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

[BlueGin]

of course it's made entirely by her. She's pregnant-----she decides if her pregnancy is carried to term. As women are quick to point out. Birth control measures don't always succeed.
Vasectomy ? Really ? just because a man doesn't want a child right now or by this mate he should give up his chance to sire a child forever ???

Libs are hypocrites. See what happens when you tell a woman to get her tubes tied instead of relying on abortion on demand.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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.

Typical. Completely misses the point.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

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.

What color is the sky in your world?

The entire argument for "Choice" rest upon the premise that conception plays no part in sexual intercourse... Which is the entire foundation under Roe... Which is also the basis of would-be "men" today, who get the idea that they bear no responsibility for sex... "She could have aborted it, but she's the one that chose not too".

Make no mistake about it Skylar, you are here lamenting the unenviable consequences of your own twisted ideas.

And I've got news for ya, this attempt to scuttle the marriage standard is going to make THIS NONSENSE, look like insightful GENIUS!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wrong.

One is a person when he's born, not before ...

The notion of 'personhood' is irrational. As it sets distinction in value for various stages of innocent human life. It rests within a species of reasoning set entirely in subjectivism and as such has absolutely no value to law, justice or discourse involving reasonable people.

FACT: like everything else in the observable universe, Human life begins at the BEGINNING.

 

[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.

Typical. Completely misses the point.

no one "miss[ed] the point". your meaning was clear. you just don't like being called out on your idiocy.

here's the deal.. men don't get veto power over women's bodies. why should they? and if you make someone pregnant, you pay to raise the child because that is what the CHILD needs.

if you take issue with that, keep your pants on.

 

[Valerie]

they aren't even capable of getting the point, jill...

 

[Skylar]

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.

Typical. Completely misses the point.

Nope. She nailed it. The obligation to pay child support is to the child. The basis of that obligation isn't a man's 'choice' or his 'feelings' on being a father. But the existence of a child.

Virtually every basis of argument offered in this thread for why a father should never be responsible for any child he fathers completely misses this simple fact.

 

[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.

Typical. Completely misses the point.

Nope. She nailed it. The obligation to pay child support is to the child. The basis of that obligation isn't a man's 'choice' or his 'feelings' on being a father. But the existence of a child.

Virtually every basis of argument offered in this thread for why a father should never be responsible for any child he fathers completely misses this simple fact.

^^^^^^

that

 

[Skylar]

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.

What color is the sky in your world?

Blue.

And under that blue sky, I haven't seen you mention anything that is even remotely relevant to the discussion we're having. You're railing against the morality of abortion. We're discussing a man's responsibility to care for his own children. Which your comments have nothing to do with.

When you have something relevant to say on a man's responsibility to support his own children, feel free to join us.

 

[dilloduck]

of course it's made entirely by her. She's pregnant-----she decides if her pregnancy is carried to term. As women are quick to point out. Birth control measures don't always succeed.
Vasectomy ? Really ? just because a man doesn't want a child right now or by this mate he should give up his chance to sire a child forever ???

Libs are hypocrites. See what happens when you tell a woman to get her tubes tied instead of relying on abortion on demand.

Absolutely-----When they were seeking the right to kill foetuses they called you a misogynist if you told them to keep their clothes on if they didn't want to get pregnant.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

What color is the sky in your world?

Blue.

And under that blue sky, I haven't seen you mention anything that is even remotely relevant to the discussion we're having. You're railing against the morality of abortion. We're discussing a man's responsibility to care for his own children. Which your comments have nothing to do with.

No we are discussing whether women should have the right to tell men that they have to be a father.

When you have something relevant to say on a man's responsibility to support his own children, feel free to join us.

 

[Syriusly]

of course it's made entirely by her. She's pregnant-----she decides if her pregnancy is carried to term. As women are quick to point out. Birth control measures don't always succeed.
Vasectomy ? Really ? just because a man doesn't want a child right now or by this mate he should give up his chance to sire a child forever ???

Libs are hypocrites. See what happens when you tell a woman to get her tubes tied instead of relying on abortion on demand.

Absolutely-----When they were seeking the right to kill foetuses they called you a misogynist if you told them to keep their clothes on if they didn't want to get pregnant.

So tell us again how you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

 

[BlueGin]

of course it's made entirely by her. She's pregnant-----she decides if her pregnancy is carried to term. As women are quick to point out. Birth control measures don't always succeed.
Vasectomy ? Really ? just because a man doesn't want a child right now or by this mate he should give up his chance to sire a child forever ???

Libs are hypocrites. See what happens when you tell a woman to get her tubes tied instead of relying on abortion on demand.

Absolutely-----When they were seeking the right to kill foetuses they called you a misogynist if you told them to keep their clothes on if they didn't want to get pregnant.

The biddies on this board that run around crying "misogynist"... Are also the first little hypocrites to thank the men they hang with for calling other women *****. I take nothing they say seriously ...since they want to have everything both ways.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

You're railing against the morality of abortion. We're discussing a man's responsibility to care for his own children. Which your comments have nothing to do with.

The addled reasoning under Roe, removed all sense of responsibility for conception.

Such is a product of the mental disorder that presents with sexual deviancy, left-think and every othher facet of the evil OKA: Relativism.

That you're incapable of recognizing that obvious truth, merely iforms the board that you are also saddled with that same cognitive deficiency.

 

[Kosh]

I see this riled up the far left so they can claim that it is someone's responsibility and money speeches..

 

[imawhosure]

While the thread starter does have a point, let me remind all of the people against him that the only reason your debate points have merit, is because you are quoting laws made by man, and not nature. Most laws were made to protect children long before Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade took the protection of children, and turned soley to protection of women. Since men had no standing in the decision, the outcome gave the total power to women in the decision, and left men out totally. Change the debate and ask........what if a husband and wife have tried to get pregnant for 7 years and finally do, but in the 1st month of pregnancy the wife finds a new stud muffin. If she wants to abort, how is it the man has no say? And if she doesn't and wants her new stud muffin to raise the child instead of the father, how is that fair either?

Eventually, all (or most) the people on here who are all for it being soley one persons choice will change their tune; and that change will come in the not to distant future when they come up with the male birth control pill, or patch.....and it will happen much sooner than later. When this happens, the man (if he has any brains) will then become the sole decision maker on children, when he wants to try, who he wants to try with, or pretend he is trying when he really is not; just as some women today pretend they are on the pill, when they are really trying to get pregnant.

While it is to late for many of the baby boomers to enjoy this obvious "balancing of the playing field," we should be confident that it will return some semblance of sanity to the assertion progressives have claimed is the victim, while the supposed victimized has held all the power. In any case, the children have suffered immensely in this scenario, many women have been mislead, and men have been fleeced.

In my humble opinion, once either participant can turn off the baby making apparatus far in advance without having choosing to do so in the heat of the moment, the playing field of fairness will again be revisited. I have a feeling that some women will start screaming like hell at that time because they will become more concerned about someone having control over if they can have a child, instead of the choice of if they want to get rid of one; but that is just my take.

In either case, let us hope they devise that pill/patch quickly, and let us see what happens.

 

[dilloduck]

of course it's made entirely by her. She's pregnant-----she decides if her pregnancy is carried to term. As women are quick to point out. Birth control measures don't always succeed.
Vasectomy ? Really ? just because a man doesn't want a child right now or by this mate he should give up his chance to sire a child forever ???

Libs are hypocrites. See what happens when you tell a woman to get her tubes tied instead of relying on abortion on demand.

Absolutely-----When they were seeking the right to kill foetuses they called you a misogynist if you told them to keep their clothes on if they didn't want to get pregnant.

So tell us again how you want to be able to tell a woman that her choices are to either get an abortion or raise your child on her own, if you decide after depositing your sperm in her, that you aren't willing to be responsible.

you conveniently forgot the third choice ----the one you are so fond of telling men that they have. Keeping their clothes on.

 

[Skylar]

You're railing against the morality of abortion. We're discussing a man's responsibility to care for his own children. Which your comments have nothing to do with.

The addled reasoning under Roe, removed all sense of responsibility for conception.

Such is a product of the mental disorder that presents with sexual deviancy, left-think and every othher facet of the evil OKA: Relativism.

That you're incapable of recognizing that obvious truth, merely iforms the board that you are also saddled with that same cognitive deficiency.

And in all the random ad hominem nonsense, you still never actually addressed the topic of discussion: a man's responsibility to support his own child.

Try again.

 

[Skylar]

While the thread starter does have a point, let me remind all of the people against him that the only reason your debate points have merit, is because you are quoting laws made by man, and not nature.

No, the thread starter doesn't have a point. A man has control over his own body. A woman control over hers. What the OP is demanding is that a man have control over his body. AND he have control over a woman's. While the woman has neither control over his body, nor her own.

Nope. We're not doing that.

If she wants to abort, how is it the man has no say?

Its not his body that is being used to carry the child. He controls his body, she controls her own.

Its pretty simple.

While it is to late for many of the baby boomers to enjoy this obvious "balancing of the playing field," we should be confident that it will return some semblance of sanity to the assertion progressives have claimed is the victim, while the supposed victimized has held all the power. In any case, the children have suffered immensely in this scenario, many women have been mislead, and men have been fleeced.

The field will be 'balanced' when its men carrying the children as often as women.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

While the thread starter does have a point, let me remind all of the people against him that the only reason your debate points have merit, is because you are quoting laws made by man, and not nature. Most laws were made to protect children long before Roe V Wade. Roe V Wade took the protection of children, and turned soley to protection of women. Since men had no standing in the decision, the outcome gave the total power to women in the decision, and left men out totally. Change the debate and ask........what if a husband and wife have tried to get pregnant for 7 years and finally do, but in the 1st month of pregnancy the wife finds a new stud muffin. If she wants to abort, how is it the man has no say? And if she doesn't and wants her new stud muffin to raise the child instead of the father, how is that fair either?

Eventually, all (or most) the people on here who are all for it being soley one persons choice will change their tune; and that change will come in the not to distant future when they come up with the male birth control pill, or patch.....and it will happen much sooner than later. When this happens, the man (if he has any brains) will then become the sole decision maker on children, when he wants to try, who he wants to try with, or pretend he is trying when he really is not; just as some women today pretend they are on the pill, when they are really trying to get pregnant.

While it is to late for many of the baby boomers to enjoy this obvious "balancing of the playing field," we should be confident that it will return some semblance of sanity to the assertion progressives have claimed is the victim, while the supposed victimized has held all the power. In any case, the children have suffered immensely in this scenario, many women have been mislead, and men have been fleeced.

In my humble opinion, once either participant can turn off the baby making apparatus far in advance without having choosing to do so in the heat of the moment, the playing field of fairness will again be revisited. I have a feeling that some women will start screaming like hell at that time because they will become more concerned about someone having control over if they can have a child, instead of the choice of if they want to get rid of one; but that is just my take.

In either case, let us hope they devise that pill/patch quickly, and let us see what happens.

With all Relativist reasoning, comes chaos, calamity and catastrohe. As such is the nature of evil.