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

[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.

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

A woman controls her own body. A man controls his. They have equal control over their own bodies, respectively. The also have equal obligation at all times.

Your scenario would create either unequal control over their own bodies, where a man controls his body AND he controls hers. While a woman controls neither her own body nor his body.

Or your scenario requires unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man isn't responsible for any child he fathers.

Either scenario breaks.

 

[Skylar]

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??

Logic dictates that the parents obligation is to their child. Thus, logically if a child exists an obligation exists.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

Man decides not to have sex- no children- no child support.\
Man decides to have sex- risks having children, having child support.

Don't share the seed, if you aren't willing to pay for the deed.

So men have a responsibility above and beyond that of the woman in this case? How is that equality?

Actually women have responsibility above and beyond that of men.

A man has sex- leaves his sperm behind- and he has no obligations at all until a child is borne.

The man can drink himself into a stupor every night and harm only himself- the woman who does that will be damaging the future child.
A pregnant woman has to consider her future child's health in everything she does- the future father- not at all
The man can sit out the next 9 months and his body is not affected at all- the woman goes through permanent body altering changes.
The man can avoid the pain of delivery - the woman can only do so by large amounts of drugs - and still will have to deal with the pain of recovery.

Once a child is born- both have equal legal responsibilities- though the mother has added physical responsibilities if she does what is considered the healthiest option for the child and breast feeds the child.

 

[Valerie]

trust families not government

 

[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 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?

If a woman 'controls' her body, there should be no unwanted pregnancies. How any sane, rational person can say that men should keep it in their pants if they don't want the responsibility, but then turn around and say that women shouldn't have to do the same is the question. My only conclusion is that people who promote the hypocrisy are neither sane nor rational.

 

[Syriusly]

"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?

These 'men' sure seem to want to be able to either
a) have sex with no responsibility
b) or be able to abort fetuses.

 

[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.

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??

Apparently in your brain it is.

 

[Newby]

If the Guy has no say,then don't ask for money,the child is half him,yet has nothing to say if it lives or dies??
That is some really fucked up logic.

you had your choice at the zipper moment.

did you not realize about the potential consequences after that choice?

maybe you should get to know a woman before you make a sperm deposit, ya know?

So did the woman, you can apply everything you said to the female. Or are they just too stupid and emotional to be able to make choices and understand the consequences?

 

[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??

Apparently in your brain it is.

Of course, all you have is bullshit insults without any rational comments to be found. Shocking! lol Dismissed.

 

[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?

If a woman 'controls' her body, there should be no unwanted pregnancies. How any sane, rational person can say that men should keep it in their pants if they don't want the responsibility, but then turn around and say that women shouldn't have to do the same is the question. My only conclusion is that people who promote the hypocrisy are neither sane nor rational.

or you just don't get the legal nuance... we've been around this block before, newby.

your appeal is an emotional one, the constitution is rightfully disinterested in having that power over individual privacy.

 

[Skylar]

"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?

These 'men' sure seem to want to be able to either
a) have sex with no responsibility
b) or be able to abort fetuses.

Yup. Its an argument to either absolve themselves of their responsibility to support their own children...

Or an argument for them to control a woman's body against her will. With no reciprocating obligation or control on the part of the woman over him.

This they call 'equality'.

 

[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.

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.

The custodial parent can give up the child for adoption, correct? If the man is the custodial parent the woman should be and is legally responsible for child support, no? And the man, if the custodial parent, can give the child up for adoption.

 

[bodecea]

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

Period

Just think...he could have kept it in his pants.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Period

Just think...he could have kept it in his pants.

This conversation is beyond you. As a duke the concept is beyond your comprehension.

 

[candycorn]

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

Period

Works for me.

Would be worth every penny to keep dickweed out of your life.

 

[candycorn]

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

Period

Who did you get pregnant now?

Or what...

 

[GHook93]

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

Period

Very true, but in the ghetto. I believe it should be government funded, because most of the black babies born into those circumstances become our more expensive problem later!

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

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

Period

Works for me.

Would be worth every penny to keep dickweed out of your life.

Now when I tell you to "FUCK off troll" are you going to cry to the mods to have my post deleted again?
As ALWAYS you contribute no substance

 

[bodecea]

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

Period

Just think...he could have kept it in his pants.

This conversation is beyond you. As a duke the concept is beyond your comprehension.

Wait....just keeping it in your pants is NOT an option to you? I can see your problem.

 

[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.

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.

A woman controls her own body. A man controls his. They have equal control over their own bodies, respectively. The also have equal obligation at all times.

Your scenario would create either unequal control over their own bodies, where a man controls his body AND he controls hers. While a woman controls neither her own body nor his body.

Or your scenario requires unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears but a man isn't responsible for any child he fathers.

Either scenario breaks.

Your first sentence is not accurate. A woman who has sex knowing she can become pregnant and gets pregnant and did not want to get pregnant, did not control her own body. You're saying 'equality' is a woman not having to bear the consequences of her actions, but a man must bear the consequences of his. That's not 'equality' by any stretch of the imagination.