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

[Skylar]

he has no control over her body whatsoever. He cannot make her have an abortion, nor make her carry to term. What he should have the right to do is inform her of his desire to not have the child. Then its her Choice to take care of it herself or abort it. The man's choice has only the impact of informing her that he will not be there to support any child.

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

 

[Skylar]

Evil men are to blame or women having vaginas. Let's face it.

Word salad. Lets face it.

 

[Skylar]

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

And we all know that all child support gets spent only on the kid.....

We're speaking of the basis of financial obligation. And its not to the mother. But instead to the child. If the mother died and someone else cared for the child, the father would still be obligated.

NOW who is being silly?

That would still be you.

Based on a woman making a choice he had no input into, which again is not fair if you seek equality.

He has the exact same choice a woman has: control over his own body. And that's perfectly fair.

You're demanding that he control his own body. AND he control her body. While she doesn't control his body. And she doesn't control her own. This you call 'equal'.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

 

[martybegan]

Women want the power over men. They have no interest in being equal in this regard.

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality. What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Everyone now has a choice, before and after sex. In your situation only the woman does, via the power of the State. So again, women need the state to be daddy with the shotgun? Where's that empowerment everyone always talks about?

 

[martybegan]

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

And we all know that all child support gets spent only on the kid.....

We're speaking of the basis of financial obligation. And its not to the mother. But instead to the child. If the mother died and someone else cared for the child, the father would still be obligated.

NOW who is being silly?

That would still be you.

Based on a woman making a choice he had no input into, which again is not fair if you seek equality.

He has the exact same choice a woman has: control over his own body. And that's perfectly fair.

You're demanding that he control his own body. AND he control her body. While she doesn't control his body. And she doesn't control her own. This you call 'equal'.

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

They both have control over their bodies before sex, by biology she retains control over her own, what we are talking about is control over legal obligations. Both have it before, but only one has it after, and that is not equality.

 

[dilloduck]

no------only a women has the power to bring a child into the world.

 

[PratchettFan]

No. The same legal burden is on both of them. You just don't think it's fair you don't get an equal say in the biological part of the equation, even though you accept no responsibility in it. She takes all the risks, but you think you should be able to make the decisions. The only thing I am admitting is the woman's body belongs to her and you get no say. Whether you think that is fair is of no consequence.

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

 

[dilloduck]

Evil men are to blame or women having vaginas. Let's face it.

Word salad. Lets face it.

Right up there with fetuses not being alive

 

[Skylar]

Women want power over themselves. And they have it.

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

 

[martybegan]

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

 

[martybegan]

Then why do they want to have control over dad's wallet ?

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

 

[dilloduck]

But only one has the legal ability to remove their responsibility. What I am saying is both should have an EQUAL decision. If a woman wants responsibility for her body, she can have it, but she should also accept the total responsibility of the decision to keep a baby if the male does not want it. The final decision would always be hers.

You want to deny men the same choice just because they are men. That you don't get the sad irony of this is your own problem.

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

I feel so sorry for women. I'm going to cry now. Poor things

 

[dilloduck]

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

Agreed--it's all about legal issues. If a woman can flush a legal responsibilty down the drain why can't a man walk away from it ?

 

[Skylar]

The obligation of a father to financially support his child is to the child. Not the mother.

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

Why would the state assume financial responsibility? There's no other contract that works like this. Party A and Party B sign a contract that obligates Party C to pay?

Um, that's not how it works. The obligation is on the part of the parents. Not the State. There's no logical reason for the State to take that responsibility. Nor any logical reason to absolve a father of the responsibility of supporting his own child.

Your argument again, doesn't make the slightest sense.

 

[dilloduck]

There is no child unless the mother decides to have one.

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

Why would the state assume financial responsibility? There's no other contract that works like this. Party A and Party B sign a contract that obligates Party C to pay?

Um, that's not how it works. The obligation is on the part of the parents. Not the State. There's no logical reason for the State to take that responsibility. Nor any logical reason to absolve a father of the responsibility of supporting his own child.

Your argument again, doesn't make the slightest sense.

Horseshit amigo-----The State legally coerces the father to pay.

 

[PratchettFan]

That would not be EQUAL. That would be incredibly UNEQUAL. If a pregnancy goes bad the worst that can happen to the woman is she is dead. The worst that can happen to a man is he collects the insurance money and moves on with his life. Physical damage to the woman from giving birth is normal. Physical damage to the man just doesn't happen. You are ignoring the fact that the man has no skin in the game at all when it comes to the pregnancy, and simply focusing on money. Your position is that because that part doesn't impact you, then it doesn't count. You are wrong. It is all that does count. You don't take the risk so you don't get a say. If you don't think that is fair, I'm told homosexuality is a choice.

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

It is entirely about biology. I realize you prefer it not be because it is inconvenient, but those are the facts. If you decide to have sex and you aren't snipped, that is the chance you take. You go into the deal with your eyes open. If you think it is a bad deal, then don't do it.

 

[Skylar]

All the more reason for women to be more selective of who they sleep with, and how much protection they use. You again keep bringing up biological issues with childbirth, and keep ignoring the main question, why should a woman be able to terminate their responsibility for a fetus unilaterally while a man cannot? We are obviously talking about an unplanned (by at least one party, usually both) pregnancy.

We have spent the past few decades trying to make sex as easy and meaningless as possible. What you want is only one side to be unable to deal with the consequences after the fact, and have that side soley decided by gender. That is discrimination.

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

Agreed--it's all about legal issues. If a woman can flush a legal responsibilty down the drain why can't a man walk away from it ?

Simple: it creates unequal obligation, robs a child of the support of one of its parents. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's not equal.

See, in the current system obligation is always equal. Either both a mother and a father are both responsible. Or neither are. A mother can create no scenario where her obligation is any more or less than the fathers. Thus, any child born has a right to support from both parents.

That's equality. The same obligation at all times for both parents.

 

[Skylar]

And there is obligation for anyone until the child is born. The basis of that obligation is the child's existence. If she loses custody of the child, she's still obligated to pay for the child's support.

Its the exact same situation for the father. Neither 'choice' nor 'power' is the basis of that obligation to pay. But the child being born.

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

Why would the state assume financial responsibility? There's no other contract that works like this. Party A and Party B sign a contract that obligates Party C to pay?

Um, that's not how it works. The obligation is on the part of the parents. Not the State. There's no logical reason for the State to take that responsibility. Nor any logical reason to absolve a father of the responsibility of supporting his own child.

Your argument again, doesn't make the slightest sense.

Horseshit amigo-----The State legally coerces the father to pay.

If the father doesn't meet his financial obligations, you bet the State forces him to. As the father has an obligation to pay for the support of his own children. Just like a child has a right to support from both parents.

 

[dilloduck]

When it comes to birth, biology is all there is. That is why the man gets no say. He isn't the one carrying the kid. When you change that, then you will have a point. Until then, you have nothing.

You are the one with no legal point. All you can do is appeal to biology and emotion, and not give a single credible reason why a man, when he properly notifies a woman in time for a legal abortion, should be held responsible for a child he doesn't want. If a woman can get rid of one they don't want, the man should have the same option. Fair is Fair.

Fair is not what you are interested in. So I am fine with you thinking it is unfair. The man gets no say in the pregnancy. None. Not even a little bit. And he is still financially responsible. If he doesn't want that deal, he should get snipped so he doesn't have that problem.

If and when he is willing and able to take on the pregnancy himself, then I fully support his right to make the decision and the woman still has the financial responsibility. Because fair is fair.

Or the woman can get her tubes tied, fair is fair after all.

Again, it isn't about the biology of pregnancy, its about the legal ability to have consequence free sex. If women have it, men should have it as well.

Agreed--it's all about legal issues. If a woman can flush a legal responsibilty down the drain why can't a man walk away from it ?

Simple: it creates unequal obligation, robs a child of the support of one of its parents. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's not equal.

See, in the current system obligation is always equal. Either both a mother and a father are both responsible. Or neither are. A mother can create no scenario where her obligation is any more or less than the fathers. Thus, any child born has a right to support from both parents.

That's equality. The same obligation at all times for both parents.

How is it that you don't understand that after a woman conceives she can make a choice where there IS NO financial responsibilty for ANYONE ?

 

[dilloduck]

The child becomes meaningless in the equation once you accept the fact that both sides should have a choice before and after sex, if you want true equality.

You have true equality. Each person controls their own body. Your version of 'equality' is a man controlling his own body and controlling a woman's body. While she controls neither his body, nor her own.

Um, that's not equality.

What is meaningful is the choice made by the woman after she know the man doesn't want a kid, and as long as that position is made clear before legal on demand abortion is not allowed.

Same fallacious basis as always. As the obligation to support a child isn't based on choice or power. Its based on the child's existence. As its the child who has the right to support. Making any 'contract' signed irrelevant as the party with the right to support didn't sign it.

If the child exists, the obligation exists. You can't get around that.

Again, because the State takes the place of Daddy with the Shotgun.

Running back to the patriarchy...

Why would the state assume financial responsibility? There's no other contract that works like this. Party A and Party B sign a contract that obligates Party C to pay?

Um, that's not how it works. The obligation is on the part of the parents. Not the State. There's no logical reason for the State to take that responsibility. Nor any logical reason to absolve a father of the responsibility of supporting his own child.

Your argument again, doesn't make the slightest sense.

Horseshit amigo-----The State legally coerces the father to pay.

If the father doesn't meet his financial obligations, you bet the State forces him to. As the father has an obligation to pay for the support of his own children. Just like a child has a right to support from both parents.

Of course------the State is the one who enacted the laws that make him financially responsible. It sure ain't mother nature.