Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Yes. I stated simple biological fact.Clearly i do. You were the one who said that a child is not your body.
And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.
I wouldn't. And, for the record lest someone imagine something I never said, I oppose mandating a man who does not want anything to do, ever, with the child after it is born paying support. Just as I am opposed to laws infringing on a woman's right to choose, I am also opposed to laws infringing on a man's right to choose. One's rights should not be greater or less than the other's.If THAT were the law would you still be opposed to men paying child support?Same goes for you whining men, feel free to jack off the rest of your lives or drool all over a screen to some pics.
If men don't want to pay for a child, keep your sperm to your selves. If women don't want to pay for a baby abort it. Simple.
Let's apply your standards equally: if women don't want to have babies, they need to keep their legs shut. No abortions, no Plan B. Own up and carry the baby. Oh wait, holding you to your own standards would be sexist and misogynistic...
Yes, it had been several hours because I had other things to do.No, he does not. That is something the voices in your head told you to type. That is YOUR strawman..... He wants men to have the power to decide whether the pregnancy proceeds, does he not?
God, you are dense.
Feel better? It had been several hours since you last insulted me.
So good of you to bump this thread merely to display your frustrated and misplaced rage, Si. We all have a much more refined POV thankies to your input.
Not.
The sun was shining and it was a beautiful Autumn Sunday.
Yes. I stated simple biological fact.
And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.
Right... so a woman has 'every right' to kill her child at 6 months gestation by cutting it out and letting it suffocate on a table...
Your words prove what a child-hating monster you really are. You're a sick piece of shit and someone should teach you what it's like to die a painful death desperately trying to get a breath. I hope someone lets you experience yourself what you advocate doing to babies that you find inconvenient.
I wouldn't. And, for the record lest someone imagine something I never said, I oppose mandating a man who does not want anything to do, ever, with the child after it is born paying support. Just as I am opposed to laws infringing on a woman's right to choose, I am also opposed to laws infringing on a man's right to choose. One's rights should not be greater or less than the other's.If THAT were the law would you still be opposed to men paying child support?
Let's apply your standards equally: if women don't want to have babies, they need to keep their legs shut. No abortions, no Plan B. Own up and carry the baby. Oh wait, holding you to your own standards would be sexist and misogynistic...
It's just amazingly bizarre how you interpret plain English.I wouldn't. And, for the record lest someone imagine something I never said, I oppose mandating a man who does not want anything to do, ever, with the child after it is born paying support. Just as I am opposed to laws infringing on a woman's right to choose, I am also opposed to laws infringing on a man's right to choose. One's rights should not be greater or less than the other's.If THAT were the law would you still be opposed to men paying child support?
So in your view, the baby's right to support from its father is to be made subordinate to the father's right to fuck and run?
....
Who are you addressing? It can't be me as I've never mentioned a child's "right to support".You cannot have it both ways. Either children have a right to support from both parents, or they don't.
You cannot have it both ways. Either children have a right to support from both parents, or they don't.
I wouldn't. And, for the record lest someone imagine something I never said, I oppose mandating a man who does not want anything to do, ever, with the child after it is born paying support. Just as I am opposed to laws infringing on a woman's right to choose, I am also opposed to laws infringing on a man's right to choose. One's rights should not be greater or less than the other's.If THAT were the law would you still be opposed to men paying child support?
So in your view, the baby's right to support from its father is to be made subordinate to the father's right to fuck and run?
Your POV is illogical and hypocritical.
I wouldn't. And, for the record lest someone imagine something I never said, I oppose mandating a man who does not want anything to do, ever, with the child after it is born paying support. Just as I am opposed to laws infringing on a woman's right to choose, I am also opposed to laws infringing on a man's right to choose. One's rights should not be greater or less than the other's.
So in your view, the baby's right to support from its father is to be made subordinate to the father's right to fuck and run?
Your POV is illogical and hypocritical.
Running beats the hell out of killing.
So in your view, the baby's right to support from its father is to be made subordinate to the father's right to fuck and run?
Your POV is illogical and hypocritical.
Running beats the hell out of killing.
Nice strawman. I take you're having difficulty justifying making babies pay for their father's irresponsibility as well?
If you come up with a substantive reply, I'll be here.
Running beats the hell out of killing.
Nice strawman. I take you're having difficulty justifying making babies pay for their father's irresponsibility as well?
If you come up with a substantive reply, I'll be here.
That won't help--someone needs to be here that can tolerate a substantive answer.
Nice strawman. I take you're having difficulty justifying making babies pay for their father's irresponsibility as well?
If you come up with a substantive reply, I'll be here.
That won't help--someone needs to be here that can tolerate a substantive answer.
Face it, dilloduck. It is anti-human to suggest babies that are unwanted by their fathers should lose any right to support from their Dads. This cry for "father's rights" regarding this issue is just more feel-good, mushy thinking on this one of various aspects of the issue of abortion.
That won't help--someone needs to be here that can tolerate a substantive answer.
Face it, dilloduck. It is anti-human to suggest babies that are unwanted by their fathers should lose any right to support from their Dads. This cry for "father's rights" regarding this issue is just more feel-good, mushy thinking on this one of various aspects of the issue of abortion.
It's anti-human to kill the unborn. I understand your maternal instincts are a bit wanting but most people can see the cruelty in killing babies. You don't want one? Don't have sex.
Face it, dilloduck. It is anti-human to suggest babies that are unwanted by their fathers should lose any right to support from their Dads. This cry for "father's rights" regarding this issue is just more feel-good, mushy thinking on this one of various aspects of the issue of abortion.
It's anti-human to kill the unborn. I understand your maternal instincts are a bit wanting but most people can see the cruelty in killing babies. You don't want one? Don't have sex.
You are unable or unwilling to reply? Fine by me.
It's anti-human to kill the unborn. I understand your maternal instincts are a bit wanting but most people can see the cruelty in killing babies. You don't want one? Don't have sex.
You are unable or unwilling to reply? Fine by me.
No--you are unable to recoginize one even if it hits you between the eyes. Have a great day.
A monstrous piece of shit like you or sy is no lady by any stretch.And i stated fact as well. If it is not part of the women body she has every right to have it removed as it is not part of her body and place it on the table. If it is part of her body, again she has every right to do with her body as she wishes.
Right... so a woman has 'every right' to kill her child at 6 months gestation by cutting it out and letting it suffocate on a table...
Your words prove what a child-hating monster you really are. You're a sick piece of shit and someone should teach you what it's like to die a painful death desperately trying to get a breath. I hope someone lets you experience yourself what you advocate doing to babies that you find inconvenient.
What a charmer! I bet the ladies are just lining up to be spoken to by you, JB...you silver-tongued devil, you.
