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

[PaintMyHouse]

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

Nope. They share the check. You want to be fair, right?

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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

Women lie about being on birth control all the time

The best thing a man can do is to never ever trust a woman when it comes to birth control

 

[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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

 

[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.

YAWN

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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

 

[Carla_Danger]

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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Sarah "word salad" Palin, is that you?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Women lie about being on birth control all the time

The best thing a man can do is to never ever trust a woman when it comes to birth control

The last part is very sound advice. Let me introduce you to your best friend, boys:

And some girls know how to help you put that baby on, using only their mouth. My kind of girl...

 

[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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

 

[Skylar]

Yup! Now you're getting it.

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.

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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

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

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Bedwetter, try to run that argument by the judge.

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

Dumb as a box of rocks. Of course women have children who can't afford them, otherwise we wouldn't have the need for SNAP.

That has nothing to do with hating women.

Stats show that when you educate women in areas where they have few options is when women start to actually plan their families.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

Dumb as a box of rocks. Of course women have children who can't afford them, otherwise we wouldn't have the need for SNAP.

That has nothing to do with hating women.

Stats show that when you educate women in areas where they have few options is when women start to actually plan their families.

you clearly think women are stupid; you just admitted it.

 

[bedowin62]

YAWN

we're all here commenting because we're looking for a better America stupid. do you REALLY want to go there with tis? because i'm going to have lots to tell you losers to go tel this or that to somebody....................because you morons have so many more things you whine about

lol

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

Dumb as a box of rocks. Of course women have children who can't afford them, otherwise we wouldn't have the need for SNAP.

That has nothing to do with hating women.

Stats show that when you educate women in areas where they have few options is when women start to actually plan their families.

is giving up the name of the father a requirement to get SNAP?
of course not. so you just admitted you are an enabler of the very thing you're whining about?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

Dumb as a box of rocks. Of course women have children who can't afford them, otherwise we wouldn't have the need for SNAP.

That has nothing to do with hating women.

Stats show that when you educate women in areas where they have few options is when women start to actually plan their families.

you clearly think women are stupid; you just admitted it.

I think you are stupid.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Nothing you've suggested would make America 'better'. All it would do is harm children.

No thanks.

NO IT WOULDNT LEFTARD. because women would have less babies they cant afford

Every child whose father would be absolved of any responsibility to support it would be harmed.

This you call 'making American better'? Thank goodness folks like you are the rightful object of scorn and laughter.

you're saying women would still choose to have a baby they know they cant afford?'

hate women much?

who deserves scorn?

Dumb as a box of rocks. Of course women have children who can't afford them, otherwise we wouldn't have the need for SNAP.

That has nothing to do with hating women.

Stats show that when you educate women in areas where they have few options is when women start to actually plan their families.

is giving up the name of the father a requirement to get SNAP?
of course not. so you just admitted you are an enabler of the very thing you're whining about?

Do you have a link, or did you just pull that info out of your rear end?

 

[martybegan]

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.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility. If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

 

[Skylar]

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.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

 

[martybegan]

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.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

 

[Care4all]

Since you know you will not be carrying the child, but the woman you screw and get preggers will be, and will be making that very important decision, then you should ALWAYS presume that any woman you get pregnant, will bear your child.... plan for the worst....(if you don't want a child)

If she chooses to not carry the pregnancy through, it isn;t just her getting out of the responsibility of parenting, it is you, the man as well....getting out of their/your, predicament.

If she chooses to go through with keeping and bearing your child, your itty bitty financial support isn't even the tip of iceberg, regarding the workload and commitment and time she will spend on rearing your child. You should still count your blessings it is only a little money, that your required to give.

 

[Skylar]

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.

For the ones she "bears". She can decide not to, thus removing the responsibility.

From both parties. There's never a situation where she's responsible and the father is not. Or the father is responsible and she is not. Either both are responsible or neither are.

Each has equal responsibility. Each has equal control over their own body. A woman is responsible for every child she bears, a father for every child he fathers.

That's completely reasonable.

If given information by the man about if he wants to support a kid or not, she still has a CHOICE to have the kid or not, and if she want's the kid, should have to raise it herself, as she knows the man's position on the subject.

The man's position on her choices about her body are as irrelevant as her position on his use of his body is. They each control their own bodies. But not each others.

As it should be.

Wrong, they both have a choice to not have sex, but only she has a choice after conception to be a parent or not to be a parent. That is inherently unequal, and inherently unfair if you want a gender neutral society.

They both have control over their own bodies. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, don't impregnate a woman. Its really rather simple.

That he can't compel a woman to abort a child doesn't magically absolve him of all responsibility for any child he fathers.

Get used to the idea.