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

[GHook93]

BTW GT.

I raised my girls for several years when my xwife didn't want them anymore. I asked for NO MONEY & received none. She later expressed a desire for me to pay child support during the time I had them.

That is very respectable. Thumbs up!

 

[Ravi]

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.

Exactly. No dad is better than an irresponsible hater for a father.

 

[bodecea]

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

Crying? There's no crying at USMB.

 

[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.

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

I thought you had me on ignore

 

[candycorn]

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.

You're making too much sense.

 

[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.

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

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

 

[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??

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

But there is no obligation to the child for the mother, she decides if there is one or not. She gets the freedom of irresponsibility of having unprotected sex knowing she doesn't have to face the consequences if she doesn't want to. All you've done is to shift what you claimed was 'suffering' by women in the past with being forced to bear children onto the men. I guess as long as it's not women, then it's okay? It's certainly not 'equality'.

 

[Ravi]

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.

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

It seems to be about your feelings so how can you claim it isn't about you?

 

[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.

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.

You're comparing nine lousy months to a lifetime of emotional and financial responsibility? And saying that because those nine months exist that gives the woman all the rights over that life? If I were a man reading this thread, I would be damn sure to know where a woman stood, some of these women are the biggest hypocrites I've ever experienced.

 

[Skylar]

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.

I'm speaking specifically in reference to the choice to carry to term or to abort. In that context, which I argue is the most relevant to this conversation, my sentence is quite accurate.

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.

Either both parents are responsible for their actions, or neither are. Thus, either both 'bear responsibility' or neither do. There's no scenario that she can create where their obligation is different.

Its always equal. And both have the same control over their own bodies. And no control over one another's. Their control over their own body and the other's body is always equal.

That's equality. Especially in terms to the support received by the child.

 

[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.

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.

My appeal has no emotion to it, it's simply rational and logical. As I've pointed out in my posts, there is nothing 'equal' with regards to the male and female and bringing a child into the world, the female has all of the rights. The situations have only been reversed and men are now in the predicament that women used to find themselves in when they didn't act responsibly in the past, a child 'forced' on them, as you like to put it. I don't know if it's 'get even' for some imagined oppression that none of us in this lifetime have experienced, or what? Regardless, there is nothing 'equal' about any of it, the Op is accurate in his assessment.

 

[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.

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

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

It seems to be about your feelings so how can you claim it isn't about you?

Of course! My threads are about "feelings" while yours are about what?
Dumbass

 

[Valerie]

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.

you are correct in that she didn't control her own body, which does not have the same 'equal' consequence for the woman as it does for the man because the women has the womb. yes, if the pregnancy is unintentional, those two people failed to "control their bodies" equally, and you can wag your finger at them all.day.long...


then what??

you want to petition the government to force that woman to bear an unwanted child?

the vast majority of rational sane people disagree with giving government that jurisdiction in the womb, and so does the US constitution.

 

[Ravi]

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.

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

It seems to be about your feelings so how can you claim it isn't about you?

Of course! My threads are about "feelings" while yours are about what?
Dumbass

So it is about you. Jeesh, how hard was that for you to admit?

 

[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.

But there is no obligation to the child for the mother, she decides if there is one or not.

There's the exact obligation for the mother as for the father:

If the child exists, the obligation exists.

If no child exists, no obligation exists.

There's no scenario where she is responsible but he is not. Or he is responsible and she is not. Either both are, or neither are. Its always the same.

She gets the freedom of irresponsibility of having unprotected sex knowing she doesn't have to face the consequences if she doesn't want to.

All she can do is decide the use of her own body. And a man has the same power of his own body. She can never create a scenario where her obligations are unequal to the fathers. They are always the same. '

In terms of control over one's body and obligation, its always equal.

 

[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.

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

I plan on it.

 

[boilermaker55]

Conflicting statements.
You seem to totally neglect that the male in the situation is responsible. But that is typical of your right wing rant.
Personal responsibility goes out the window quite quickly with you, doesn't it!

Why the he will?

I disagree. Man up and pay support and raise your kids, deadbeat daddies of America.

Auto correct

Anyhow this has nothing to do with deadbeat dads. This is about fairplay between men & women.

If a woman can kill the child the man should have the option to walk away as well.

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.

As previously stated my kids are grown. Despite the rabid attampts of the left this thread IS NOT about me or anything in my life.
Carry on ditz

It seems to be about your feelings so how can you claim it isn't about you?

Of course! My threads are about "feelings" while yours are about what?
Dumbass

 

[bodecea]

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.

You're comparing nine lousy months to a lifetime of emotional and financial responsibility? And saying that because those nine months exist that gives the woman all the rights over that life? If I were a man reading this thread, I would be damn sure to know where a woman stood, some of these women are the biggest hypocrites I've ever experienced.

I love it when a male can make judgements about pregnancy and how "hard" or "easy" it is.

 

[Valerie]

• Currently, about half (51%) of the 6.6 million pregnancies in the United States each year (3.4 million) are unintended see box).[6]

Unintended Pregnancy in the United States

 

[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 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.

My appeal has no emotion to it, it's simply rational and logical.

It really isn't. As you're arguing for unequal control over one's own body or unequal obligation. And neither are rational or logical. Logically a child has a right to support from both parents. Your proposals would deny a child support from one of the two.

That's neither logical nor rational either.

Your proposals are explicitly illogical and irrational as they create unequal control or unequal obligation. And don't recognize a child's right to support from both parents.

Which is why no state legislature recognizes your reasoning as valid. In any State, republican or democrat, conservative or liberal. All reject your illegal proposals.