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

[bodecea]

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

You don't get to decide how many children a woman will have. The decision is up to her

50 years ago women would have 6-8 children in their lifetime. Now, they get to decide

50 years ago methods for birth control were not as plentiful.
Now stick your head back in the dirt and pretend yours is the only opinion that matters since that's what you do best.

Then probably 50 years ago, you shouldn't have had sex at all. I really doubt if any of the women unfortunately enough to have been poked by you would have shriveled up and died because you kept your pecker in your pants.

50 years ago I was -3 you stupid twit. And I raised my kids despite them having a useless mother so you can just wipe that sand out of your vagina & stfu

And yet...you picked her to have your children with you. It's a cold hard fact that our choices matter.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!

You don't get to decide how many children a woman will have. The decision is up to her

50 years ago women would have 6-8 children in their lifetime. Now, they get to decide

50 years ago methods for birth control were not as plentiful.
Now stick your head back in the dirt and pretend yours is the only opinion that matters since that's what you do best.

Then probably 50 years ago, you shouldn't have had sex at all. I really doubt if any of the women unfortunately enough to have been poked by you would have shriveled up and died because you kept your pecker in your pants.

50 years ago I was -3 you stupid twit. And I raised my kids despite them having a useless mother so you can just wipe that sand out of your vagina & stfu

And yet...you picked her to have your children with you. It's a cold hard fact that our choices matter.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand. It is simply my defense to the attempts to make this topic about me.
I have put forth a fair resolution to the debate but you can't accept it. It's all or nothing for you

 

[kaz]

The fact that Koshergrl just thanked your PRO ABORTION response to me just goes to show how irrational people can be. She is so desperate to "get me", like it is some kind of game, that she agreed to your no woman should be forced to carry a child nonsense.

Pathetic

Your response was pro-abortion on this. You are the one putting the woman in the position of potentially having to abort a baby for financial reasons. Frankly that's sick. Koshergirl is probably recognizing that.

 

[rightwinger]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

 

[koshergrl]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

Except you don't believe the woman should have the right to walk away from a child prior to birth.

So wtf? You maintain that as long as abortion is legal, men shouldn't have to pay child support?

 

[koshergrl]

The fact that Koshergrl just thanked your PRO ABORTION response to me just goes to show how irrational people can be. She is so desperate to "get me", like it is some kind of game, that she agreed to your no woman should be forced to carry a child nonsense.

Pathetic

Your response was pro-abortion on this. You are the one putting the woman in the position of potentially having to abort a baby for financial reasons. Frankly that's sick. Koshergirl is probably recognizing that.

Definitely. It's a schizophrenic reasoning. "I value children therefore there should be no abortions, but if we're going to have abortion, I'm not paying child support for my kids that I don't want!" Wtf! But he's psycho anyway, meh.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Don't make the child in the first place if you don't want any part of it. It's not that hard to understand.

That is not the point ya dumbass.

It's the only point, dick nose.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

The fact that Koshergrl just thanked your PRO ABORTION response to me just goes to show how irrational people can be. She is so desperate to "get me", like it is some kind of game, that she agreed to your no woman should be forced to carry a child nonsense.

Pathetic

Your response was pro-abortion on this. You are the one putting the woman in the position of potentially having to abort a baby for financial reasons. Frankly that's sick. Koshergirl is probably recognizing that.

Nonsense. Any pro life person will tell you adoption. Hell you are even allowed to drop babies off at the firestation. She is just being a vindictive bitch, for what reason I don't know but it's funny to see her sideline her beliefs just to insult someone. Shallow is shallow

 

[koshergrl]

The fact that Koshergrl just thanked your PRO ABORTION response to me just goes to show how irrational people can be. She is so desperate to "get me", like it is some kind of game, that she agreed to your no woman should be forced to carry a child nonsense.

Pathetic

Your response was pro-abortion on this. You are the one putting the woman in the position of potentially having to abort a baby for financial reasons. Frankly that's sick. Koshergirl is probably recognizing that.

Nonsense. Any pro life person will tell you adoption. Hell you are even allowed to drop babies off at the firestation. She is just being a vindictive bitch, for what reason I don't know but it's funny to see her sideline her beliefs just to insult someone. Shallow is shallow

I'm not sidelining my beliefs. I think everybody should be fully responsible for the life they create. That includes you, dickwad.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

 

[Skylar]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.

Oh, I followed you. You're just wrong.

If a woman 'walks away', then a man walks away too. If a woman doesn't 'walk away', then a man doesn't walk away either. There's no scenario where one has more less obligation than the other. Their obligations are always equal.

You're demanding unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. The basis of his obligation is the child's existence. Not his choice. It doesn't matter if he wants to be a father. He is.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. And the obligation is always equal.

 

[koshergrl]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

Good grief, shaddup. Your continued psychotic drivel is nonsensical and creepy.

 

[Skylar]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

So you insist that you should never be responsible for any child you ever father.....because a woman can have an abortion. Even if she doesn't.

Um, wow.

 

[koshergrl]

Don't make the child in the first place if you don't want any part of it. It's not that hard to understand.

That is not the point ya dumbass.

It's the only point, dick nose.

Shut up faggot

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

But you'll tell a woman who doesn't get an abortion that you aren't going to support the baby.

Nice. And that is exactly what drives women to abortion.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.

Oh, I followed you. You're just wrong.

If a woman 'walks away', then a man walks away too. If a woman doesn't 'walk away', then a man doesn't walk away either. There's no scenario where one has more less obligation than the other. Their obligations are always equal.

You're demanding unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

Nope. The basis of his obligation is the child's existence. Not his choice. It doesn't matter if he wants to be a father. He is.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. And the obligation is always equal.

I already conceeded your point. I believe your point of view to be wrong but it is yours to be wrong about.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

So you insist that you should never be responsible for any child you ever father.....because a woman can have an abortion. Even if she doesn't.

Um, wow.

I insist that men should have that choice just like women do, yes

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I insist that men should have that choice just like women do, yes

We have a choice not to make a baby we don't want. I have one son, which is what I wanted. I don't have any others and made sure of that. It's called personal responsibility. I thought conservatives were all about that.

 

[PratchettFan]

You want complete control over the entire situation (pregnancy, life & death) then you should foot the entire bill.

Period

Abort your baby or I will not pay child support....got it

Or keep the baby, but I don't want it.

This


Why can a woman KILL the baby but the man is FORCED to abide by whatever decision she makes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating fathers to drop out of their child's life. I am advocating that the responsible parties have equally say so in the outcomes of their own futures.

And my children are fully grown so leave the personal bullshit out of the thread.

Because it is not the man's body that has to carry the child. They both have a financial stake, but only she has to physically put herself at risk. The man gets no say in this because it is not his person that is on the line. If a man ever gets pregnant, then he gets a say.

So ever even consider the kids right to live??

No. I don't. No one has the right to the use of the body of another without their consent, no matter what the need. If anyone does, then everyone does.

 

[rightwinger]

I get your point. You don't get mine. Neither you nor I have shredded anything. If we had the discussion would have ended.

I get your point. You believe that financial responsibility should be based on a man's ability to control a woman's body. If he can't force her to bear a child she doesn't want or force her to abort a child he doesn't want, he shouldn't have to pay.

You're simply wrong, with your entire argument based on a series of nested fallacies.

First, your basis of a man's obligation is a fallacy. You've posited that the basis is his choice. When in reality, its the existence of his child. If the child exists, his obligation exists. His consent in the birth of child is irrelevant. It has no bearing nor effect on his obligation.

Simply destroying your entire argument. Completely and utterly. But lets kick a dead horse, shall we?

Second, both the man and the woman have the same control over their own bodies. A man can choose not to carry a child to term in his body. And so can a woman. You're insisting that unless a man has control over a WOMAN'S body, he doesn't have freedom or choice. That's nonsense. He has freedom and choice over his own actions and the use of his own body.

'Freedom' isn't the authority to control someone else. That bastardizes the very meaning of the word 'freedom'. If a man wants to choose if he will carry a child to term in his own body, he should get pregnant. But at no point does he get to make that choice for anyone else.

Killing your argument again.

Your first post is 100% wrong.

You don't get my point.

Let's try again shall we?

Just like a woman, a man should have the ability to walk away from a child prior to birth. Period.
The woman can & does this for ANY reason she wants by killing the child. I'm simply suggesting that prior to birth if the man doesn't want the child he too should be able to exercise that same decision by signing his rights away as a father. It has nothing to do with the decision the woman makes.

What's good for the goose and all that shit. Equal treatment under the law.

So let's get this straight

You got a woman pregnant. You tell her to get an abortion and she says ...NO

So you just sign your rights away and walk Scott free and the taxpayers pick up the tab?

I would never tell a woman to get an abortion idiot.
And all options don't end in abortion or taxpayer money. Only the irresponsible ones do

I don't see any situation where you can walk away from responsibility for your child