Your argument fails the 'reasonable' test over and over and over again. It fails the fairness test over again as well. THere's a reason why 50 of 50 States are on one side of this issue. And you're on the other:

Your proposal sucks.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

UH

you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.

Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)

And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

Yes this exactly.

If a woman can get pregnant by ******* me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY ******* STREET

Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope.

And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.

Nope.

The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.

Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.

Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?

Of course it shouldn't be changed. What you're demanding deprives a child of half of its support. A child's right to support vastly outweighs a man's right to to choose if he wants to be a dad AFTER he's fathered a child. A man has means of earning additional resources. A child doesn't.

A man being responsible to support his own child is reasonable.

Worse, you're demanding wildly unequal obligation and control. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculously unequal. If you're going to whine about 'fairness', your argument fails right there.

'Fairness' breaks again as he doesn't have to go through the trials, pain, tribulations, and danger of carrying and giving birth to a child. While a woman does. That's not fair. But you give it no thought.

Your argument fails the 'reasonable' test over and over and over again. It fails the fairness test over again as well. THere's a reason why 50 of 50 States are on one side of this issue. And you're on the other:

Your proposal sucks.

A child has a right to support but not life.

You loons are pathetic

 

[Skylar]

A child has a right to support but not life.

You loons are pathetic

Then you admit a child has a right to support from both parents. Conceding the entire argument.

Thank you.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A child has a right to support but not life.

You loons are pathetic

Then you admit a child has a right to support from both parents. Conceding the entire argument.

Thank you.

Welcome to ignore loser

 

[Skylar]

A child has a right to support but not life.

You loons are pathetic

Then you admit a child has a right to support from both parents. Conceding the entire argument.

Thank you.

Welcome to ignore loser

You can't make your argument work logically or rationally. Your claims are a self contradictory mess. And you're contradicted by every state legislature in the union, each having laughed your absurd nonsense out the state house doors.

What else can you do but ignore anyone that points it out.

Alas, the world doesn't disappear just because you close your eyes.

 

[dilloduck]

UH

you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.

Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)

And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

Yes this exactly.

If a woman can get pregnant by ******* me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY ******* STREET

Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope.

And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.

Nope.

The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.

Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.

Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?

So what are you going to do to change the law so a man can force a woman to have an abortion, since you want to change the law.

Nope----the suggestion was that should a woman choose to give birth to the child without his consent, she will not be able to rely on his financial support to get by. See how fair that is ? Both man and woman have a choice-----several in fact.

 

[dilloduck]

UH

you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.

Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)

And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

Yes this exactly.

If a woman can get pregnant by ******* me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY ******* STREET

Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope.

And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.

Nope.

The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.

Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.

Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?

Of course it shouldn't be changed. What you're demanding deprives a child of half of its support. A child's right to support vastly outweighs a man's right to to choose if he wants to be a dad AFTER he's fathered a child. A man has means of earning additional resources. A child doesn't.

A man being responsible to support his own child is reasonable.

Worse, you're demanding wildly unequal obligation and control. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculously unequal. If you're going to whine about 'fairness', your argument fails right there.

'Fairness' breaks again as he doesn't have to go through the trials, pain, tribulations, and danger of carrying and giving birth to a child. While a woman does. That's not fair. But you give it no thought.

Your argument fails the 'reasonable' test over and over and over again. It fails the fairness test over again as well. THere's a reason why 50 of 50 States are on one side of this issue. And you're on the other:

Your proposal sucks.

Exactly how does killing pass your "reasonable test " ?

 

[Skylar]

UH

Okay- so you want to tell the woman you are involved with to keep their clothes on- or if they let you disrobe them and deposit your sperm in them(which I admit would appear to be a woman with really low standards or perhaps too drunk to notice)

And if you ever manage to actually get your penis in a vagina you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

Yes this exactly.

If a woman can get pregnant by ******* me despite her being ugly then decide that she isn't willing to be responsible & opts to kill the baby instead of letting me raise it then it should be a TWO WAY ******* STREET

Yeah, but that nonsense was already debunked. It creates unequal obligations, where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never held responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope.

And of course, your entire argument is based on the nonsense idea that a man's desire to become a father is the basis of his obligation to support his own children.

Nope.

The actual basis is his child's right to support from both parents. Which a child cannot abdicate.

Your argument fails 3 times. Which might explain why its been rejected by every state legislature in the country. The record of failure of your demands.....is perfect.

Oh please---we know what the law is----the debate is on why it should be changed. Haven't you figured that out yet ?

So what are you going to do to change the law so a man can force a woman to have an abortion, since you want to change the law.

Nope----the suggestion was that should a woman choose to give birth to the child without his consent, she will not be able to rely on his financial support to get by. See how fair that is ? Both man and woman have a choice-----several in fact.

His consent isn't the basis of his obligation. The child's right to support is.

You do get this, right? If yes, then why do you keep offering the same argument only to watch it shatter in the same place every time?

 

[Valerie]

They do have equal treatment. Both have the same obligation, always. EIther they're both obligated, or neither are. A child has a right to support from both parents equally.

Each has control over their own body. A man can refuse to allow his body to be used to carry a fetus to full term just like a woman can.

i agree with the first part of what you're saying but the second part makes no sense since a man does not CHOOSE to not have the ability to bear a child... that does not compute. (reminds me of people who say gays have an equal right to marry the opposite sex.)



the OP is looking for child support laws to make up for what he lacks in nature, which is silly...

the term 'equality under the law' doesn't even apply in this situation as the federal choice law does not just transcend from what men lack naturally on the federal level into 'equality' in state child support laws..


they are two completely separate legal issues.




No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



once children are born, parents are held equally responsible...

 

[Billy000]

What is it about Republicans that makes them so selfish?

What is it about Republicans that makes you think they're selfish?

Their motto: "I got mine. **** the rest."

 

[Skylar]

They do have equal treatment. Both have the same obligation, always. EIther they're both obligated, or neither are. A child has a right to support from both parents equally.

Each has control over their own body. A man can refuse to allow his body to be used to carry a fetus to full term just like a woman can.

i agree with the first part of what you're saying but the second part makes no sense since a man does not CHOOSE to not have the ability to bear a child... that does not compute. (reminds me of people who say gays have an equal right to marry the opposite sex.)

My point is that the difference isn't the freedoms granted to each party. But the biological capability of each party. And why should a child be deprived support of one of its parents because a man can't bear kids?

Both parties have equal freedom. Both parties have equal obligation.

the OP is looking for child support laws to make up for what he lacks in nature, which is silly...

the term 'equality under the law' doesn't even apply in this situation as the federal choice law does not just transcend from what men lack naturally on the federal level into 'equality' in state child support laws..

That's exactly my point. The law treats each party equally. Its biology that treats them differently. Each can refuse to allow their body to be used to carry a fetus to term. But only one has the biological ability to do so.