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

[dilloduck]

The child only exists if the mother allows it to therefore a man's obligation is totally dependent on a woman's choice.

Run that by any legislature that you wish. They will find it to be a fact.

yes that fact is universally acknowledged as self evident under the circumstance of pregnancy, yet it still does not effect any parental obligation for children once they are born. men who find themselves lamenting being in that position - 'dependent on a woman's choice' - have already failed their ultimate obligation to be responsible for where their sperm ends up in the first place.

men need to be dependent upon birth control or self control, not blaming women for their own offspring.

good luck convincing any legislature to let fathers off the hook once a child is born...

The man AND the woman have failed yet the woman somehow gets another chance. Why ?

another chance at what?

not being a parent---why is this so complicated ?------prior to sex they both agree that they don't want a child. If THEY fail at birth control the woman gets a second choice.

 

[Valerie]

seems pretty simple to me, since page one of this thread...

i'm surprised anyone felt the need to keep posting beyond what'd already been said.

 

[dilloduck]

seems pretty simple to me, since page one of this thread...

i'm surprised anyone felt the need to keep posting beyond what'd already been said.

which post on page one ?

 

[Skylar]

The child only exists if the mother allows it to therefore a man's obligation is totally dependent on a woman's choice. Run that by any legislature that you wish. They will find it to be a fact.

Which is pristinely irrelevant to his obligation to support his own children. If he wants to be a father, if he doesn't want to be a father, nothing changes. His obligation still exists if the child exists.

As his obligation is to the child. Regardless of his feelings on the matter.

The existence of the child IS the obligation. Why do you continually ignore that ?

Then you acknowledge that if a child exists a father has an obligation to support it.

You just obliterated your own argument. And demonstrated mine. Yes, if a child exists, a father's obligation to support that child exists.

Wrong---I have demonstrated that in todays world, children ONLY exist if a woman chooses so. She can in fact opt to make a man a father when neither wanted to be a parent when they had sex.

Again, irrelevant. If a man 'wants' to be a father has no bearing on his obligation when he is one. You keep citing your 'feelings' as if they have any relevance to your obligation.

They don't. If the child exists, the obligation exists. Or as you so aptly put it, 'The exist of the child is the obligation'.

 

[Valerie]

"prior to sex they both agree that they don't want a child. If THEY fail at birth control the woman gets a second choice."


relax dillo, you could always require your unreliable lady friends to sign legal documents relinquishing your parental responsibilities prior to sex...


<---- extremely sexy

 

[dilloduck]

WTF are you talking about. I'm not citing anyone's feelings. If a woman wants to create a child she should pay for her decision to do so. Simple responsibility

 

[dilloduck]

"prior to sex they both agree that they don't want a child. If THEY fail at birth control the woman gets a second choice."


relax dillo, you could always require your unreliable lady friends to sign legal documents relinquishing your parental responsibilities prior to sex...

If it holds up in court apparently that's the way to go. Like places in California where you have to have written consent to have sex.

 

[Skylar]

WTF are you talking about. I'm not citing anyone's feelings. If a woman wants to create a child she should pay for her decision to do so. Simple responsibility

A man doesn't have a responnsibility to the woman. He has a responsibilty to his child.

And a man is responsible for any child he fathers. Simple responsibility. You're insisting that a father should never have to be responsible for any child he fathers.

Um, that's not responsibility. But a stunning abdication of it. Um, no. We're not doing that. You're responsible for your kids.

And that's completely reasonable.

 

[Skylar]

"prior to sex they both agree that they don't want a child. If THEY fail at birth control the woman gets a second choice."


relax dillo, you could always require your unreliable lady friends to sign legal documents relinquishing your parental responsibilities prior to sex...

If it holds up in court apparently that's the way to go. Like places in California where you have to have written consent to have sex.

It won't. As the party with the right to support didn't sign. Its the child that has the right to support from both parents. And they can't sign away that right.

As for California and 'having to have written consent to have sex', you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[dilloduck]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

 

[Skylar]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

She's responsible for any child born. Just like the man is. Their obligations are always equal.

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

Nope.

 

[dilloduck]

Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex L.A. Weekly

 

[dilloduck]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

She's responsible for any child born. Just like the man is. Their obligations are always equal.

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

Nope.

No child can be born without her consent. A child CAN be born without a fathers consent.

 

[Skylar]

Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex L.A. Weekly

So we've gone from 'have to have written consent' to 'may be verbal consent'.

Backpedal much?

 

[Skylar]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

She's responsible for any child born. Just like the man is. Their obligations are always equal.

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

Nope.

No child can be born without her consent. A child CAN be born without a fathers consent.

A father's consent isn't the basis of his obligation. Any argument you want to make predicated on a father's consent being the basis of his obligation to support his child is invalid.

The existence of the child is the basis. If the child exists, his obligation exists. You can ignore this fact. But you can't make the law ignore it. With 50 of 50 States recognizing this. From the Bluest of blue to the Reddest of red.

 

[dilloduck]

Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex L.A. Weekly

So we've gone from 'have to have written consent' to 'may be verbal consent'.

Backpedal much?

you get the picture but will never admit to it.

 

[Skylar]

Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex L.A. Weekly

So we've gone from 'have to have written consent' to 'may be verbal consent'.

Backpedal much?

you get the picture but will never admit to it.

I got the picture: you were simply wrong. You do not have to have written consent to have sex in California.

You can't get around that.

 

[dilloduck]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

She's responsible for any child born. Just like the man is. Their obligations are always equal.

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

Nope.

No child can be born without her consent. A child CAN be born without a fathers consent.

A father's consent isn't the basis of his obligation. Any argument you want to make predicated on a father's consent being the basis of his obligation to support his child is invalid.

The existence of the child is the basis. If the child exists, his obligation exists. You can ignore this fact. But you can't make the law ignore it. With 50 of 50 States recognizing this. From the Bluest of blue to the Reddest of red.

Right---and a child ONLY exists with the consent of the mother. The mother CREATES the obligation and then the state forces the farther to meet it. Without mom's explicit consent there is nothing there. Mom creates the obligation. The exact same obligation that women sought so hard to escape from.

 

[dilloduck]

Verbal or Written Permission Could be Required For College Sex L.A. Weekly

So we've gone from 'have to have written consent' to 'may be verbal consent'.

Backpedal much?

you get the picture but will never admit to it.

I got the picture: you were simply wrong. You do not have to have written consent to have sex in California.

You can't get around that.

they certainly acknowledge how tricky the consent issue is and have made serious attempts to address it. Serious enough to even consider written consent. You don't even understand the concept of consent. Can a man be forced to be a father without his consent ? Absolutely.

 

[Skylar]

But a woman isn't ? She just kills it ?

She's responsible for any child born. Just like the man is. Their obligations are always equal.

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

Nope.

No child can be born without her consent. A child CAN be born without a fathers consent.

A father's consent isn't the basis of his obligation. Any argument you want to make predicated on a father's consent being the basis of his obligation to support his child is invalid.

The existence of the child is the basis. If the child exists, his obligation exists. You can ignore this fact. But you can't make the law ignore it. With 50 of 50 States recognizing this. From the Bluest of blue to the Reddest of red.

Right---and a child ONLY exists with the consent of the mother. The mother CREATES the obligation and then the state forces the farther to meet it.

You're again fallaciously trying to argue that a man's consent is the basis of his obligation.

It isn't. Any argument you make based on the idea that a man's consent is the basis of his obligation is already dead. The existence of his child is the basis of the obligation. And when his children are born, he's responsible for them.

This is reasonable and universally accepted by every legislature in every state.