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

[bedowin62]

no dummy the man didnt choose to impregnate her, because a pregnancy isnt gauranteed.

but if you allow a pregnancy to go 9 months you're going to have a baby; and that is HER CHOICE. and she alone gets to make that choice.

she let her body get pregnant, she "chose" to keep it

 

[bedowin62]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

yes loon. politics has nothing to do with it

you let your body get pregnant, period

He let his body impregnate her, loon.

end of discussion

Laughing....tell that to the legislators that have rejected your nonsense 50 of 50 times. A perfect record of hapless failure. The discussion truly is over.

And your ilk lost just as perfectly.

YAWN
once again it doest matter what HE let happen; because according to YOUR theory the ultimate decider is the woman

 

[Skylar]

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make. Obligate a woman, but not himself.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

 

[Skylar]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

yes loon. politics has nothing to do with it

you let your body get pregnant, period

He let his body impregnate her, loon.

end of discussion

Laughing....tell that to the legislators that have rejected your nonsense 50 of 50 times. A perfect record of hapless failure. The discussion truly is over.

And your ilk lost just as perfectly.

YAWN
once again it doest matter what HE let happen; because according to YOUR theory the ultimate decider is the woman

If the child is born, it absolutely matters what he let happen. As all the financial obligation on the man's part in every State demonstrates.

See how that works?

 

[bedowin62]

he doesnt have a "choice" either way if he impregnates, whether to keep it or not, whether to give it up for adoption or not.

her body here choice

and she let her body get pregnant

 

[martybegan]

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it. Again, a woman can get rid of hers by having an abortion, and he can't do squat. If he doesn't want the kid he should tell the woman in time for her to make her own choice, and if she want's to keep it, she supports it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The woman has control.

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

In my view the man has to make it clear, prior to the legal end of the time window for an arbitrary abortion if he intends to support the child or not. If not, this gives time for the woman to make a CHOICE, support the kid herself or have an abortion.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Your choice in what might be created by sex ended right before this...

 

[bedowin62]

no if the child exists his obligation should NOT EXIST. because the child only exists, or doesnt exist because of the woman's "choice"........................she chose to let her body get pregnant

Of course it should. And does. Again, politics has nothing to do with this. Republican laugh such hapless nonsense off the legislative floor as quickly as democrats do.

And using your logic, a man 'chose' to impregnate her. So its a wash.

This is another one of those silly proxy issues. Where what its advocates really want is to punish women for having the ability to choose how to use their own bodies. Its petty and vindictive. As the only victims are children.

yes loon. politics has nothing to do with it

you let your body get pregnant, period

He let his body impregnate her, loon.

end of discussion

Laughing....tell that to the legislators that have rejected your nonsense 50 of 50 times. A perfect record of hapless failure. The discussion truly is over.

And your ilk lost just as perfectly.

YAWN
once again it doest matter what HE let happen; because according to YOUR theory the ultimate decider is the woman

If the child is born, it absolutely matters what he let happen. As all the financial obligation on the man's part in every State demonstrates.

See how that works?

YAWN

you still arent saying anything dummy.

see how that works? lots of things happen this way or that; doesnt make them right

 

[martybegan]

Over her own body? Absolutely. Just as the man has control over his. They each have equal authority over their own bodies. What they don't have is authority over each other's body. Nor should they. Your premise of 'control' is that if a man can't control a woman's body, he shouldn't be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, nope. That's nonsense. As its based on unequal control of one's body and unequal obligation. While our current system is based on equal control of one's body and equal obligation.

And your view is wrong. As his obligation isn't based on his power or his choice. But on the child's existence. If the child exists, his obligation exists. If he didn't get a say in whether the child was born, his obligation still exists if the child exists. If he didn't have the power to stop the child from being born, the child still exists and his obligation exists.

Power, choice, etc. are spectacularly irrelevant in terms of financial responsibility. And a man's lack of them have no bearing on his responsibility.

The child's existence does. Your argument fails on the basis of control of one's body, unequal obligation, and a false basis of obligation. There's a reason that 50 of 50 States reject your reasoning.

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Your choice in what might be created by sex ended right before this...

Then the same should apply to the woman. Once pants off, you keep the kid. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Skylar]

martybegan needs to re-read this.

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it.

Fathering a child is most definitely 'part of it'. Nixing your entire argument.

Again, a man's desire to be a father has no relevance to his obligation to support his own children. Your entire imagined basis of obligation is legally irrelevant.

 

[bedowin62]

your body your choice

you released the man from responsibility

as with other items from the failing Progressive world

this will be fought by men now unafraid to take on Progressives

it'a already happening

 

[bedowin62]

now that you let your body get pregant through unsafe sex you want somebody to pay?

what a shame

more liberal victimhood ideology

 

[martybegan]

The child exists despite the man not wanting it to exist.

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

if the woman doesn't want it to exist, it doesn't, regardless of the man's choice in the matter (which i agree with). Given enough warning, a man's choice should be legally binding as well, and the woman given the choice of supporting the child herself, or aborting it.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it.

Father a child is most definitely 'part of it'. Nixing your entire argument.

Not at all, because again, the woman still has an "out", and given the time to make a choice, should have to live with the choice either way.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

now that you let your body get pregant through unsafe sex you want somebody to pay?

what a shame

more liberal victimhood ideology

It takes to to tango. If you don't want the tuition bills, don't tango, boys.

 

[Skylar]

So what? A man's desire to support his children has nothing to do with his obligation to do so.

Of course it shouldn't. As a man's desire to be a father has never been the basis of his obligation to pay for his own children. Nor should it be. The existence of the child is his basis and always has been.

And how its stands now is fair. There's never a situation where a man has more obligation than a woman. Either their both responsible for their child, or neither are.

You're calling for unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for any child she bears, but a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's ridiculous. It has nothing to do with fairness and does nothing but hurt children.

Which is why we don't do it. Nor will.

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it.

Father a child is most definitely 'part of it'. Nixing your entire argument.

Not at all, because again, the woman still has an "out", and given the time to make a choice, should have to live with the choice either way.

An 'out' that alleviates a man's obligation as well. There's never a situation where a man has an obligation that a woman does not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

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

Laughing.......nope. That's simple nonsense. And we're not doing it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

he doesnt have a "choice" either way if he impregnates, whether to keep it or not, whether to give it up for adoption or not.

her body here choice

and she let her body get pregnant

He was just an innocent sperm donor. The victim! lol

 

[martybegan]

I am calling for an equal choice when both parties have the time to make one. A woman can get out of the responsibility by having an abortion. That is her choice. But a man should have a choice as well, as long as he makes it in time for the woman to have her choice as well.

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it.

Father a child is most definitely 'part of it'. Nixing your entire argument.

Not at all, because again, the woman still has an "out", and given the time to make a choice, should have to live with the choice either way.

An 'out' that alleviates a man's obligation as well. There's never a situation where a man has an obligation that a woman does not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

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

Laughing.......nope. That's simple nonsense. And we're not doing it.

Yes there is, she carries the baby to term, and he takes it over. Granted that isn't very likely, and considering I support her ability to abort regardless of the father's input, it's moot.

Not every child she bears, just the child she chooses to bear after being told the father doesn't want any part of it. (with enough time for her to abort if she so chooses)

 

[Skylar]

your body your choice

Yup! Now you're getting it.

you released the man from responsibility

Nope! Not even close. A man is still responsible for every child he fathers. Just like a woman is responsible for every child she bears.

it'a already happening

Again, nope! Not in one state is your meaningless gibberish the law. Nor even proposed to be.

Your loss on this issue is perfect because your argument is perfectly nonsensical.

 

[Skylar]

Its a false choice. As a woman can't 'choose' to obligate a man but not herself.

But that's the choice you insist a man be able to make.

Nope. Its nonsense. Your basis of obligation is nonsense, your unequal obligation is nonsense, your unequal control is nonsense. Nothing ever has come of it, nor ever will.

That's the beauty of your argument: its glorious irrelevance to any actual outcomes.

It's not about making a man take all the obligation, it's making him take any obligation when he wan't no part of it.

Father a child is most definitely 'part of it'. Nixing your entire argument.

Not at all, because again, the woman still has an "out", and given the time to make a choice, should have to live with the choice either way.

An 'out' that alleviates a man's obligation as well. There's never a situation where a man has an obligation that a woman does not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

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

Laughing.......nope. That's simple nonsense. And we're not doing it.

Yes there is, she carries the baby to term, and he takes it over.

She's still responsible for every child she bears. Just as a man is responsible for every child he fathers. Their obligations are always equal. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Your demand for unequal obligation has been rejected every time its been proposed. And well it should have been.

 

[bedowin62]

your body your choice

Yup! Now you're getting it.

you released the man from responsibility

Nope! Not even close. A man is still responsible for every child he fathers. Just like a woman is responsible for every child she bears.

it'a already happening

Again, nope! Not in one state is your meaningless gibberish the law. Nor even proposed to be.

Your loss on this issue is perfect because your argument is perfectly nonsensical.

YAWN

again; it "my body, my choice" is the standard. that should release any male from paying ANY support