If a woman aborted my child, I would probably go ape shit. Why are the feelings of the father...

[boilermaker55]

It seems you want it both ways!

And here comes the anger and tude. Lol. Try to act like a grown up, K?

Says the one that can't understand a simple explanation after it having been stated TWICE.

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

 

[Conservative65]

Seriously though, I think some guys just HATE women. I think that much is obvious. Whether they've had a bad experience with a partner or maybe their mom, I don't know. Weird people everywhere.

Why do you hate those of us that expect a woman that demands she get to make the choice with her body to pay for it and tell her no when she can't afford her choice?

I don't hate women. I despite people that aren't personally responsible. It's because their actions often cost the rest of us something for which we didn't decide.

 

[ChrisL]

And here comes the anger and tude. Lol. Try to act like a grown up, K?

Says the one that can't understand a simple explanation after it having been stated TWICE.

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

So, the government should have a say in her decisions on whether or not to have a baby? Look at what your greed has done to you Scrooge? I'm sure you weren't always so unwilling to help the needy folks.

 

[bodecea]

#1 cause of death of pregnant women.....murdered by their husband or boyfriend.

Really?

No. 1 Cause of Death in Pregnant Women: Murder

Again,


One of the most disturbing things is how libtardz seriously think legalized abortion is an answer for that and they refuse to see how legalized abortion is at the root CAUSE of it.

Explain to us how legalized abortion is the root CAUSE of murder being the #1 cause of death in pregnant women.

It's sad that you actually need to have it explained to you that legalized abortion cheapens life, absolves the father's (and the mothers) of their responsibilities and how that all manifests itself in how a father (sic) views the situation when an unexpected pregnancy situation arises.

So....it's really just all in your head, this connection. Gotcha!

 

[Conservative65]

It seems you want it both ways!

Says the one that can't understand a simple explanation after it having been stated TWICE.

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

 

[bodecea]

Seriously though, I think some guys just HATE women. I think that much is obvious. Whether they've had a bad experience with a partner or maybe their mom, I don't know. Weird people everywhere.

Why do you hate those of us that expect a woman that demands she get to make the choice with her body to pay for it and tell her no when she can't afford her choice?

I don't hate women. I despite people that aren't personally responsible. It's because their actions often cost the rest of us something for which we didn't decide.

50% of that responsibility is the guy who supplied the sperm.

But thanks for showing us that you really don't care about what happens to kids after they are born.

 

[boilermaker55]

Oh! I understand completely. It is you that really doesn't understand your own statement.
It is individuals like you that what to dictate to the health of what a woman needs to do then abandon them.

It seems you want it both ways!

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

 

[bodecea]

It seems you want it both ways!

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

WTF are you talking about?

Try to keep up, coward.

Coward? I'm right here addressing you, dope.
It's not my fault you aren't making yourself clear.

Because you don't understand doesn't make it my fault. It's your fault if you're too stupid to grasp things.

Apparently just not stupid enough to function at your level.

Typical Liberal that can't understand blaming the one that tries to educate him.

 

[Conservative65]

Says the one that can't understand a simple explanation after it having been stated TWICE.

You suck at explaining your side of the argument. You keep talking about HER choice, yet you are anti abortion, so that would be mean, according to YOU, she doesn't really have a choice. You can't have it both ways. If she gives the child up, then you will be paying for it too! That is not going to change no matter how much you whine about having to feed babies.

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

So, the government should have a say in her decisions on whether or not to have a baby? Look at what your greed has done to you Scrooge? I'm sure you weren't always so unwilling to help the needy folks.

Really? That's what you got out of it?

How is not wanting to enable an irresponsible person to be irresponsible being a Scrooge?

I'm not unwilling to help needy people. I'm unwilling to help those that tell me what they do is none of my business then demand the help when they can't afford their own bad choices. There's a difference between needy and irresponsible.

 

[ChrisL]

It seems you want it both ways!

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

He's basically saying that if the guy disappears and the woman has nowhere to turn, then fuck her, let her and her spawn die. He will be better off for it.

 

[Conservative65]

It seems you want it both ways!

You suck at understanding. If you think my opposition to something means she can't have an abortion, you're an idiot. That's what you're arguing. However, this isn't about abortion but her choice to not have one but to have the child. She chooses to have the child, it's her responsibility to support that child.

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

I've said more than once you stupid NL that the guy that dropped his load into the girl that spread her legs is also responsible.

 

[Conservative65]

It seems you want it both ways!

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

He's basically saying that if the guy disappears and the woman has nowhere to turn, then fuck her, let her and her spawn die. He will be better off for it.

Not exactly.

 

[Conservative65]

Anyways, if you are against abortion, then the woman has no choices, right? She HAS to have the baby if she gets pregnant even accidentally. Birth control isn't always 100% effective after all.

Me being against abortion doesn't affect whether or not it was a choice she could have made.

If she chooses to have a baby despite abortion being an option she didn't choose, accident or on purpose is irrelevant.

Accidently or not makes no difference. Does someone doing something accidentally absolve them of the responsibility of paying for it?

If you CAN'T then you can't. You can't squeeze blood from a stone.

Then, as I said, she can either get it from the bleeding hearts personally or do without. It boils down to when she had a choice of abortion or having the child, SHE chose to hae the child. Her choice, her costs. Tough shit if she can't pay for HER choices.

Then you should change your stance to PRO abortion. Because obviously it is paying for the children that really bothers you.

I don't support murder either.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

What irresponsibility? I spent half of the thread saying that a man ought not impregnate a woman if he can't handle his obligation.

You're all over the place.

You also said that those men that didn't impregnate the woman should have to help fund the child if the woman chooses to have it and can't afford it.

I did? Hmm...who knew?
Can you show me where I stated that?

So you oppose mandated taxes used to support the children that a person didn't help produce?

Mandated taxes? What are you saying?

Like I said, you're a coward too afraid to answer a simple question.

You are losing It, dude.

You are actually saying that women should be forced to bear a child and should live in poverty. Completely nuts.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

You also said that those men that didn't impregnate the woman should have to help fund the child if the woman chooses to have it and can't afford it.

I did? Hmm...who knew?
Can you show me where I stated that?

So you oppose mandated taxes used to support the children that a person didn't help produce?

Mandated taxes? What are you saying?

Like I said, you're a coward too afraid to answer a simple question.

You are losing It, dude.

You are actually saying that women should be forced to bear a child and should live in poverty. Completely nuts.

How is a woman forced to bear children?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It seems you want it both ways!

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

He's basically saying that if the guy disappears and the woman has nowhere to turn, then fuck her, let her and her spawn die. He will be better off for it.

Oh stop being a drama queen, nobody is going to die

 

[Conservative65]

You also said that those men that didn't impregnate the woman should have to help fund the child if the woman chooses to have it and can't afford it.

I did? Hmm...who knew?
Can you show me where I stated that?

So you oppose mandated taxes used to support the children that a person didn't help produce?

Mandated taxes? What are you saying?

Like I said, you're a coward too afraid to answer a simple question.

You are losing It, dude.

You are actually saying that women should be forced to bear a child and should live in poverty. Completely nuts.

As it stands right now, if a woman has a child it was her choice. No one is forcing her to do a damn thing.

 

[Conservative65]

I did? Hmm...who knew?
Can you show me where I stated that?

So you oppose mandated taxes used to support the children that a person didn't help produce?

Mandated taxes? What are you saying?

Like I said, you're a coward too afraid to answer a simple question.

You are losing It, dude.

You are actually saying that women should be forced to bear a child and should live in poverty. Completely nuts.

How is a woman being forced to bear children?

Idiots like ChrisL, Hutch, bodecea, etc. make it out as if a woman doesn't have options when it comes to what to do with her body.

 

[bodecea]

It seems you want it both ways!

And the father of said child. He could have just as easily decided to keep it in his pants. BUT when the father is nowhere to be found or refuses to pay for that baby, then the woman needs help. No, there are not enough charitable donations to support all of the babies that need help. Don't be silly.

I've already stated that the father should do his part. If the father is nowhere to be found, it seems the mother made another bad choice for which she wants all those that aren't the father to offset.

Whether or not there are enough charities is irrelevant. I'm not considering charities. I'm talking about the woman expecting the government she told to butt out of her body choices to force the people she told to butt out of her body choices to pay for it when she can't afford what she chose to do. It's real simple. If I'm not the one that got the pussy to produce the child, supporting that child isn't my responsibility.

It seems you don't understand simple statements. She makes the choice, she pays the price. If she can't, tough shit.

Guys are totally not responsible for any of this, right?

I've said more than once you stupid NL that the guy that dropped his load into the girl that spread her legs is also responsible.

No you didn't.