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

[Newby]

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.

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially. So if the woman CHOOSES to have the baby, then she should make that choice not expecting the man to want to be a father, and he should have the right to make that decision, just like the female does. And since he can't force her to abort, then he should not be legally obligated to financially become a father.

 

[G.T.]

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.

Newby is a female

 

[Syriusly]

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. .

Nope.

As has been pointed out- your 'appeal' is anything but rational or logical.

As has been pointed out: both adults control their bodies- the male controls whether or not to donate his sperm- the female controls her decision whether to receive the sperm, and controls her body when it comes to her own health.

Once a baby is born both parents are equally legally responsible.

 

[Ravi]

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.

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially. So if the woman CHOOSES to have the baby, then she should make that choice not expecting the man to want to be a father, and he should have the right to make that decision, just like the female does. And since he can't force her to abort, then he should not be legally obligated to financially become a father.

Sounds biblical. Punish the child because the man is mad at the woman.

 

[rightwinger]

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

Period

Abort your baby or I will not pay child support....got it

Or keep the baby, but I don't want it.

This


Why can a woman KILL the baby but the man is FORCED to abide by whatever decision she makes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating fathers to drop out of their child's life. I am advocating that the responsible parties have equally say so in the outcomes of their own futures.

And my children are fully grown so leave the personal bullshit out of the thread.

How can 2 people have equal say? If they disagree it's a 1 to 1 tie.

Guess who should get the tiebreaker?

 

[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.

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.

I'm not arguing for any such thing, if she wants to have the baby, then have it, the male should not be legally obligated to become a father by having to support it. This way women 'control' their bodies (still not sure how it's called 'control' when someone becomes pregnant when they don't want a child), and men control whether they have any financial obligation. If she gets pregnant and knows the male will not be forced to support should she choose to have the baby, and she doesn't want to support the child on her own, then she can abort. She has all kinds of choices, and so does the man.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why the he will?

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

The simple answer here is to never ever trust a woman when it comes to birth control.

If she won't allow you to hold on to the pills and take one everyday with you watching then you'd better wrap your package every time.

 

[hadit]

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

Period

Republicans don't believe women have the right to decide what is good for their own bodies. How can you not know that?

Because it's not true.

 

[Skylar]

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.

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially.

A father has the same control over the use of his own body that a mother does. What he lacks is control over her body. And likewise, she lacks control over his.

The control you demand he should have is over someone else's body. And that's not a control she would have in return over him. Equality breaks.

If a man wants control over whether or not a fetus can mature in his body, he should get pregnant. As its the only relevant control a woman exerts over her own body

 

[Newby]

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.

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially. So if the woman CHOOSES to have the baby, then she should make that choice not expecting the man to want to be a father, and he should have the right to make that decision, just like the female does. And since he can't force her to abort, then he should not be legally obligated to financially become a father.

Sounds biblical. Punish the child because the man is mad at the woman.

The child isn't 'punished' if it's aborted, is it?

 

[rightwinger]

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

Period

Abort your baby or I will not pay child support....got it

Or keep the baby, but I don't want it.

This


Why can a woman KILL the baby but the man is FORCED to abide by whatever decision she makes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating fathers to drop out of their child's life. I am advocating that the responsible parties have equally say so in the outcomes of their own futures.

And my children are fully grown so leave the personal bullshit out of the thread.

Because it is not the man's body that has to carry the child. They both have a financial stake, but only she has to physically put herself at risk. The man gets no say in this because it is not his person that is on the line. If a man ever gets pregnant, then he gets a say.

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.

If he wants her to get an abortion, are you saying she should have to get one against her will?
If he wants her to keep the child and she aborts, there is no money to pay

You have some really fucked up logic

 

[hadit]

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

Period

Nope. It's her body and she gets to say what happens with her body. If you have an issue with that, take it up with the manufacturer.

How does that entitle her to violate a man's reproductive freedom?

 

[Skylar]

Why the he will?

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

The simple answer here is to never ever trust a woman when it comes to birth control.

If she won't allow you to hold on to the pills and take one everyday with you watching then you'd better wrap your package every time.

Given that anti-biotics will disrupt most forms of birth control, even that isn't a foolproof system unless you're watching her every moment of every day. Condoms are among the least effective methods of birth control. So if a man wants an effective method of not reproducing he has two options:

Celibacy.
Vasectomy.

 

[hadit]

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 it's okay for a man to give up his reproductive freedom to have sex, but a woman, not so much?

 

[Newby]

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.

No, I'm saying that the op has merit in that the male should have the same choice in whether he becomes a father or not, either emotionally or financially.

A father has the same control over the use of body that a mother does. What he lacks is control over her body. And likewise, she lacks control over his.

The control you demand he should have is over someone else's body. And that's not a control she would have in return over him. Equality breaks.

If a man wants control over whether or not a fetus can mature in his body, he should get pregnant. As its the only relevant control a woman exerts over her own body

I'm not saying he should have control over her body, only over whether he wants to be a father either emotionally or financially to the child. I already explained that in another post. And she doesn't have to control her body in regards to sex, if there are consequences she can abort. The man is forced to face the consequences. No equality.

 

[hadit]

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?

Doesn't a woman have the choice at the "zipper moment" as well?

That is the correct motorcycle.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Why the he will?

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

The simple answer here is to never ever trust a woman when it comes to birth control.

If she won't allow you to hold on to the pills and take one everyday with you watching then you'd better wrap your package every time.

Given that anti-biotics will disrupt most forms of birth control, even that isn't a foolproof system unless you're watching her every moment of every day. Condoms are among the least effective methods of birth control. So if a man wants an effective method of not reproducing he has two options:

Celibacy.
Vasectomy.

Funny I used condoms for years and never had a problem. I guess you just have to use them correctly.

 

[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.

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.

So, the child has 'rights' when it comes to having a father, but no 'rights' when it comes to its very own life? Hypocrisy again.

 

[Newby]

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.

You must have a lousy memory, we mod-ed together, I've been on this site for years, and I'm also the mother of two.

 

[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.

I'm not arguing for any such thing, if she wants to have the baby, then have it, the male should not be legally obligated to become a father by having to support it.

That's unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers.

That's not equality.

Worse, it runs headlong into the nature of the obligation itself: to the child. If the child exists, a father has an obligation to support the child. As does a mother. You're insisting that a father should be able absolve himself of that obligation at will. While a mother can't.

That's not equality either.

Your proposals are expressly unequal, illogical, irrational, and shatter on the obligation a parent has for the support of their own children.

This way women 'control' their bodies (still not sure how it's called 'control' when someone becomes pregnant when they don't want a child), and men control whether they have any financial obligation.

Women control the use of their own bodies the same way men control the use of theirs. Its equal. And there's never any financial obligation that she is released from while has to pay. Its always equal as well.

Either both are financially responsible or neither are. You demand unequal obligation and the voiding of the right of a child for support from both parents.

Nope.