• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Support Payments

Kandahar said:
And therein lies the problem. Most people who are pro-choice favor CHOICE. Once you turn abortion into an obligation or a duty or a responsibility, then it's no longer truly a choice even if another option exists.
Click to expand...

Where is the duty or obligation? I see none so I see no problem

And therein lies another problem. That's the entirely wrong way to frame a discussion about child support, which SHOULD be about the child.
Click to expand...

But it isn’t about the child… it is about the woman’s choice.

Choice = abortion or child
Abortion = No child
No child = no child support

When a baby is conceived, the parents are both legally responsible for the child from that point forward. The man cannot sign a piece of paper disavowing responsibility and sticking the woman with the full cost for raising the child, any more than the woman can do that to the man. Neither has any special rights in that regard; they are BOTH responsible for financially supporting that child until age 18, except under unusual circumstances (e.g. both parents agree to put the child up for adoption).
Click to expand...

If she has an abortion… no child
If she does not want to support the child on her own… have an abortion.

What is so hard to grasp?

Now, if something happens so that it never reaches age 18 (e.g. it's aborted, or it dies in childhood), then of course there isn't going to be any child support because there is no child to support. This has nothing to do with whose "fault" it was that the child never reached age 18; the obligation is simply removed because the reason for it no longer exists.
Click to expand...

Nothing about my argument assigns any “fault”.

Both parents have equal rights to unilaterally disown their child and stick the other parent with the full cost of raising it (i.e. they can't do it). And both parents have equal rights to abort any children they happen to be pregnant with (i.e. they can).
Click to expand...

Both parents have equal rights to abort? Ummm… what?

That's pretty sexist. If the dude can't support the child then he should have worn a rubber and saved everybody time and money.
Click to expand...

Maybe he did wear a rubber…
Maybe it failed…
Maybe she pricked a hole in it…
Maybe they were in a relationship and he trusted her and she lied about her birth control…

There are any number of ways that this can happen. I know that the most fun method is to discredit the man. That damn dead beat! Those poor women! Look dude, you have fallen into the trap. Get out fast…
 
Bodhisattva said:
Where is the duty or obligation? I see none so I see no problem
Click to expand...

Any argument that starts with "She should have had an abortion" makes it a duty instead of a choice.

But it isn’t about the child… it is about the woman’s choice.

Choice = abortion or child
Abortion = No child
No child = no child support
Click to expand...

The parents are BOTH financially responsible from the child from the moment it is conceived until it turns 18. If it dies somewhere in between, then the financial responsibility ends.

If she has an abortion… no child
If she does not want to support the child on her own… have an abortion.

What is so hard to grasp?
Click to expand...

That is NOT at all analogous to a man disavowing responsibility for his child. Let's take a look at how those outcomes would actually play out. Can we agree that a 50-50 split of financial responsibility is fair for "standard" cases...where both parents want the child (and assuming relatively equal incomes for simplicity)? OK, then let's look at how those two "choices" would actually play out to see if it's fair.

The woman chooses to have an abortion: Man 0%, woman 0% (of the cost of raising the child).
The woman chooses not to have an abortion: Man 50%, woman 50%.

The man chooses to disavow responsibility: Man 0%, woman 100%.
The man chooses to do the right thing and care for his kid: Man 50%, woman 50%.

In NONE of these cases would the man be responsible for more than half of the responsibility of caring for the kid. In all of those situations EXCEPT the one you are advocating (allowing the man to run away from his financial obligations), the financial burden is equal on both parents. Therefore letting men disavow responsibility is NOT the same as a woman having an abortion; it's more analogous to the baby being born and then the woman disavowing responsibility...which is also not allowed by our legal system.

Both parents have equal rights to abort? Ummm… what?
Click to expand...

Correct. If you get pregnant you're just as free to have an abortion as a woman is. If you're unable to exercise that right, blame biology rather than our legal system.

Maybe he did wear a rubber…
Maybe it failed…
Maybe she pricked a hole in it…
Maybe they were in a relationship and he trusted her and she lied about her birth control…
Click to expand...

The misogyny here is staggering. You start off saying that the WOMAN should have used birth control to prevent a pregnancy, and then when I point out that exactly the same thing could be said about the man, you immediately shift blame to this theoretical woman based on how she "might" have been a conniving bitch. I don't know what your deal is, but it sounds like you have some real issues with women. :shock:

There are any number of ways that this can happen. I know that the most fun method is to discredit the man. That damn dead beat! Those poor women! Look dude, you have fallen into the trap. Get out fast…
Click to expand...

Your solution of allowing a father to disavow responsibility for his kids would stick the woman with 100% of the cost of raising the child. I have not advocated anything similar in the reverse.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Nothing I did was appeal to emotion. Please try to be honest. Your initial post, to which spawned this whole thing, was your claim that the welfare of the child is considered in abortion. I responded by saying that's obviously not the case because the child ends up dead in abortion and that doesn't uphold the welfare of the child. You eventually came back with this "subjective" argument and then top it with the homeless guy choosing to die. He feels it's better for his "welfare" (not necessarily true, they could feel so hopeless that they're better off with no welfare (i.e. death) than trying to improve the current conditions). Now the subjective nature of welfare (I never stated it wasn't subjective; I merely claimed an absolute floor of requiring life) may be up to one's own subjective views on what they view is best for them; but you can only have a subjective view if you are alive. You can hold no views or truths or feelings or property or any of it when you are dead.

The homeless man who chooses to die CANNOT BE HAPPIER IN DEATH. You cannot feel happiness when you are dead. That seems to be a point you are contesting, to which I asked for proof and got none. You instead claim that it wasn't your point, which is a lie because it follows logically from what you are trying to say. So either you do not comprehend fully what you are trying to say or you are lying about your point. The choice is yours. You claim welfare has meaning when dead and that when dead one could have achieved an increase in welfare. But nothing in welfare is valid when dead, welfare has no meaning to the dead. I cannot believe you would try to contend that point. Welfare is a term for the living.

The rest of my post had every meaning on facts and your points. The fact you refuse to address them only further demonstrates your dishonest arguments on this topic.
Click to expand...

you must think lots of talking will make you right?

what my first post said was, that when SOME people have an abortion they are doing it on what they feel is in the child's best welfare and that is 100% true.

This is an inarguable fact whether you agree with it or not.

You have don't nothing to dispute that besides try to play word games and appeal to emotion and push your opinion as fact.

Ill repeat it again for you.

"Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so"

this is 100% true, that is why some people have abortions. FACT

then you tried to twist everything, link welfare to living, which you can't for anybody but yourself. It is only your opinion they are linked and I proved that easily by reposting the definition that you arleady posted that you dont seem to understand.

That fact that you think they are linked is only your opinion and will never be a fact, EVER. Welfare is a subjective choice nothing more.

:shrug:

facts havent changed neither has your opinion.
My original statement stands 100% let me know when that changes
"Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so"
 
Centrist77 said:
you must think lots of talking will make you right?

what my first post said was, that when SOME people have an abortion they are doing it on what they feel is in the child's best welfare and that is 100% true.

This is an inarguable fact whether you agree with it or not.

You have don't nothing to dispute that besides try to play word games and appeal to emotion and push your opinion as fact.

Ill repeat it again for you.

"Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so"

this is 100% true, that is why some people have abortions. FACT

then you tried to twist everything, link welfare to living, which you can't for anybody but yourself. It is only your opinion they are linked and I proved that easily by reposting the definition that you arleady posted that you dont seem to understand.

That fact that you think they are linked is only your opinion and will never be a fact, EVER. Welfare is a subjective choice nothing more.

:shrug:

facts havent changed neither has your opinion.
My original statement stands 100% let me know when that changes
"Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so"
Click to expand...

OK, some people may think that they are killing the kid for its own good, for its welfare. I can buy that. I don't buy that it actually improves their welfare since it ends in the kids actual death and when dead, welfare is a meaningless term.

There is much in our lives that when we rationalize out "am I better off?" or some other question of general welfare, that no doubt we have a lot of subjective claim. Am I better of in X or Y? And we make our decision on mostly an incomplete data set since we may not have exactly experienced X or Y; a lot of subjectiveness comes in here. But that's not to say there are no measurables. There are certainly ways to assess welfare on some quantitative field. I could leave X for Y, and while in Y ask "am I better off?". The experiment is done, I can quantify the system. Am I happier? Am I working in a better environment? Do I have the time I like? That's a quantifier of the system, and I can now know if my welfare has been improved. When you keep saying it's "subjective" you talk as if there is no measurement to have; but welfare isn't some god that you can only postulate on. Welfare has real world effects, and because of that it has real world measurements. There are measurements, there is a way to quantify at least on some relative scale.

In our reasoning, there is a lot of subjective nature. In our action, there is measurement.

So as to your original statement, OK; I can buy that as true. As for the thinking of it and how it relates to the real world, it can't be true (not that one thinks abortion is better for one's welfare; but rather that abortion is] better for the child's welfare). Because in the end, death is the removal of all welfare. It's as I said before, someone on drugs may think they're flying. Doesn't make it so.
 
Ikari said:
OK, some people may think that they are killing the kid for its own good, for its welfare. I can buy that. I don't buy that it actually improves their welfare since it ends in the kids actual death and when dead, welfare is a meaningless term.

There is much in our lives that when we rationalize out "am I better off?" or some other question of general welfare, that no doubt we have a lot of subjective claim. Am I better of in X or Y? And we make our decision on mostly an incomplete data set since we may not have exactly experienced X or Y; a lot of subjectiveness comes in here. But that's not to say there are no measurables. There are certainly ways to assess welfare on some quantitative field. I could leave X for Y, and while in Y ask "am I better off?". The experiment is done, I can quantify the system. Am I happier? Am I working in a better environment? Do I have the time I like? That's a quantifier of the system, and I can now know if my welfare has been improved. When you keep saying it's "subjective" you talk as if there is no measurement to have; but welfare isn't some god that you can only postulate on. Welfare has real world effects, and because of that it has real world measurements. There are measurements, there is a way to quantify at least on some relative scale.

In our reasoning, there is a lot of subjective nature. In our action, there is measurement.

So as to your original statement, OK; I can buy that as true. As for the thinking of it and how it relates to the real world, it can't be true (not that one thinks abortion is better for one's welfare; but rather that abortion is] better for the child's welfare). Because in the end, death is the removal of all welfare. It's as I said before, someone on drugs may think they're flying. Doesn't make it so.
Click to expand...

EXACTLY my original statement is 100% true, the rest of the games you play are meaningless and nothing more than you opinion, thanks

game over :D
 
Ikari said:
Did I say murder? No, I said your opinion is essentially "Better dead than poor". Because you think it's best for that kid to just not exist in the first place than it is to be born into that 21%.
Click to expand...

No, I think is that is wrong to bring child into the world without responsible parents to properly care for it.
 
Ikari said:
Her body, her decision. It's all on her to keep the baby or kill it. So she should have the right to force the man to pay for HER decision. That was her choice at that point. Keep or destroy, all hers. At that point the man is out, he just contributed jizm, right? So why do you suggest he be held responsible for HER decision?
Click to expand...

He made that decision when he ****ed the woman. That was his decision alone. No one forced him into it, and, unlike with the woman, he has no physical consequences that result from it. That is why an abortion is the decision of the woman.
 
OKgrannie said:
Women just want to control their own bodies.
Click to expand...

Oddly enough, it is predominantly the conservatives that believe the government should control women's bodies.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.

This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.

That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?

As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.

This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?

Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.

Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.

Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.

If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

No offense, but why do you keep posting this same thread over and over?

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/106141-child-support.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls/107691-should-womans-choice-trump-mans.html

http://www.debatepolitics.com/abortion/106139-lack-equal-rights.html
 
Centrist77 said:
EXACTLY my original statement is 100% true, the rest of the games you play are meaningless and nothing more than you opinion, thanks

game over :D
Click to expand...

HAHA! Let us examine. You're original comment

Centrist77 said:
this is NOT always the case, yes some mindless dont think about that [the welfare of the child] but the majority actually do and its WHY they abort. You may disagree with them but its still why they do it. :shrug:
Click to expand...

My original response

Ikari said:
I do disagree since nothing is so damaging to the welfare of the child as death is. Death is oh so very permanent.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....games I played? No no no. Quit lying and at least be honest in debate. Not that I was playing, what YOU were playing. See you now claim you said "Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so". Now, note your ORIGINAL statement. It's not the same thing. Word games by me? Please. I think you were just hoping I wasn't going to go back and check up. See what you say in your original statement is that MANY think about the welfare of the child and make a response. Not that they think they're doing what's best in the child's interest. You said I can disagree, and I said I do disagree because killing a child is NOT looking out for a child's best interest.

It seems that it is YOU who are changing their tune and trying to make it sound like you said something different from the start. My original comment and all those which followed up stand. I DO NOT believe they do think about the welfare of the child because death is the end of welfare. Welfare only applies to the living. That statement is still very true, as is my original response to your post and all subsequent posts. Now, quit trying to change what you said and just fess up and be a man about it. People make mistakes in arguments all the time, it's ok. You messed up here, but I'm sure you will be well more dutiful in your arguments in the future.
 
Catawba said:
He made that decision when he ****ed the woman. That was his decision alone. No one forced him into it, and, unlike with the woman, he has no physical consequences that result from it. That is why an abortion is the decision of the woman.
Click to expand...

Woman made that decision when she opened her legs. THat was her decision alone. No one forced her into it.
 
Catawba said:
No, I think is that is wrong to bring child into the world without responsible parents to properly care for it.
Click to expand...

I do not buy, and probably will not buy (less someone gives a very convincing argument) the "better dead than poor" argument.
 
Bodhisattva said:
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.

This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.

That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?

As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.

This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?

Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.

Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.

Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.

If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.

Thanks...
Click to expand...

And a man can do all those things to woman, a man can prick a condom, a man can rape her, refuse to pull out, slip the condom off, etc. and many times people (both men and women) view a baby/pregnancy as a way to keep their partner and prevent a breakup/divorce. That's why I am pro choice. If a woman is in an abusive situation, and wants to leave, sometimes having an abortion permits her to leave and escape her abuser. A man isn't entirely powerless. A man, even if he is a rapist/abuser, can fight for custody rights to their child. And no, I don't see any problem with a man annulling his parental rights. Nobody should have a baby as a way to control their partner, or manipulate their sexual relationship to cause a pregnancy. Somebody having a child should not feel trapped or punished, nor should children viewed as consequences.

If you think forcing a man to pay child support after a woman pricks his condom is wrong, then you can relate to the way a woman feels when she is being forced to gestate a child that she didn't want to conceive in the first place.
 
Ikari said:
Quite a bit of improvement. Though pregnancy is still different than influenza or the mumps.
Click to expand...
And influenza is different from mumps, and mumps is different from measles. Yeah, many times people are delighted to contract pregnancy, but still....

Pregnancy is the creation of additional human life and the normal way by which our species reproduces. It's not disease, it's result of choice.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy is the PROCESS of creation. It's the ONLY way our species reproduces, that still doesn't mean a woman is obligated to do it. Pregnancy isn't always the result of choice. Thanks once again to medical science, choosing to have sex doesn't mean choosing pregnancy. The fact that medical science hasn't yet perfected that process doesn't mean it's not valid.


We've come a long way in making pregnancies safer, but the way in which it is initiated has not changed. It's not just the woman's body at that point which requires consideration, but also the life of the human created through her choice.
Click to expand...

Pregnancy can also be initiated by medical science. Because the life of the "human created through her choice", or non-choice as the case may be, will not come to fruition without the woman's body, it is her consideration whether to donate the use of her body.
 
Bodhisattva said:
Maybe he did wear a rubber…
Maybe it failed…
Maybe she pricked a hole in it…
Maybe they were in a relationship and he trusted her and she lied about her birth control…

There are any number of ways that this can happen. I know that the most fun method is to discredit the man. That damn dead beat! Those poor women! Look dude, you have fallen into the trap. Get out fast…
Click to expand...

If you're going to use arguments like that to show how unjust it is to force a man to pay child support, then you should support a woman's right to choose as well as the man's.

Maybe she used birth control...
Maybe it failed...
Maybe he pricked a hole in the condom...
Maybe he lied to her about being sterilized...

It's totally out of hand for you to relate to a man on that level and take his side, but not a woman's... If it's so wrong to force a man in that situation, then it should be equally wrong to force a woman to carry the baby in that situation.
 
Ikari said:
HAHA! Let us examine. You're original comment



My original response



Hmmm....games I played? No no no. Quit lying and at least be honest in debate. Not that I was playing, what YOU were playing. See you now claim you said "Some people have abortions because they feel its in the childs best welfare to do so". Now, note your ORIGINAL statement. It's not the same thing. Word games by me? Please. I think you were just hoping I wasn't going to go back and check up. See what you say in your original statement is that MANY think about the welfare of the child and make a response. Not that they think they're doing what's best in the child's interest. You said I can disagree, and I said I do disagree because killing a child is NOT looking out for a child's best interest.

It seems that it is YOU who are changing their tune and trying to make it sound like you said something different from the start. My original comment and all those which followed up stand. I DO NOT believe they do think about the welfare of the child because death is the end of welfare. Welfare only applies to the living. That statement is still very true, as is my original response to your post and all subsequent posts. Now, quit trying to change what you said and just fess up and be a man about it. People make mistakes in arguments all the time, it's ok. You messed up here, but I'm sure you will be well more dutiful in your arguments in the future.
Click to expand...

only gaming being played is you are trying to TELL me what I YOU think I meant instead of what I actually said LMAO are you serious or just Fing with me??????

Im glad you quoted me because its further proof of what I said and its till 100% true, why are trying to deny that and play the game further?

yes or no. are you denying my original statement means some people abort because they think that's that in the child's best welfare? thats what I said and it is true. PERIOD

you disagree with that BUT that doesnt change the fact thats why they do it.

nobody changed anything? This is NOT an insult or even an attempt its a SERIOUS question. Is english your fist language?

I changed NOTHING from my original statements and it is 100% true.
You disagree death is better welfare and thats your opinion and nothing more

you also disagree thats why anybody does it and you are 100% WRONG on that one because they do. :shrug:

I made no mistake, did nothing of the sort and my original statement above stands nor did I change it in anyway what so ever, at this point im starting to think you are just trolling on this topic with me? You almost have to be to assume and make up so much.
 
Last edited:
Mathematician said:
If the woman is going to use the argument "my body, my choice" then the man should reply "your body, your responsibility".

Personally, I disagree with it being solely her choice. I feel that if the father wants the child then she should be obligated to give birth.
Click to expand...

The sexism in your post is obvious. You want the men to get what they want in either situation. He abortions is paternal rights and he can force her to carry. Thank god women are treated equally in this country now. I refuse to be any ****ing man's broodmare.
 
OKgrannie said:
And influenza is different from mumps, and mumps is different from measles. Yeah, many times people are delighted to contract pregnancy, but still....
Click to expand...

To certain degrees yes. But reproduction is not the same as invasive disease. That's just biological fact. Rally against it if you want, curse evolution if need be; but what is is.

OKgrannie said:
Pregnancy is the PROCESS of creation. It's the ONLY way our species reproduces, that still doesn't mean a woman is obligated to do it. Pregnancy isn't always the result of choice. Thanks once again to medical science, choosing to have sex doesn't mean choosing pregnancy. The fact that medical science hasn't yet perfected that process doesn't mean it's not valid.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends. Science never said that it could make probabilities zero. Never. To assume so is to be a fool. We can make the probabilities VERY low; but short of abstinence or certain forms of sterilization there's no 100% way to stop it. You're not going to make it zero with a piece of plastic or a pill. Reduce, yes; eliminate, no. Choosing to have sex DOES mean choosing the possibility of becoming pregnant. It would be stupid to say otherwise.


OKgrannie said:
Pregnancy can also be initiated by medical science. Because the life of the "human created through her choice", or non-choice as the case may be, will not come to fruition without the woman's body, it is her consideration whether to donate the use of her body.
Click to expand...

Barring cases of rape, it is ALWAYS a choice.
 
Centrist77 said:
only gaming being played is you are trying to TELL me what I YOU think I meant instead of what I actually said LMAO are you serious or just Fing with me??????

Im glad you quoted me because its further proof of what I said and its till 100% true, why are trying to deny that and play the game further?

yes or no. are you denying my original statement means some people abort because they think that's that in the child's best welfare? thats what I said and it is true. PERIOD

you disagree with that BUT that doesnt change the fact thats why they do it.

nobody changed anything? This is NOT an insult or even an attempt its a SERIOUS question. Is english your fist language?

I changed NOTHING from my original statements and it is 100% true.
You disagree death is better welfare and thats your opinion and nothing more

you also disagree thats why anybody does it and you are 100% WRONG on that one because they do. :shrug:

I made no mistake, did nothing of the sort and my original statement above stands nor did I change it in anyway what so ever, at this point im starting to think you are just trolling on this topic with me?
Click to expand...

Plenty of mistake. I can't believe you're still trying to argue against it. The fact that you have nothing to back up but attempted ridicule marks that you have no argument. What you said at the end and what you said at the beginning are not the same thing. Sorry.
 
Mathematician said:
I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until you're willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.
Click to expand...

Then why do you support forcing a consequence on one gender, but not the other?
 
Ikari said:
And men should then? It's essentially what you're saying.
Click to expand...

Um, no, that's not what I am saying. You seem to suggest that females should be, but males shouldn't... or am I wrong?
 
Ikari said:
Plenty of mistake. I can't believe you're still trying to argue against it. The fact that you have nothing to back up but attempted ridicule marks that you have no argument. What you said at the end and what you said at the beginning are not the same thing. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Ok its official NOW you are Fin with me

actually they are identical LMAO

YOU said the welfare of the child is not considered

I said:this is NOT always the case, yes some mindless dont think about that but the majority actually do and its WHY they abort. You may disagree with them but its still why they do it.

this is EXACTLY the same as saying as saying

""Some people have abortions because they feel its in the child's best welfare to do so"

if you are trying to now play a word game of majority vs some the only reason I said some the second time is the same reason I said majority the first time. Neither of them mean ALL.

Thats it all I meant is NOT ALL LMAO

sorry they are identical

and if if you are trying to claim they are not because of majority/some that doesn't really matter because you think none and that still makes you are 100% wrong.

Like I said dont tell me what you THINK I mean go by what is actually being said LOL
 
Removable Mind said:
What a crock of bull****. The woman did or didn't do this or that. The man doesn't have to this or he should do that.

What in the hell is the matter with everybody? Once a child is born its no longer about what the woman or man wants!

A kid is 100% dependent on adults....PERIOD! Stop ****ing over the kids' welfare. Grow the **** up people.
Click to expand...

I agree with your point. Men should want help their children, especially if they are pro life... But if you notice, most of the pro life men in this thread, support a man opting out of child support while attacking a woman's abortion rights.

Pro lifers want to make abortion and reproduction all about consequences and duties. They fail to understand that some people shouldn't have kids. They also fail to understand that when parents don't adequately care for their children, then society has to step inand they will literally pay for their pro life beliefs. On top of that, most pro lifers I know haven't adopted a child, and don't help children in their own communities. They spend more time in pro life marches and volunteering the PCC, than doing anything for kids already born and in need.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom