Garak, you shoild have respects towards the female you impregnated. The other women do not matter in this case.

I guess that would depend on her respect for my rights, wouldn't it?

As women are now the sole decider, what's the difference. OH! ofcourse it's her body, how silly of me, I forgot.
This is the message that feminists have been screaming for a long time regardless of the fact that if there is no male invovled no pregnancy will eventuate unless they are artifically inseminated ofcourse. Even then unless the cell was generated some other way there will be a Father somewhere.

The old argument that "it's a women's body" is meant to cancel out any responsibility as far as anyone else is concerned.

If she gets pregnant and fails to discuss or raise the issue with the Father than she should not be able to put a future Father into servitude if he is dead against. If she demands payment it should be refused.

If she does not want to act responsibly, she should be held accountable..

Women have been getting pregnant solely for the reason of trapping another sucker into longterm payment without even thinking about the consequences..

It' is just ridiculous and an affront on the freedom of another human being.

What if a man found a way to collect hundreds of thousands of dollars from women on a decision he made. Applying that to a female for 18 years ?

What's the difference ?

Pregnancy is a unique situation that cannot be lumped together with any other situation. A woman should, generally, have final say concerning her body, but in the event of pregnancy, her decisions affect the rights and lives of others, those of the father and of her unborn child.

If a child should be born, both the mother and father will be responsible for the support of that child, therefore, both a mother and a father should have a say in the life of their child, including the decisions as to whether or not that life is terminated. Why should a woman's right to choose supercede a father's right that his child not be aborted or even a child's right to live?

I, of course, think it would be the far better and far simpler solution merely to ban abortion with the exception of extreme circumstances. People should take responsibility for their actions. We all know how you get pregnant, we should either take the measures necessary to prevent it or face up to our obligations should our actions result in a pregnancy.

Banning abortion altogether isn't going to erase a person's financial responsibility toward an unwanted pregnancy.

As many here are complaining about that responsibility, remember, a woman has just as much of a financial responsibility as a man does. She's paying for the care of that child, too.

"Ban abortion. Make women responsible for having sex (just like men)'

do you think that pseudo macho men like Arnie and other Manginas in Congress as might well be Obama and at other levels of government would even countenance this measure - they promote wimins interests otherwise they would never have been elected - they are just managers !!!

manginas are mere tools but effective for the femints shibboleths

'no fault' ,
'abortion on demand',
' 'tradition to lie in court their lies are paid as if true',
'alimony',
'child maintenance' ,
'stay away from her court order',
sympathetic police to feminit allegations for whatever - they are at the beck and call of the lying accustaions of the cupcake,

there was a sign draped across the front of our local police station

"VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS A CRIME"

this is political theme for the constabulary - a feminit slogan

the whole social scene was printed on the T - shirt of a smirking young wimin "IT IS ALL ABOUT ME"

Yes, but a woman has the choice, while a man does not. 28 years of $$$ makes that choice a damn big deal.

I never said any current politician would pass something like that. I just put the only two equitable options out there. HB287 will simply land more men in prison.