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

[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.

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.

If the woman has a right to abort the kid and not pay for 18 years then a man should have a right to pay for the abortion and not get stuck with the bill for 18 years should the woman decide to keep the kid.

 

[Slyhunter]

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."

That would be the Libertarians.

 

[dilloduck]

UH

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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

 

[Syriusly]

The argument being presented by a few men who don't want to be responsible for their children here, boils down to this:

a) A woman can choose to have an abortion- and therefore never have a child, or
b) A woman can choose to have the child and be responsible for it.
c) A man should have equal choices as a woman- so
d) Equal choices would mean that the man could choose to demand a woman have an abortion or force a woman to have an abortion.
e) And if abortion= murder as many of them have suggested- that means that they want the right to murder babies.
f) And if abortion is the same thing as murdering a baby- then they really mean that they want the right to kill their baby- and since the baby to them is the same thing in the womb as it is after it is born
g) they want to be able to kill their child to escape having to pay for it.

That is the logical conclusion based upon the logic presented here by those who are appalled that a woman can control her own body but they are still responsible if a child is born after they deposit sperm in her vagina.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

He should not force her to have an abortion and she should not force him to pay for a decision that she made all by herself. It's really that simple

 

[dilloduck]

The argument being presented by a few men who don't want to be responsible for their children here, boils down to this:

a) A woman can choose to have an abortion- and therefore never have a child, or
b) A woman can choose to have the child and be responsible for it.
c) A man should have equal choices as a woman- so
d) Equal choices would mean that the man could choose to demand a woman have an abortion or force a woman to have an abortion.
e) And if abortion= murder as many of them have suggested- that means that they want the right to murder babies.
f) And if abortion is the same thing as murdering a baby- then they really mean that they want the right to kill their baby- and since the baby to them is the same thing in the womb as it is after it is born
g) they want to be able to kill their child to escape having to pay for it.

That is the logical conclusion based upon the logic presented here by those who are appalled that a woman can control her own body but they are still responsible if a child is born after they deposit sperm in her vagina.

you logic sucks-----she willingly allowed him to have sex with her and knew full well the consequences.

 

[Syriusly]

UH

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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

He should not force her to have an abortion and she should not force him to pay for a decision that she made all by herself. It's really that simple

I agree- she controls her own body, the man controls his body- and if any child is born due to the actions of both of their bodies- both are equally responsible for that child.

We are finally in agreement.

 

[Syriusly]

The argument being presented by a few men who don't want to be responsible for their children here, boils down to this:

a) A woman can choose to have an abortion- and therefore never have a child, or
b) A woman can choose to have the child and be responsible for it.
c) A man should have equal choices as a woman- so
d) Equal choices would mean that the man could choose to demand a woman have an abortion or force a woman to have an abortion.
e) And if abortion= murder as many of them have suggested- that means that they want the right to murder babies.
f) And if abortion is the same thing as murdering a baby- then they really mean that they want the right to kill their baby- and since the baby to them is the same thing in the womb as it is after it is born
g) they want to be able to kill their child to escape having to pay for it.

That is the logical conclusion based upon the logic presented here by those who are appalled that a woman can control her own body but they are still responsible if a child is born after they deposit sperm in her vagina.

you logic sucks-----she willingly allowed him to have sex with her and knew full well the consequences.

And he willingly allowed her to have sex with him and knew full well the consequences.

If a baby is born- they are both equally responsible for their baby.

 

[Skylar]

UH

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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

The issue you're raising...isn't. I've fully addressed it: you're simply wrong. A man's choice isn't the basis of his obligation. His feelings about being a father isn't the basis of his obligation. His child is. If he didn't want the kid born, it doesn't matter. His kid was born. And he's obligated to support to child.....because the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep raising the same debunked basis of obligation (his choice)....and you're still wrong.

 

[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.

If the woman has a right to abort the kid and not pay for 18 years then a man should have a right to pay for the abortion and not get stuck with the bill for 18 years should the woman decide to keep the kid.

Because his child has a right to support from both parents. If the kid exists, the father's obligation exists.

Just because the father didn't want the kid born doesn't mean that the child's rights magically disappear.

A man's feelings on being a father are irrelevant to the fact that he is one.

 

[dilloduck]

Funny how that doesn't apply to pregnant women.

 

[dilloduck]

UH 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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

He should not force her to have an abortion and she should not force him to pay for a decision that she made all by herself. It's really that simple

I agree- she controls her own body, the man controls his body- and if any child is born due to the actions of both of their bodies- both are equally responsible for that child.

We are finally in agreement.

She not only controls it but should be totally responsible for what she does with it. She's not having a baby because anyone impregnated her. She's having one because she is choosing to. She finally gets to **** without having to be a father and what does she want now ? The choice to force a man to be a father. Insane

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

He should not force her to have an abortion and she should not force him to pay for a decision that she made all by herself. It's really that simple

I agree- she controls her own body, the man controls his body- and if any child is born due to the actions of both of their bodies- both are equally responsible for that child.

We are finally in agreement.

She not only controls it but should be totally responsible for what she does with it. She's not having a baby because anyone impregnated her. She's having one because she is choosing to. She finally gets to **** without having to be a father and what does she want now ? The choice to force a man to be a father. Insane

Waaah waaaah waaaah- just because you don't get to control a woman's body doesn't mean you get to avoid your responsibility to your child.

No impregnation- no baby- don't stick your dick anywhere that can get pregnant, and you won't have to risk paying for your child.

No one is forcing any man to be a father unless a really inventive woman manages to rape a man.

 

[dilloduck]

no one cares about controlling a woman's body. One would hope that she could at least manage it responsibly. How come she can't have sex without having a child ? Only an idiot can pull that one off these days.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Because you keep dodging the issue. We are talking about a situation and a time before ANYONE has an obligation. This is when the woman has been given the choice to opt out. Where the fetus happens to be at this point is ( wait for it ) irrelevant.

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.

That is not an equal choice- that is just a man opting out.

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.

A man either has the choice of terminating her pregnancy- which I would hope you would agree he cannot decide- or he doesn't- and anything else is not 'equal'- its just an excuse to get out of being responsible for the man's child.

He should not force her to have an abortion and she should not force him to pay for a decision that she made all by herself. It's really that simple

I agree- she controls her own body, the man controls his body- and if any child is born due to the actions of both of their bodies- both are equally responsible for that child.

We are finally in agreement.

She not only controls it but should be totally responsible for what she does with it. She's not having a baby because anyone impregnated her. She's having one because she is choosing to. She finally gets to **** without having to be a father and what does she want now ? The choice to force a man to be a father. Insane

And? A man's responsibility isn't based on his choice for his child to be born. Its based on the existence of the child. Just like a woman's responsibility is. Any child born has a right to support from both parents. Mother and father.

Your basis of obligation (his choice to be a father) remains as imaginary as always. As the actual basis of obligation is the right of the child to support from both parents. You can make up fallacious bases all you like. The actaual basis of obligation is a child's right to support.

You can't get around that.

And a man being responsible for his own children isn't 'insane'. Its completely reasonable.

 

[Skylar]

no one cares about controlling a woman's body. One would hope that she could at least manage it responsibly. How come she can't have sex without having a child ? Only an idiot can pull that one off these days.

"Responsibly'? With the possible exception of Mary, no woman has ever gotten pregnant solo.

You're not only insisting that a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers....but you're insisting its the mother's fault alone if she gets pregnant.Which last time I checked was a biological impossibility.

I'm guessing you're not a conservative. As those guys at least give lip service to personal responsibility. Where men in your scenario aren't responsible for anything they do.

 

[Syriusly]

no one cares about controlling a woman's body. One would hope that she could at least manage it responsibly. How come she can't have sex without having a child ? Only an idiot can pull that one off these days.

How come the man can't have sex without having a child?

You really, really want to blame women for everything when it comes to sex and babies.

Sure you want to control the woman's body- you either want to be able to force her to get an abortion- or you want to be able to tell her that she- and she alone is responsible for yours and her child.

As a man- and a father- this is really quite simple- don't want to be responsible for a child?

• Don't stick your penis in a vagina or
• Get snipped

Anything less- even condoms- means you are knowingly risking becoming a parent- whether you really want to or not.

And any man who would decide to abandon his child simply because he didn't want to be burdened by the responsibility is no man at all.

 

[dilloduck]

no one cares about controlling a woman's body. One would hope that she could at least manage it responsibly. How come she can't have sex without having a child ? Only an idiot can pull that one off these days.

How come the man can't have sex without having a child?

You really, really want to blame women for everything when it comes to sex and babies.

Sure you want to control the woman's body- you either want to be able to force her to get an abortion- or you want to be able to tell her that she- and she alone is responsible for yours and her child.

As a man- and a father- this is really quite simple- don't want to be responsible for a child?

• Don't stick your penis in a vagina or
• Get snipped

Anything less- even condoms- means you are knowingly risking becoming a parent- whether you really want to or not.

And any man who would decide to abandon his child simply because he didn't want to be burdened by the responsibility is no man at all.

Absolutely-----babies would NEVER happen were it not for several decisions that a woman makes.

 

[dilloduck]

no one cares about controlling a woman's body. One would hope that she could at least manage it responsibly. How come she can't have sex without having a child ? Only an idiot can pull that one off these days.

"Responsibly'? With the possible exception of Mary, no woman has ever gotten pregnant solo.

You're not only insisting that a man should never be held responsible for any child he fathers....but you're insisting its the mother's fault alone if she gets pregnant.Which last time I checked was a biological impossibility.

I'm guessing you're not a conservative. As those guys at least give lip service to personal responsibility. Where men in your scenario aren't responsible for anything they do.

Please stop lying. I have never said that a man should not EVER be held responsible for his child. Can you do this without lying or does your entire argument depend on it. I also have never said that men should be able to force abortions. Another piece of hysteria that you try to pin on me.