• 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
It was a direct, word for word quote.

sure was and then your interpretation of it was 100% wrong and a bold face lie lol

how you could even try to act like they were the same speaks volumes



Assertions are not argument. You need to make an actual argument for why my point is not relevant. Simply asserting the same thing over and over again is pointless.

There was no appeal to emotion. If a father abandons his part in providing financial support for the child it will have a negative impact on the child.

The argument is that nobody said abandoning a child will have zero effect LOL you made that nonsense up.

and the other argument is that forced child support on people that dont want to be parents does little to nothing in reality in the majority of cases.


BS! You are trying to change what I said to mean "emotional abandonment." I was not talking about emotional abandonment. Child support does not address that, so within the context of the discussion it should have been quite clear that I was talking about abandoning their financial responsibility.

100% wrong again
first you misinterpreted what people were saying by making up some out right lie then you made a blanket statement about your lie.

There was no context because you had everything wrong:shrug: lol

not my fault you made a blanket statement and was wrong?

It's unfortunate that you need everything spelled out for you and are not able to glean understanding from context. But that is your problem.

this is just a failed insult because you are trying to save face instead of just maning up and admitting you misspoke, no biggie though the proof is in this thread LMAO



Yes, it does. The abandonment effects the child in two ways. Emotionally and financially. The point of child support is to diminish the financial effects of the abandonment. Civil action has little ability to do anything about the emotional damage.
LMAO here you go again making stuff up and adding qualifiers

Child support IF it comes will be meaningless with all the programs a mom can get into.
You seem to be confused, we are talking about poeple who do not want to be parents lol the whole point of the thread.
Emotionally they arent going to be there ALREADY
Financially they arent going to be there ALREADY

the impact in the majority of cases will be nil.

No in a case where a person WANTS to be a parent sure it helps because not only will there be the little bit of money a month provider there will be MORE than that money.

That is NOT what we are talking about we are talking about people who dont want to be parents.

You can't sue your business partner for being a bad friend. You can sue him for failing to meet his financial responsibilities under the partnership agreement.

really? thanks for that info but it holds no merit in this conversation




what Im saying is that people that dont want to be parents dont give a crap about civil actions, they will just be dead beat parents. Just the reality we live in :shrug:



You deal in incoherent bs without any argument to support your positions.

another failed attempt to insult because you know you have nothing of merit and are failing to deal in reality. This is a typical tactic when people have nothing left.

again Forcing child support on people that dont want to be parents in the majority of case will have little to no effect. I see proof of this every day, sadly its just how it is.
 
Correct. That is not the point though... the point is that her choice to abort or not has everything to do with child support.

this is the large pink elephant in the room bashing about 2 posters over the head with common sense but for some reason they dont feel it. LMAO
 
It does not. Child support is based on the child's needs not on who most wanted or did not want the child. There is no reason why the state should empower the man to force the woman to choose between abortion and his abandonment of the child. Again, his choice in the reproductive process has already ended and he does not get to walk away from it after the fact.

Abortions can lead to medical complications and the choice should be left solely to the woman since it is her health that is impacted. Again, if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself. It won't end the real pregnancy though, since that does not occur inside the man's body which is why he does not get any say in a real abortion. You can continue to whine about how it's really just a conspiracy by the evil feminist to make men inferior but that has no connection to reality.

Are you pro-choice?

more bold face lies and dishonesty, WOW, simply wow
 
more bold face lies and dishonesty, WOW, simply wow

Why would you make these charges without any specifics? It's pretty cowardly. I can't rebut a non specific aspersion. If you are going to slander me then at least have the decency to level a specific charge.
 
Why would you make these charges without any specifics? It's pretty cowardly. I can't rebut a non specific aspersion. If you are going to slander me then at least have the decency to level a specific charge.

Yet another failed insult and another lie, its getting to be you MO lol

I didnt go into detail because I already did earlier, you repeated the same nonsense LOL nor were you slander in anyway what so ever.

1.) the womans choice does have to do with child support, no matter how you spin it thats a fact, saying otherwise is a lie

2.) "if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself." this just dishonesty and playing games instead of offering something or merit. Its about as dumb as it gets. Its the equivalent to "blacks can drink out of fountains they just have to drink out of THOSE fountains or Gays can get married they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex"

its childish, illogical and dishonest. If I had to pick one word its pure nonsense.
 
sure was and then your interpretation of it was 100% wrong and a bold face lie lol

how you could even try to act like they were the same speaks volumes

It should have been obvious that I was referring to financial abandonment within the context of a debate on child support. If it was not then I have corrected that by being more clear and specific. You have no proof of a lie because you can't know what is in my mind. Your continued name calling is childish.

The argument is that nobody said abandoning a child will have zero effect LOL you made that nonsense up.

You did say that. You claim to have meant something else. Okay, moving on...

and the other argument is that forced child support on people that dont want to be parents does little to nothing in reality in the majority of cases.

So now you are saying, again what you claimed not to have said before? Losing a parent will create financial hardship on the child in the majority of cases. Claims to the opposite are pretty ludicrous. In fact, Bodhisattva has argued that his idiotic idea would prove beneficial by reducing single parenthood. But You are arguing that single parenthood is not really a problem? Strange.

100% wrong again

first you misinterpreted what people were saying by making up some out right lie then you made a blanket statement about your lie.

There was no context because you had everything wrong:shrug: lol

not my fault you made a blanket statement and was wrong?

ZzzzzZZzzzz. You have failed to make your case.

this is just a failed insult because you are trying to save face instead of just maning up and admitting you misspoke, no biggie though the proof is in this thread LMAO

I could have been more clear by adding the qualifier, i.e., financial. But the absence of the qualifier did not change the meaning of what was clearly intended within the context. So, no, I did not misspeak.

LMAO here you go again making stuff up and adding qualifiers

You can not be serious. Adding qualifiers to illuminate my meaning is somehow a dishonest act yo you? That is completely moronic. I know what I meant. You can either take me at my word or go fly a kite. There is no point in claiming that you know what my intent was.

Child support IF it comes will be meaningless with all the programs a mom can get into.
You seem to be confused, we are talking about poeple who do not want to be parents lol the whole point of the thread.
Emotionally they arent going to be there ALREADY
Financially they arent going to be there ALREADY

the impact in the majority of cases will be nil.

No in a case where a person WANTS to be a parent sure it helps because not only will there be the little bit of money a month provider there will be MORE than that money.

That is NOT what we are talking about we are talking about people who dont want to be parents.

Uh, yeah.... Poorhouses and various private and public programs assisting the poor were available when child support was first developed. The thinking was that the father should not be able to shift his burden onto the public.

Public assistance programs are humiliating and tend to trap people in dependency. There is no reason that a father should be able to abandon his FINANCIAL responsibility which leaves him free to excel while the mother and child are sunk into poverty.

really? thanks for that info but it holds no merit in this conversation


Of course it does. The state does not try to hold people responsible for failing to fulfill their "emotional responsibilities" through civil actions. It does use civil actions to hold people responsible for their financial responsibilities. The point establsihes that a person of average intelligence should have understood that I was not talking about emotional abandonment within this context.

what Im saying is that people that dont want to be parents dont give a crap about civil actions, they will just be dead beat parents. Just the reality we live in :shrug:

They will be deadbeat parents that will suffer for their lack of responsibility. Are you thinking this through at all? It does not appear so.

I would be horrified if my boss were contacted by the state to start withholding a portion of my paycheck because I was too much of a POS to take care of my responsibilities. I am sure it would hurt me professionally. Sure, I could maybe find work, under the table but that would leave me with about 1/5th of my current income as those sort of jobs don't pay anywhere close to what I am making. A man that abandoned his child and did not pay child support would greatly reduce his income earning potential over his lifetime.

Many people that might not want to be parents will grudgingly go along with paying child support because they are rational and are capable of doing the math. Your argument is moronic and implies that all laws are useless. The laws are there to insure illegal acts are discouraged not extinguished. Your position would make it profitable for a man to abandon his responsibility.
 
It should have been obvious that I was referring to financial abandonment within the context of a debate on child support. If it was not then I have corrected that by being more clear and specific. You have no proof of a lie because you can't know what is in my mind. Your continued name calling is childish.



You did say that. You claim to have meant something else. Okay, moving on...



So now you are saying, again what you claimed not to have said before? Losing a parent will create financial hardship on the child in the majority of cases. Claims to the opposite are pretty ludicrous. In fact, Bodhisattva has argued that his idiotic idea would prove beneficial by reducing single parenthood. But You are arguing that single parenthood is not really a problem? Strange.



ZzzzzZZzzzz. You have failed to make your case.



I could have been more clear by adding the qualifier, i.e., financial. But the absence of the qualifier did not change the meaning of what was clearly intended within the context. So, no, I did not misspeak.



You can not be serious. Adding qualifiers to illuminate my meaning is somehow a dishonest act yo you? That is completely moronic. I know what I meant. You can either take me at my word or go fly a kite. There is no point in claiming that you know what my intent was.



Uh, yeah.... Poorhouses and various private and public programs assisting the poor were available when child support was first developed. The thinking was that the father should not be able to shift his burden onto the public.

Public assistance programs are humiliating and tend to trap people in dependency. There is no reason that a father should be able to abandon his FINANCIAL responsibility which leaves him free to excel while the mother and child are sunk into poverty.




Of course it does. The state does not try to hold people responsible for failing to fulfill their "emotional responsibilities" through civil actions. It does use civil actions to hold people responsible for their financial responsibilities. The point establsihes that a person of average intelligence should have understood that I was not talking about emotional abandonment within this context.



They will be deadbeat parents that will suffer for their lack of responsibility. Are you thinking this through at all? It does not appear so.

I would be horrified if my boss were contacted by the state to start withholding a portion of my paycheck because I was too much of a POS to take care of my responsibilities. I am sure it would hurt me professionally. Sure, I could maybe find work, under the table but that would leave me with about 1/5th of my current income as those sort of jobs don't pay anywhere close to what I am making. A man that abandoned his child and did not pay child support would greatly reduce his income earning potential over his lifetime.

Many people that might not want to be parents will grudgingly go along with paying child support because they are rational and are capable of doing the math. Your argument is moronic and implies that all laws are useless. The laws are there to insure illegal acts are discouraged not extinguished. Your position would make it profitable for a man to abandon his responsibility.

LMAO!

I read the first part and stopped right. If you are going to continue to be dishonesty theres no point so just man up and admit you lied and misspoke or dont, doesnt matter to me because the facts dont change but until I know you are a poster that can be honest and rational theres no point. LMAO. Im not going to play your silly games.

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
2.) Is saying statement (A) is that same as statement (B) a lie? YES or NO
3.) did anybody even come close to implying the opposite of your statement (B) YES or NO
 
Last edited:
Yet another failed insult and another lie, its getting to be you MO lol

I didnt go into detail because I already did earlier, you repeated the same nonsense LOL nor were you slander in anyway what so ever.

1.) the womans choice does have to do with child support, no matter how you spin it thats a fact, saying otherwise is a lie

You did not go into detail because you are a wimp.

Nope. The courts do not give any weight to a man's request that the woman abort. It has nothing to do with child support as the woman is not at all obligated nor should she be compelled to have a medical procedure performed on her body just because the man does not want to fulfill his responsibilities.

2.) "if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself." this just dishonesty and playing games instead of offering something or merit. Its about as dumb as it gets. Its the equivalent to "blacks can drink out of fountains they just have to drink out of THOSE fountains or Gays can get married they just have to marry someone of the opposite sex"

its childish, illogical and dishonest. If I had to pick one word its pure nonsense.

It's tongue in cheek, but I should not expect a dullard like you to get that.

It is not akin to those things at all and that is exactly why I made the argument.

There is nothing in nature stopping a black man from drinking from any water fountain he chooses or any fountain that a white man can drink from. Only the law could restrain him in this and make him unequal. There is no law restraining a man from having an abortion. They can't have an abortion because they can't get pregnant. He is not unequal before the law. He is unequal due to biology. However, a man has the same rights to control his medical decisions and his part in reproduction. There is no law restricting a man's use of any form of birth control.

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 did not go into detail because you are a wimp.

Nope. The courts do not give any weight to a man's request that the woman abort. It has nothing to do with child support as the woman is not at all obligated nor should she be compelled to have a medical procedure performed on her body just because the man does not want to fulfill his responsibilities.



It's tongue in cheek, but I should not expect a dullard like you to get that.

It is not akin to those things at all and that is exactly why I made the argument.

There is nothing in nature stopping a black man from drinking from any water fountain he chooses or any fountain that a white man can drink from. Only the law could restrain him in this and make him unequal. There is no law restraining a man from having an abortion. They can't have an abortion because they can't get pregnant. He is not unequal before the law. He is unequal due to biology. However, a man has the same rights to control his medical decisions and his part in reproduction. There is no law restricting a man's use of any form of birth control.

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?

LMAO thanks for confirming what I already knew :lamo:2rofll::laughat:

I knew you wouldn't be man enough to just admit the truth. Simple yes/no questions and you dodged them. Instead you talked circles, made excuses and tried more failed insults. Thanks for exposing yourself as dishonest and not to be taken seriously.

Good Job :thumbs:
 
To be honest, my argument really only applies to women that have tricked the man. That being said, it is probably almost impossible to prove. I am also just arguing this from a logical "choice" stance and not from one where I realistically think that my argument could or even should ever be applied.

You are too calm and reasonable to actually "debate"... :lol:

The state has chosen not to consider such torts for the same reason they reject "wrongful life" suits. A man can not sue for wrongful life, because he does not have standing. He could sue on behalf of the child. In order to prove that he would have to establish that the child was better off not being born. We place a high value on life and so such a claim if successful would lead to bad precedent. Also, the point of a tort is to put the person in the position they would be in if not for the negligent act. That would mean that the court should end the life of the child. That's not going to happen and so most states do not allow such cases.

In the same respect, a man can't be held responsible for lying about his use of birth control. Several cases have been brought against men for telling women they've had vasectomies or were infertile. A woman might have standing since the pregnancy impacts her health. But the courts have dismissed them for the same reasons they dismiss torts against the woman.

These cases would be nearly impossible to prove, they are not common and so allowing case law to develop is ill advised.
 
The state has chosen not to consider such torts for the same reason they reject "wrongful life" suits. A man can not sue for wrongful life, because he does not have standing. He could sue on behalf of the child. In order to prove that he would have to establish that the child was better off not being born. We place a high value on life and so such a claim if successful would lead to bad precedent. Also, the point of a tort is to put the person in the position they would be in if not for the negligent act. That would mean that the court should end the life of the child. That's not going to happen and so most states do not allow such cases.

In the same respect, a man can't be held responsible for lying about his use of birth control. Several cases have been brought against men for telling women they've had vasectomies or were infertile. A woman might have standing since the pregnancy impacts her health. But the courts have dismissed them for the same reasons they dismiss torts against the woman.

These cases would be nearly impossible to prove, they are not common and so allowing case law to develop is ill advised.

Doesn't matter against the logical merits regarding the whole notion of child support being about the woman's choice.

I guess I win the debate due to default.
 
There is nothing in nature stopping a black man from drinking from any water fountain he chooses or any fountain that a white man can drink from. Only the law could restrain him in this and make him unequal.

OMG. Now you are using my argument to help back your position? The law regarding abortion is a legal construct that has nothing to do with the biological act of sex.

There is no law restraining a man from having an abortion. They can't have an abortion because they can't get pregnant.

That is the point. That is what makes such a statement disingeuous and a waste of time.

He is not unequal before the law. He is unequal due to biology.

You are again using my law trumps biology 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?

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.
 
LMAO!

I read the first part and stopped right. If you are going to continue to be dishonesty theres no point so just man up and admit you lied and misspoke or dont, doesnt matter to me because the facts dont change but until I know you are a poster that can be honest and rational theres no point. LMAO. Im not going to play your silly games.

You are making a fool of yourself by taking this so personally. Did I misspeak or did I lie? It cannot be both, it can and is neither. I could have been more clear, but again the context should have made it clear. Civil actions are about financial responsibilities and not intended to hold someone to their "emotional responsibilities." Of course I was talking about financial abandonment since child support does not force the father to visit his child.

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.

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

Clearly, no. I said it has an effect on the child; you said it does not. How could they mean the same thing?

2.) Is saying statement (A) is that same as statement (B) a lie? 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.


3.) did anybody even come close to implying the opposite of your statement (B) YES or NO

In question one you ask if they are the same. Here you ask if they were the opposite. Try again.

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?
 
Doesn't matter against the logical merits regarding the whole notion of child support being about the woman's choice.

I guess I win the debate due to default.

What logical merits? You have won nothing. You backpedaled off your point and then I gave you the legal reasoning behind dismissing the torts you claimed were your real concern. You have not provided any argument about how the court could deal with the sticky issue of how not being alive is better than being alive or how the state could repair the child to the state of being had the negligent act not occurred. You just go back to all you have done throughout. Reassert your position without offering argument and claim victory.
 
You are making a fool of yourself by taking this so personally. Did I misspeak or did I lie? It cannot be both, it can and is neither. I could have been more clear, but again the context should have made it clear. Civil actions are about financial responsibilities and not intended to hold someone to their "emotional responsibilities." Of course I was talking about financial abandonment since child support does not force the father to visit his child.

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?



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.




In question one you ask if they are the same. Here you ask if they were the opposite. Try again.

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?

more lies and dishonesty, really? I mean dude who are you pretending for??
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. :shrug:

Let us know when you have something of merit.
 
OMG. Now you are using my argument to help back your position? The law regarding abortion is a legal construct that has nothing to do with the biological act of sex.

What? I mean, please, you need to fill in the giant gap between these non sequiturs and try to make a coherent association.

The laws on abortion have nothing to do with sex. So?

That is the point. That is what makes such a statement disingeuous and a waste of time.

Your point is that a man is equal before the law? Really?

You are again using my law trumps biology argument.

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.


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.

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.
 
What logical merits? You have won nothing. You backpedaled off your point and then I gave you the legal reasoning behind dismissing the torts you claimed were your real concern. You have not provided any argument about how the court could deal with the sticky issue of how not being alive is better than being alive or how the state could repair the child to the state of being had the negligent act not occurred. You just go back to all you have done throughout. Reassert your position without offering argument and claim victory.

You ignored a whole post of mine and have not even addressed, let alone refuted the claim that the issue is about choice...

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.
 
more lies and dishonesty, really? I mean dude who are you pretending for??
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. :shrug:

Let us know when you have something of merit.

Non responsive.

I have no need to save face. It is your inability to form a coherent point that is an embarrassment.
 
What? I mean, please, you need to fill in the giant gap between these non sequiturs and try to make a coherent association.

The laws on abortion have nothing to do with sex. So?

What is incoherent about it? :lol:

Is that you M.O.? Crying incoherent over and over?

Your point is that a man is equal before the law? Really?

wooosh! Man, I have not seen something fly over somebodies head that dangerously high... could you even hear it? :lol:

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.

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.

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.

Dude, Bro! What are you, a surfer dude or something bra?

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!!! :lol:

Dude... bra... whateva'.

I am a SoCal surfer... so I can get away with that. How 'bout you?
 
Last edited:
Non responsive.

I have no need to save face. It is your inability to form a coherent point that is an embarrassment.

Incoherhent! Incoherent! :lol:

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. :lol:
 
Last edited:
You ignored a whole post of mine and have not even addressed, let alone refuted the claim that the issue is about choice...

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
 
Incoherhent! Incoherent! :lol:

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. :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.
 
Non responsive.

I have no need to save face. It is your inability to form a coherent point that is an embarrassment.

ANOTHER failed insult and still nothing of merit :shrug:

Funny its you doing all the attacking lol on top of the lying and dishonesty its very telling

I stand by my true the combination of all my statements: "In reality, a child ins't effect by forcing a person who doesn't want to be a parent to pay child support. In the majority of these cases the child support will have little to no effect."
 
Incoherhent! Incoherent! :lol:

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. :lol:

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.
 
Considering that abortion is considered a method of birth control, I believe that the mother should be responsible for her choice to abort or not; this means, the father is not responsible for her decision in any way unless he chooses to be. jmo
 
Back
Top Bottom