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

[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. 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.

You're a relativist. Do you consider yourself evil?

 

[dilloduck]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

 

[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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

 

[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.

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.

You're not arguing for responsibility Skylar. You want to project responsibility; setting such upon men, because such suits your subjective need.

Sadly for your position, your foundation dismisses the existence of responsibility. You can't spend three generation erasing all sense of responsibility, then get all pissy when the consequences of your own reasoning bites you on the ass.

Of the two of us, I AM THE ONLY ONE THAT HAS EVER POINTED OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES INHERENT IN HUMAN RIGHTS.

Now go ahead and respond thru the pretense that your argument has not been refuted by the consequences of the policies established by the reasoning that is YOUR ARGUMENT... and concede by default in so doing.

 

[Skylar]

Youre not arguing for responsibility Skylar.

Of course I am. A father is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

You have yet to even disagree. As we both know I'm right.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

 

[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.

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

The child has thhe right to its life. Which Roe dismissed more than 40 years ago.

Of course the Judicial Decision did not effect natural law... thus the consequences of that decision were not mitigated, thus the 50 million murdered children and the decay of the culture that you're presently lamenting.

Your argument fails because it rests within a fatally flawed construct, specifically one of the circular variety: 'Men are responsible for their child because men are responsible for their child.'

In reality, thus in truth... men are responsible for the children they conceivedm because they accepted the trust of the woman who allowed them to join with her, by entering her body, the act nature designed specifically for procreation.

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

 

[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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

My whole argument is recognizing the actual basis of a man's obligation: his child's right to support from both his parents.

You keep throwing up imaginary irrelevancies that have nothing to do with this basis. And I keep shooting them down with the same simple fact: a child has a right to support from his parents.

You can't get around that.

 

[Skylar]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

The issue is the child being born at all yet you conveniently dodge the VERY THING WOMAN FOUGHT FOR. The right to cease it's existence so there would BE NO RESPONSIBILITY !

 

[dilloduck]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

 

[Skylar]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

You can swallow whatever you'd like. Any kid of yours born still has a right to support from both parents.

 

[bodecea]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

He consented the minute he unzipped.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

He consented the minute he unzipped.

Then she did too

 

[BlueGin]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

 

[dilloduck]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

You can swallow whatever you'd like. Any kid of yours born still has a right to support from both parents.

continue to beg the question instead of answering it. Shouting "irrelevant" is the only hope you got.

 

[dilloduck]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

You can swallow whatever you'd like. Any kid of yours born still has a right to support from both parents.

She's the one who should have swallowed.

 

[dilloduck]

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

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.

A man should definitely be responsible for the child that he consented to have. Just like a woman should.

His consent is irrelevant. As it has nothing to do with with his basis of obligation to support his child. The child being born is the basis, as the child has a right to support from both parents.

You keep running to the 'choice' as establishing responsibility. And you keep running into the brick wall of its irrelevance. As a man's choice to be a father has nothing to do with his obligation to support his kids.

It never has.

You whole argument consists of repeating over and over that the man is " irrelevant ". That pretty much sums up your attitude.

Yep.

Irrelevant until they want something.... Your money for instance

oh ya--she'll be more than happy to handle if for you for 18 years

 

[Skylar]

The man is therefore, equally responsible for the child with the woman... who bears FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR SUCH, AS THAT CHILD BEGINS INSIDE HER BODY.

Then you agree that a man is responsible for supporting any kid of his that is born.

Well that was easy. You could have just started with acknowledgement that I was right on this issue and saved yourself two days of posting.

I swallowed your money. It's mine now because it's in my body. Sorry.

You can swallow whatever you'd like. Any kid of yours born still has a right to support from both parents.

continue to beg the question instead of answering it. Shouting "irrelevant" is the only hope you got.

Oh, I'm not begging the question. I'm citing the actual legal basis of a father's obligation to support his children: the child's right to support from both its parents.

You're the one offering us blithering nonsense about 'granting consent to use sperm' and other pseudo-legal gibberish that has nothing to do with the actual basis of a man's obligation to support his own kids.

Remember....your imaginary basis of obligation doesn't actually exist. While a child's right to support from both its parents is recognized in 50 of 50 states.

 

[dilloduck]

and people are saying that maybe that law should be revisited and on what grounds they should be revisited on. step up and get with the program