Posted on 05/27/2012 12:00:14 PM PDT by kiryandil
I will repeat myself: Ultimately the woman decides whether or not to have a child. Therefore the woman is responsible.
If she procreates with a worthless POS is that my problem? Should I be taxed so that the government can pursue and harass the same when he doesn’t pay up?
Any woman has the power to remain childless if she so desires. If she wishes to have children that’s her decision and I should not be enslaved to pay for it.
Repeat yourself all you want; you still make no sense.
“If she procreates...” What about if HE procreates?
If a woman is pregnant, some guy has also procreated. This is inarguable.
And any man also has the power to remain childless if he so desires. Also inarguable.
Roe v Wade.
The First Trimester: The Court held that during the first 3 months, the decision to abort must be completely left to the judgment of the pregnant woman and her doctor. The State cannot interfere with the abortion decision at all.
There is no “man” in that paragraph. FreedomNotSafety is correct.
Am I really reading this right?
You guys contend men shouldn’t have to support THEIR children because a woman could have aborted them and didn’t?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA
Vegas is also full of people who are mad at the casino where they rolled the dice and lost their money.
Nobody feels sorry for them.
And everybody agrees, you owe the marker.
No, I don't contend anything.
It's the LAW. "The First Trimester: The Court held that during the first 3 months, the decision to abort must be completely left to the judgment of the pregnant woman and her doctor. The State cannot interfere with the abortion decision at all." I don't see anywhere in there where Armin Christian gets a choice.
Now, one of the monkeys like you would read words into that statement in order to justify the State whipping out a gun and jamming it up Armin Christian's nose.
Me, I'm not a monkey. I just starve them...
My argument is unassailable. Of course it takes two I never said it didn’t but that doesn’t change the fact that a women is the ultimate arbiter for child bearing. Women will always be able to find sperm donors. So why do you contend that because she finds a sperm donor who is either unable or unwilling to support the child it becomes a problem for the government to solve?
“I don’t see anywhere in there where Armin Christian gets a choice.”
Why won’t either of you logicians address my primary point? He absolutely had a choice. He made the choice to have sex.
Anyone who has sex willingly is willingly fathering children.
Lobbing insults, wishing it weren’t so, and supreme court decisions won’t change that fact.
Any man can make the choice to not have sex if he doesn’t want children or isn’t willing to support them.
Once they’re here, they’re on you. And yeah, at gunpoint, if necessary.
“My argument is unassailable.”
Except the part about all of America and Western Civilization now and throughout history disagreeing with you: men must support their children.
“Women will always be able to find sperm donors.”
I think you mean women will be able to find “men who are willingly making the choice to have sex with women they’re not married to.”
“So why do you contend that because she finds a sperm donor who is either unable or unwilling to support the child it becomes a problem for the government to solve?”
Because by “the government,” you mean my tax dollars. And I’m not paying for your kid; I’d rather use the enforcement arm to make YOU pay for YOUR kid. You pay for your choice to have sex, not me.
Your contention that men have no “choice” (your word, and language of Roe v. Wade) is jaw-droppingly stupid. No choice whether to have sex? What are the stats of female-on-male rape?
I’m pretty sure there aren’t any.
Yeah, it’s all about “choice;” and he made his choice when he took her home or into the backseat or wherever.
Now he pays for it.
LOL! Lip off anonymously on an Internet forum all you want to.
I guarantee you that if you dared to speak that "truth to power" BS to the Supreme Court's enforcers, you'd be a bugsplat on their windshield.
You lose the argument, for spouting nonsense.
Because he's one of Tom Baugh's monkeys who needs to be starved.
I’M the one talking “anonymously on an internet forum?”
I don’t see your name, address, and social security number in your byline, Braveheart.
And you lose, for going off point and merely sputtering rather than refuting.
Good gosh! The buffoon is like a jack-in-the-box that won’t stay down, replete with the red clown hat and the little tinkling bells.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.