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

[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. .

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

 

[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.

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.

Per our laws, a child has rights when they're born. Birth is the standard I use for the obligations of both fathers and mothers. Holding both mother and father to the same standard isn't 'hypocrisy'.

Demanding that a mother be responsible for every child she bears but a father never be responsible for any child he fathers would be hypocrisy.

As it holds each to different standards.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

 

[Newby]

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.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die. It's as simple as that. She controls her future regardless if she has irresponsible sex and gets pregnant, the man does not get to control his in the same scenario. Unequal.

 

[Newby]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

 

[Newby]

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.

While the woman can screw her brains out with no concerns whatsoever. No consequences. And you seem happy about the fact that men are screwed in this situation, women have the upper hand, why is that?

 

[Newby]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

 

[Ravi]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

She's saying that you are saying the male gets the decision, not that you are a male. Jebus!

 

[rightwinger]

If males don't want to pay for children they don't have to have unprotected sex

Once the woman is pregnant, it is her decision

 

[Skylar]

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?

He's completely free to choose not to use his body to carry a child to term.

A woman has the same freedom.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

 

[Newby]

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.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

 

[Newby]

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

 

[Skylar]

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.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

 

[rightwinger]

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

 

[Newby]

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.

Abortion has zero to do with 'health'. Why can't you people ever be honest about this topic? Why can't you own what you support?

Again....we should listen to males in this regard.

Are you going senile?

She's saying that you are saying the male gets the decision, not that you are a male. Jebus!

Uh, no she's not, this is the second time she's done it in this thread.

 

[Newby]

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.

Your entire post is destroyed by the simple fact that the man has no choice as to whether or not he becomes a father after conception, but the female has every choice as to whether or not she becomes a mother at that point, whether the person she carries will live or die.

Its not even mildly bruised by your claim, as a man has every control over the use of his body that a woman has over hers. He can choose not to use his body to carry the child to term. And a woman can make the same choice about her own body.

Obliterating your entire argument. Which is then shattered again by your demand for unequal obligation. And then shattered again by the child's right to support from both parents.

Leaving nothing but finely ground fallacy dust.

It leaves nothing but your hypocrisy.

I'm holding both mother and father to the same standards, the same control over their own bodies, the same degree of control over the other's body and the same obligation to any child born.

I don't think 'hypocrisy' means what you think it means.

How is it the 'same standard' for a woman to be able to spread her legs at every whim and enjoy sex whenever she likes and not have to be 'burdened' with being a mother, but the man has to 'keep it in his pants' if he doesn't want to be a father??

 

[Newby]

Are you going senile?

Is that something else you are expressing medical expertise in?

Your memory sucks.

First you are a medical expert on what nine months of pregnancy is like.....then you are a medical expert on why people do and do not get abortions...and now you are a medical expert on senility and memory loss.

My memory of your posts is just fine.

I'm an expert at nine months of pregnancy because I've done it three times.

Females get abortions to get rid of an unwanted responsibility 99% of the time. The male doesn't have that choice, only the female.

And yes, your memory of who I am sucks.

Abortion is used for family planning. A woman gets to decide how many children she wants to care for if any

Family planning?? Do you think women plan to get pregnant and then kill their own child for convenience sake??? You just put an even uglier picture on it than most! Thanks!