That is the point. That is what makes such a statement disingeuous and a waste of time.There is no law restraining a man from having an abortion. They can't have an abortion because they can't get pregnant.
You are again using my law trumps biology argument.He is not unequal before the law. He is unequal due to biology.
No. We want the woman to be responsible for her own body and her own choice. That is what we want... all you are doing is evading. Like a duck in the cross hairs, you are flapping all over in a vain effort to evade the actual argument.You want the man to have an equal say in the woman's decision. Sorry, he does not get to tell her what to do. Empowering him to do so would not make him equal but superior as he would have rights over her medical decisions that she does not have over his. Do you think a woman should be able to force or restrain a man from getting a vasectomy? If he refuses her request and impregnates her, should she then be able to dump the child on him without being held responsible?
You meant something else and that's okay. But your meaning was unclear in this context and it is you that really needed the qualifier since you were talking about something that is irrelevant to the topic.
I am not wasting anymore words after this on this stupid subject, but I will go ahead and answer your questions.
Clearly, no. I said it has an effect on the child; you said it does not. How could they mean the same thing?ok here we go, read them really slow, its three simply YES or NO questions.
I said (A)"In reality a child isnt effect by forcing a person to by child support who doesn't want to be a parent" and "in reality a child isnt effected by forced child support" (not sure which you quoted)
then you said (B)"If a parent abandons their child it will effect the child. There is no disputing that."
ok heres the 2 questions
1.) Does statement (A) mean the same as statement (B)? YES or NO
Uhhh I would assume that any one that think those two sentences means the same thing was confused since I was obviously trying to contradict your point.2.) Is saying statement (A) is that same as statement (B) a lie? YES or NO
In question one you ask if they are the same. Here you ask if they were the opposite. Try again.3.) did anybody even come close to implying the opposite of your statement (B) YES or NO
But, yes. You have said that a child is not effected by the financial abandonment of their father because they can go on the public dole. It is a clearly inaccurate statement since going on the public dole would be an effect. But you mean something more. You mean they are just as well off on the public dole as they would be with their father's support. But, shifting the burden to the state effects the state (negatively) and the father (positively) for no just reason. Why should society be forced to shoulder a father's responsibilities?
another lie/assumption by you is that this is personal??? LMAO how do you figure that. I find you VERY entertaining. Your dodges, lies, and the way you are desperately trying to save face and spin everything is quite entertaining.
another lie is that you think I was off topic, I am not I am directly on topic, would you like to reread the op or ask him?
its ok, you again continue to tell me everything I need to know about you. At least for this topic you are not to be taken seriously nor can anybody expect you to be logical, honest or base anything on reality. Its why you choose not to directly answer the questions because you know the true answers expose you.
Let us know when you have something of merit.
The laws on abortion have nothing to do with sex. So?
Your point is that a man is equal before the law? Really?That is the point. That is what makes such a statement disingeuous and a waste of time.
Uhhh, no... I am arguing biology trumps law. The man is unequal in his ability to have an abortion due to biology and no law can change that.You are again using my law trumps biology argument.
Dude, I have evaded nothing. Your responses and those of centrist are nothing but incoherent babbling. You have not offered any actual argument. In between the incoherent nonsense you just reassert and claim victory.No. We want the woman to be responsible for her own body and her own choice. That is what we want... all you are doing is evading. Like a duck in the cross hairs, you are flapping all over in a vain effort to evade the actual argument.
I don't need to go into how a court could deal with the issue of how not being alive is better than being alive anymore than a woman does when justifying her abortion.
I don't need to go into how a court could deal with the issue of how the state could repair the child to the state of being had the negligent act not occurred because I don't even understand what this incoherent rant is addressing. What state of being? What negligent act?
I addressed how the court could and should deal with this in this thread and in other threads already. The woman informs the man she is pregnant within a timely manner (ASAP), he declares his intent. If intent is to not be involved he legally informs her ASAP. She then has the choice to abort or to have the baby. If she has the baby then all financial support is on her, since she made a choice to have the baby knowing that the man would not be involved. If she aborts then the situation is over. This can and has happened... but it is extremely rare if not almost unique. The problem is that most most most women would never agree to this. Why? Why would they when they can have the baby anyway and force the man to help pay for their choice.
Address that. As yet, you have not. That is why I am the winner. I am a winner and eating some tasty ass sushi too... I am also going to meet the US Ambassador in about 15 minutes for cocktails.
Is that you M.O.? Crying incoherent over and over?
wooosh! Man, I have not seen something fly over somebodies head that dangerously high... could you even hear it?Your point is that a man is equal before the law? Really?
Your whole argument is that once he ejaculates he is helpless... that is bull **** since the woman has the option of aborting... forget it. You don't get it.Uhhh, no... I am arguing biology trumps law. The man is unequal in his ability to have an abortion due to biology and no law can change that.
Dude, Bro! What are you, a surfer dude or something bra?Dude, I have evaded nothing. Your responses and those of centrist are nothing but incoherent babbling. You have not offered any actual argument. In between the incoherent nonsense you just reassert and claim victory.
You are ****ing evading it right here in this statement. I tell you that the argument is about her choice and you, yet again, evade it and talk about everything else but that one frickin' relevant freaking point!!!
Dude... bra... whateva'.
I am a SoCal surfer... so I can get away with that. How 'bout you?
You remind me of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory Johnny Depp... he didn't like the relevant things that the kids were saying so he tells them that he can't understand a word that they are saying since they keep mumbling... dude, you're funny.