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

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Bullshit. The woman can give up the child at birth.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Period

I am not sure whether your rant is the rant of a man upset that he had sex and has to pay child support or whether this is a general rant about paying taxes for schools and libraries and other things that don't think that you should have to pay taxes about.

You just sound like grumpy grampa.

He's in love with michelle...

 

[Moonglow]

"See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there."


women have the womb, thus the ultimate control via that natural 'imbalance', so to speak...

I wonder if God knew it would be so popular..??

 

[Skylar]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Bullshit. The woman can give up the child at birth.

If the father is involved, he gets a say. If he's not, he has no obligation. There's no scenario where the father is obligated while the mother is not. Either both have an obligation, or neither do.

Your scenario creates a scenario where the mother is obligated but the father is not. And that's where it breaks.

 

[Skylar]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Lets look at the decision outcomes:

Woman Doesn't Want: Man Doesn't Want. Abortion, no one pays, no one wants to pay.
Woman Doesn't Want: Man Wants: Abortion, no one pays, man wanted to pay.
Woman Want's, Man Doesn't Want, Birth, both have to pay, man didn't want to pay.
Woman Want's Man Want's, both have to pay. both want to pay.

If you go by that, in two scenarios the men don't get what they want, in none of them does the woman not get what she wants.

See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there.

'Getting what you want' isn't the standard. Obligation is. And in every scenario you cited, the obligation is equal.

If the child exists, equal obligation exists.

 

[Valerie]

"See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there."


women have the womb, thus the ultimate control via that natural 'imbalance', so to speak...

but we give them a legal choice for that control, i.e. legal abortion. How is denying men the same legal equivalent, and control over their sex life somehow a bad idea?

men don't have wombs thus the circumstances will never be 'equal'.

no one GAVE women that choice, it is a natural circumstance constitutionally protected from government intrusion in the first trimester.

once a baby is born, an entirely different legal matter arises as to the responsibility for the well being of the child.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Bullshit. The woman can give up the child at birth.

If the father is involved, he gets a say. If he's not, he has no obligation. There's no scenario where the father is obligated while the mother is not. Either both have an obligation, or neither do.

Your scenario creates a scenario where the mother is obligated but the father is not. And that's where it breaks.

You just don't get it. The "mother" should not be the one determining the obligation for the father. You don't advocate equal rights you advocate the only one with rights. Meanwhile the child/father have none.

 

[Skylar]

once a baby is born, an entirely different legal matter arises as to the responsibility for the well being of the child.

Exactly. The obligation of the parents is to the child, not each other. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Lets look at the decision outcomes:

Woman Doesn't Want: Man Doesn't Want. Abortion, no one pays, no one wants to pay.
Woman Doesn't Want: Man Wants: Abortion, no one pays, man wanted to pay.
Woman Want's, Man Doesn't Want, Birth, both have to pay, man didn't want to pay.
Woman Want's Man Want's, both have to pay. both want to pay.

If you go by that, in two scenarios the men don't get what they want, in none of them does the woman not get what she wants.

See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there.

'Getting what you want' isn't the standard. Obligation is. And in every scenario you cited, the obligation is equal.

If the child exists, equal obligation exists.

And every scenario is completely controlled by the woman's CHOICE.

 

[Moonglow]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Lets look at the decision outcomes:

Woman Doesn't Want: Man Doesn't Want. Abortion, no one pays, no one wants to pay.
Woman Doesn't Want: Man Wants: Abortion, no one pays, man wanted to pay.
Woman Want's, Man Doesn't Want, Birth, both have to pay, man didn't want to pay.
Woman Want's Man Want's, both have to pay. both want to pay.

If you go by that, in two scenarios the men don't get what they want, in none of them does the woman not get what she wants.

See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there.

'Getting what you want' isn't the standard. Obligation is. And in every scenario you cited, the obligation is equal.

If the child exists, equal obligation exists.

And every scenario is completely controlled by the woman's CHOICE.

You just have to know how to smooze back...

 

[martybegan]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Lets look at the decision outcomes:

Woman Doesn't Want: Man Doesn't Want. Abortion, no one pays, no one wants to pay.
Woman Doesn't Want: Man Wants: Abortion, no one pays, man wanted to pay.
Woman Want's, Man Doesn't Want, Birth, both have to pay, man didn't want to pay.
Woman Want's Man Want's, both have to pay. both want to pay.

If you go by that, in two scenarios the men don't get what they want, in none of them does the woman not get what she wants.

See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there.

'Getting what you want' isn't the standard. Obligation is. And in every scenario you cited, the obligation is equal.

If the child exists, equal obligation exists.

But only one party wanted said child in one of those cases. and in any case a woman didn't want the child, she gets her wish.

 

[martybegan]

"See the imbalance? Now you can say the imbalance is fair, but you can't deny it isn't there."


women have the womb, thus the ultimate control via that natural 'imbalance', so to speak...

but we give them a legal choice for that control, i.e. legal abortion. How is denying men the same legal equivalent, and control over their sex life somehow a bad idea?

men don't have wombs thus the circumstances will never be 'equal'.

no one GAVE women that choice, it is a natural circumstance constitutionally protected from government intrusion in the first trimester.

once a baby is born, an entirely different legal matter arises as to the responsibility for the well being of the child.

And men can be given a legal way out, a paper "abortion" if you will, if they don't want the kid but she does.

How is that unfair?

 

[Ravi]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Bullshit. The woman can give up the child at birth.

If the father is involved, he gets a say. If he's not, he has no obligation. There's no scenario where the father is obligated while the mother is not. Either both have an obligation, or neither do.

Your scenario creates a scenario where the mother is obligated but the father is not. And that's where it breaks.

You just don't get it. The "mother" should not be the one determining the obligation for the father. You don't advocate equal rights you advocate the only one with rights. Meanwhile the child/father have none.

The man has all the time in the world to decide if he wants to have sex and possibly make a baby. Unless he is forcibly raped he has no choice but to live with the consequences of his actions.

 

[Newby]

Any male that has sex KNOWING that his options are limited has no rational reason to whine about the outcome.

Why only the male?

 

[Skylar]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Bullshit. The woman can give up the child at birth.

If the father is involved, he gets a say. If he's not, he has no obligation. There's no scenario where the father is obligated while the mother is not. Either both have an obligation, or neither do.

Your scenario creates a scenario where the mother is obligated but the father is not. And that's where it breaks.

You just don't get it. The "mother" should not be the one determining the obligation for the father.

She's the one deciding if the child exists. She can't create a scenario where he has any obligation that she does not. Its always equal.

Your scenario creates unequal obligation. It doesn't work. Under our law, the child has a right to support from both parents.

You don't advocate equal rights you advocate the only one with rights. Meanwhile the child/father have none.

There's never a scenario I advocate where a man and woman have unequal obligation. Or where a child has a right to less than both parent's support. Your proposal fails on both counts.

Its a hard sell to try to argue that a father shouldn't have to support his own children. Or that a child shouldn't get support from its father because the father couldn't force an woman to have an abortion against her will.

Both arguments are yours. And both lack persuasive power. With every legislature of every state rejecting it. Its an argument so poor that its failure transcends politics.

 

[Newby]

some men are just irresponsible whiners... but what are you going to do?

Why only men?

 

[Ravi]

Any male that has sex KNOWING that his options are limited has no rational reason to whine about the outcome.

Why only the male?

Because he can't get pregnant.

 

[Newby]

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

Period

Nope. A man and woman's obligation are always equal. If a child is born, they are both equally obligated to support it. If she aborts, neither have an obligation. Its always the same.

What you're demanding is unequal obligation. Where a woman is always responsible for every child she bears, but a man can absolve himself of all responsibility of any child he fathers.

That dog won't hunt. As the obligation is to the child. Not the other parent. If the child exists, the obligation exists.

Where do you get unequal obligation? A man is always responsible for every child he bears, and a woman can absolve herself of all responsibility of any child she conceives? Yet she decides whether the child lives or dies, she decides whether the man is a father or not, she decides whether she is a mother or not. If a man doesn't want to be a father, either financially or emotionally, that should be his choice, same as the woman. Why should women have special rights? Because you carry it for nine lousy months? Give me a break.

 

[Valerie]

Any male that has sex KNOWING that his options are limited has no rational reason to whine about the outcome.

Why only the male?

because men don't have wombs...


you think the government should be able to force women to bear unwanted pregnancies?

that effects these men who don't want babies too... ^

we should prefer to defer to big daddy government knows best?

 

[Newby]

Any male that has sex KNOWING that his options are limited has no rational reason to whine about the outcome.

Why only the male?

Because he can't get pregnant.

All the MORE reason that any FEMALE that has sex KNOWING that her options are limited as no rational reason to whine about the outcome. Is logic dead??