08-07-2016, 02:26 PM
(08-07-2016, 12:02 PM)bfine32 Wrote: This has been my point. If sex is not consent to get pregnant (I thought you guys had already ironed this out BTW), then it makes 0 sense to suggest only the woman can freely separate herself from the issue if she wishes, yet the man has to abide by whatever the woman wishes. Isn't that giving her control over him?
If it is consent to get pregnant than the woman should be held accountable for the result to include bearing the child, if one party wants the results of the union. I'm pretty sure going in they understand with one can become pregnant.
IMO, you cannot have it both ways; yet some see this as sexist, when, in fact, if they stepped back and looked they are being sexist.
Paying child support is no different than paying taxes. Does the government have control over you because you pay taxes? Does the government have control of your body? (Since you're pretending to be incapable of answering my questions, the answer to both is "no.") It's a choice, but if you don't pay there are consequences. I've paid child support and no one had control over me. Certainly, no one had control over my body against my wishes. Paying child support is in no way comparable to carrying a pregnancy against one's wishes. You know this. Pretending otherwise is "petty."
