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

[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.

they certainly acknowledge how tricky the consent issue is and have made serious attempts to address it.

You do not have to have written consent in California to have sex.

Just admit you were wrong.

 

[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.

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

 

[Skylar]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis is quite simply: CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is NOT a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring"; as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE MURDER" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others. We see that same notion at the core of the lawsuits by the sexually deviant designed to destroy the lives of innocents, in a direct challenge of protections of the right of those innocents to speak freely and to freely practice their religion. And that false sense of entitlement has no erupted and is now nearly completely out of control.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

 

[Skylar]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

It's entirely, unavoidably relevant Skylar... in that the Ideological LEFT is where the rejection of responsibility rests.

There is no species of reasoning on earth, EXCEPT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, which openly rejects the principles in nature that DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS.

What you are failing to understand, is that the male rejection of their responsibility stems entirely from the Left's claim that women bear no responsibility for the children they conceive... that they can screw without any responsibility... that they are perfectly within their rights to murder the children they conceive.

You're in this thread lamenting your own reasoning, claiming such is invalid because it is being advanced by a penis.

Perhaps you should recognize that THAT... is a sign that you people got it wrong and ya got it wrong BIG!

 

[Skylar]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

It's entirely, unavoidably relevant Skylar... in that the Ideological LEFT is where the rejection of responsibility rests.

There is no species of reasoning on earth, EXCEPT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, which openly rejects the principles in nature that DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS.

What you are failing to understand, is that the male rejection of their responsibility stems entirely from the Left's claim that women bear no responsibility for the children they conceive... that they can screw without any responsibility... that they are perfectly within their rights to murder the children they conceive.

You're in this thread lamenting your own reasoning, claiming such is invalid because it is being advanced by a penis.

Perhaps you should recognize that THAT... is a sign that you people got it wrong and ya got it wrong BIG!

And a man shouldn't have to be responsible for the children he fathers....why exactly?

Just a hint: its not the left arguing that a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers. Quite the opposite.

 

[Syriusly]

Why is a woman not obligated to bear the child and can opt to kill it ? A man does not have the option of tossing aside a mistake.

So once again- you want either to be able to force a woman to have an abortion- or if she refuses to have an abortion, the option not to pay for your childs upbringing.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

There is no child until a child is born.

What the mother declares is irrelevant.

Once the child is born- both the mother and father are obligated for the child that they created by mingling their DNA.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

I am impressed you read his bizarre incoherant rantings.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

Wrong.

One is a person when he's born, not before – having nothing to do with what the mother 'declares.'

And when the child is born both parents are responsible.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

Wrong.

One is a person when he's born, not before – having nothing to do with what the mother 'declares.'

And when the child is born both parents are responsible.

If that were only true.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

Wrong.

One is a person when he's born, not before – having nothing to do with what the mother 'declares.'

And when the child is born both parents are responsible.

so what is it that has rights and can't be murdered in the last trimester ?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

There is no child until a child is born.

What the mother declares is irrelevant.

Once the child is born- both the mother and father are obligated for the child that they created by mingling their DNA.

If the mother declares she is going to have an abortion her declaration is quite relevant.

 

[dilloduck]

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

It's entirely, unavoidably relevant Skylar... in that the Ideological LEFT is where the rejection of responsibility rests.

There is no species of reasoning on earth, EXCEPT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, which openly rejects the principles in nature that DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS.

What you are failing to understand, is that the male rejection of their responsibility stems entirely from the Left's claim that women bear no responsibility for the children they conceive... that they can screw without any responsibility... that they are perfectly within their rights to murder the children they conceive.

You're in this thread lamenting your own reasoning, claiming such is invalid because it is being advanced by a penis.

Perhaps you should recognize that THAT... is a sign that you people got it wrong and ya got it wrong BIG!

And a man shouldn't have to be responsible for the children he fathers....why exactly?

Just a hint: its not the left arguing that a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers. Quite the opposite.

Who gives a shit what political parties say ? Why shouldn't a mother give birth to the life she created ?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

There is no child until a child is born.

What the mother declares is irrelevant.

Once the child is born- both the mother and father are obligated for the child that they created by mingling their DNA.

If the mother declares she is going to have an abortion her declaration is quite relevant.

Whether a woman declares she is having an abortion or not is irrelevant.

The only thing relevant is whether or not a child is born.

Once the child is born- both the mother and father are obligated for the child they created by mingling their DNA.

Don't like that?

Don't put your penis in a vagina- or get a vasectomy.

 

[Syriusly]

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

It's entirely, unavoidably relevant Skylar... in that the Ideological LEFT is where the rejection of responsibility rests.

There is no species of reasoning on earth, EXCEPT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, which openly rejects the principles in nature that DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS.

What you are failing to understand, is that the male rejection of their responsibility stems entirely from the Left's claim that women bear no responsibility for the children they conceive... that they can screw without any responsibility... that they are perfectly within their rights to murder the children they conceive.

You're in this thread lamenting your own reasoning, claiming such is invalid because it is being advanced by a penis.

Perhaps you should recognize that THAT... is a sign that you people got it wrong and ya got it wrong BIG!

And a man shouldn't have to be responsible for the children he fathers....why exactly?

Just a hint: its not the left arguing that a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers. Quite the opposite.

Who gives a shit what political parties say ? Why shouldn't a mother give birth to the life she created ?

Why should a father be able to tell a woman to have an abortion- and if she refuses- refuse to pay for his child?

 

[Skylar]

What relevance does that have to do with you being responsible for your kid when its born?

The problem with a species of reasoning that claims a right to murder its own children, is that there's virtually no separating that would-be claim, from the claim of a right to murder the children of others.

The only thing that could set some distance would be the basis for such, which in this instance the basis if CONVENIENCE, leaving absolutely NO REASON to believe that such a claim is a threat to freedom itself.

In point of fact, the Riots of the "Black Spring" as the Left is now calling it, stems directly from the unbridled sense of that same entitlement on which the "RIGHT TO CHOOSE" rests, wherein one's own subjective NEED... provides the license to destroy the lives of others.

Even as we speak, the Left is rejecting the RESPONSIBILITY which rests as the sole element which sustains the right. Which, for those keeping score, is what one does in the process of forfeiting their rights.

And what relevance does that have to do with a man being responsible for his kids when their born?

It's entirely, unavoidably relevant Skylar... in that the Ideological LEFT is where the rejection of responsibility rests.

There is no species of reasoning on earth, EXCEPT THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, which openly rejects the principles in nature that DEFINE HUMAN RIGHTS.

What you are failing to understand, is that the male rejection of their responsibility stems entirely from the Left's claim that women bear no responsibility for the children they conceive... that they can screw without any responsibility... that they are perfectly within their rights to murder the children they conceive.

You're in this thread lamenting your own reasoning, claiming such is invalid because it is being advanced by a penis.

Perhaps you should recognize that THAT... is a sign that you people got it wrong and ya got it wrong BIG!

And a man shouldn't have to be responsible for the children he fathers....why exactly?

Just a hint: its not the left arguing that a man should never be responsible for any child he fathers. Quite the opposite.

Who gives a shit what political parties say ? Why shouldn't a mother give birth to the life she created ?

So far you're avoiding the topic of a father being responsible for his own kids like it were on fire.
When I ask you why a father shouldn't be responsible for his own children you start babbling about mothers.

But that's not actually an answer to my question. Its a dodge. A father being responsible for his own kids is reasonable. And you can provide nothing to refute this.

 

[Skylar]

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.

and there is no child unless the mother's declares it to be one. Don't you find it odd that personhood is some arbitrary concept made up by each individual mother ?

There is no child until a child is born.

What the mother declares is irrelevant.

Once the child is born- both the mother and father are obligated for the child that they created by mingling their DNA.

If the mother declares she is going to have an abortion her declaration is quite relevant.

Which is pristinely irrelevant to children that are born. If a child is born, a father and mother are obligated to support it.

You've never given me any rational reason why it should be any other way.

 

[jillian]

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

Period

every support case would involve a lie that the father told her to abort.

misogyists are funny.

child support is for the child, not the mother. if you have a problem with that, keep your pants on.