• 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!

Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Should the woman's choice dictate that the man has to pay child support?


  • Total voters
    32
yeah thats what I was thinking, he ignored so much. The he tried to change his statement, my statements, your statements and claimed they weren't related to the OP which YOU wrote LMAO

I dont understand why anybody would do that when all the proof just stays here? Why lie, be dishonest and try to make stuff up.

I made this great post yesterday in reply to him but it failed to load. What a shame, because now I don't seem to have the interest in debating him.

*sigh* Oh, I'll give it another try I guess... :lol:
 
Yeah because sentences like...

In reality a child isnt effect by forcing a person to by child support who doesn't want to be a parent

... are crystal clear.

Link that sentence because I seriously doubt I wrote that. If I did then any honest person would see how I write the rest of my posts and take it with a grain of salt, realizing that it was some sort of mistake instead of harping on it as if it was a major victory.
 
What post? Yes, I have addressed it. Again, the man is free to choose his part in the reproductive act. His part ends when he plants his seed. The woman's does not.

Repeat it again and maybe the debate gods will grant you everlasting victory!

Yes, you do, since no one is going to go along with having the state kill the baby.

The state does not kill babies... :roll:

Your lack of comprehension of these common legal terms only proves this is way over your head. In order for the father to sue the mother he has to establish that she acted in a negligent manner. In your scenario the negligent act would be punching holes in the condom or using the his sperm to impregnate herself. In order to return the child and father to the state they were in prior to the negligent act the child life would have to be ended.

Help me teacher... negligence is failure to take appropriate care, is it not? Gee, that sure was a tough one. That being said, I am not talking about after the fact lawsuits, so your point is irrelevant.

There is nothing incoherent in what I wrote. Your lack of a capacity to understand does not prove my statements incoherent. It just proves that you are a dim bulb.

Dude, are you in high school? I was teasing you about your repeated use of calling others incoherent.

We are talking about your points on the woman tricking the man into impregnating her. You backpedaled on what you are now reasserting above in your response to David D. #250.

Lie.

You abandoned that point. I have addressed it numerous times and you have yet to respond.

Lie.

You are a loser that does not understand simple legal concepts, like negligence.

Dang man... you are harsh. Quit it or you will hurt my feelings... :(





:lol:




:2wave:
 
Repeat it again and maybe the debate gods will grant you everlasting victory!
:2wave:

Didn't think that I would ge ta response... :lol:
 
What post? Yes, I have addressed it. Again, the man is free to choose his part in the reproductive act. His part ends when he plants his seed. The woman's does not.



Yes, you do, since no one is going to go along with having the state kill the baby.



Your lack of comprehension of these common legal terms only proves this is way over your head. In order for the father to sue the mother he has to establish that she acted in a negligent manner. In your scenario the negligent act would be punching holes in the condom or using the his sperm to impregnate herself. In order to return the child and father to the state they were in prior to the negligent act the child life would have to be ended.

There is nothing incoherent in what I wrote. Your lack of a capacity to understand does not prove my statements incoherent. It just proves that you are a dim bulb.



We are talking about your points on the woman tricking the man into impregnating her. You backpedaled on what you are now reasserting above in your response to David D. #250.



You abandoned that point. I have addressed it numerous times and you have yet to respond.

You are a loser that does not understand simple legal concepts, like negligence.

Care to back any of htat up?
 
Back
Top Bottom