Is there a legit legal argument here?

[martybegan]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

The law isn't actually required to give anyone an "out" for the consequences of their behavior. It may, or it may not, but it's not REQUIRED to.

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

 

[martybegan]

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

how do you figure? Who do you think is raising the child while the man just sends cash?

If a woman doesn't want the kid, she has an "out". Men don't have that "out"

We are talking legally here, not biologically.

Please note that this is a theoretical discussion.

They don't have that "out" because they went ahead and shoved "it" in.

And the woman let it get shoved "in"

Isn't it the current thinking that legally men and women are supposed to be equal in every way?

Are you sticking to Victorian concepts of women? I.e. that they don't want or enjoy sex, and that men always have to be the "aggressor"?

Well, we all knew this whole time that we can blather about "legally men and women are equal" until our faces turn blue, and it won't change the fact that biologically, we're not even remotely the same.

legally and biologically are two different things.

 

[martybegan]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

We actually do . . . once the kid is born. You're actually trying to compare a relatively small, fixed period of time - pregnancy - to a completely different and much longer period of time - the rest of the child's life.

You would draw a much more realistic and meaningful comparison if you talked about the woman's rights and responsibilities toward the child during gestation versus the man's duing that same time.

That isn't the topic of the thread.

The topic boils down to why legally a woman has a right to not be responsible, but the man does not.

 

[martybegan]

The bottom line is this:. Biology wins. We can complain and strain all day long that men and women are completely equal in every way, but biology wins. We can say that a woman who says she's a man can compete in male sports, but biology wins. We can say that a man who says he's a woman can use a bathroom with little girls, by biology wins.

No, it's not equal.

But in this case there is a biological out for the woman, and thus a legal out for her, but no legal out for the man.

Practicality would demand the man make his intentions known, say be week 10 or so, so the woman can decide to abort if the man wants nothing to do with the kid.

As soon as men can choose to spend 9 months pregnant instead of the woman, then the man can decide whether to end his own pregnancy.

Another appeal to emotion, without going into the details of the discussion.

 

[martybegan]

Why not?

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

 

[Votto]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

Sorry about your luck, Chuck..........or should I say, "Dada?"!

Mwhahahaha!

You can't have your child murdered, so get out those dead Presidents.

 

[Faun]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

 

[martybegan]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

Another person trying to ignore the actual argument with a snippy response.

Why is the onerous on the man? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and thus responsibility, where is the equality if a man can't do the same?

 

[Faun]

You did the deed, now pay for your fun. Be a man, live up to your responsibility.

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

 

[Faun]

It is called "personal responsibility"

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

Another person trying to ignore the actual argument with a snippy response.

Why is the onerous on the man? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and thus responsibility, where is the equality if a man can't do the same?

Nope, not avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants to avoid the G-d given reality that only women can get pregnant; which is the reason only women get to make that choice. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round whole while kvetching the two shapes are unfairly different.

 

[martybegan]

Why can't we say to a woman "be a woman and live up to your responsibility"?

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

Another snippy response and not a response to the questions at hand.

 

[martybegan]

So only men are required to have said responsibility?

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

Another person trying to ignore the actual argument with a snippy response.

Why is the onerous on the man? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and thus responsibility, where is the equality if a man can't do the same?

Nope, not avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants to avoid the G-d given reality that only women can get pregnant; which is the reason only women get to make that choice. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round whole while kvetching the two shapes are unfairly different.

So what you are saying is women need special legal protections because why?

 

[Faun]

That's what she did when she refused the abortion.

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

Another snippy response and not a response to the questions at hand.

It’s a ridiculous argument and gets the response it deserves.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What does party have to do with it? I'm against "free stuff" in general because someone has to pay for it.

Sorry, but if you can't spend $20 a month to not get pregnant, and it is that important to you, then methinks you have to re-shuffle your life priorities,

Cheaper for all of us in the long run if we just covered it.

Who is "we", and why do you assume someone else's child costs ME anything, or SHOULD cost me anything?

We. You and me. And because we are gonna end up paying for it in way or another so why not go the cheapest route?

WE are not going to "end up" paying for anything. YOU are going to insist on it, and use government force to make me go along. Your leftist assholery on one subject is NOT an argument for me to cooperate with your leftist assholery on other subjects.

Ah, ok. You know I'm right so you resort to insults like the rest of your kind.

You can fuck off now.

Enjoy!

"I disgusted you with my ignorance! I WIN!!"

I can see where viewing contempt as a victory would be a positive in your eyes, given how common it must be in your life.

And hey, it lets you run away from responding to points while pretending that you aren't.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that "I'm going to forcibly take your money, so that means you should just give in on everything" is not an argument. And your need to declare victory and win just means you know it.

Thanks for surrendering.

You can fuck off now.

Enjoy!

 

[martybegan]

and that is her choice. why can't men have a choice as well?

If both are truly equal, why does one have an "out", and the other does not?

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

Another snippy response and not a response to the questions at hand.

It’s a ridiculous argument and gets the response it deserves.

All I am asking is if the sexes are supposed to be equal under the law, why then do women have a legal "out" to remove the responsibility of parenthood, and men do not?

 

[Faun]

Women too. Either both a man and a woman are responsible for the child....or neither are.

In your meaningless pseudo-legal nonsense, women are responsible for every child they bear. While men are never responsible for any child they sire.

This you call 'equality'. Which might explain why no court in any state recognizing your nonsense as having any legal validity.

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

Another person trying to ignore the actual argument with a snippy response.

Why is the onerous on the man? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and thus responsibility, where is the equality if a man can't do the same?

Nope, not avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants to avoid the G-d given reality that only women can get pregnant; which is the reason only women get to make that choice. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round whole while kvetching the two shapes are unfairly different.

So what you are saying is women need special legal protections because why?

It’s true, women do have some rights men don’t have by virtue of the biological differences bestowed by G-d. But that’s only because women can do things a man can’t. Namely, get pregnant. Like Uncle Ben said, ”with great power comes great responsibility.”

You seem to think that’s unfair to men. If it helps you feel better, you can always insert an IUD into yourself.

Sadddle up!

 

[martybegan]

That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.

And again running to the courts. Try to argue the actual point, instead of hiding behind the robes.

”That they CHOOSE to bear. One side has a choice, the other doesn't.”

Nah, when a man gets pregnant, then he too has the option to terminate his pregnancy.

Another person trying to ignore the actual argument with a snippy response.

Why is the onerous on the man? If a woman can terminate a pregnancy and thus responsibility, where is the equality if a man can't do the same?

Nope, not avoiding anything. You’re the one who wants to avoid the G-d given reality that only women can get pregnant; which is the reason only women get to make that choice. You’re trying to fit a square peg into a round whole while kvetching the two shapes are unfairly different.

So what you are saying is women need special legal protections because why?

It’s true, women do have some rights men don’t have by virtue of the biological differences bestowed by G-d. But that’s only because women can do things a man can’t. Namely, get pregnant. Like Uncle Ben said, ”with great power comes great responsibility.”

You seem to think that’s unfair to men. If it helps you feel better, you can always insert an IUD into yourself.

Sadddle up!

As usual, you don't get that I am arguing a point that I have never had to use. The point of this thread is to figure out why, if we want women and men to be equal legally, that in this one case they are not. so far the answers I am getting boil down to "because fuck you, that's why"

Biology is not material, given sufficient warning time for the woman to get an abortion if the man tells her he doesn't want the kid, and at that point she doesn't either.

 

[Faun]

Because the comparison is not equal. Her choice terminates her pregnancy long before the baby is born. What you’re suggesting is that men opt out after the baby is born, when the child needs support. So not apples to apples.

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

Another snippy response and not a response to the questions at hand.

It’s a ridiculous argument and gets the response it deserves.

All I am asking is if the sexes are supposed to be equal under the law, why then do women have a legal "out" to remove the responsibility of parenthood, and men do not?

I’m confused. When it comes to being pregnant, there is clearly an inherent inequality. So why do you persist on insisting there should be an equality where none exists?

 

[martybegan]

No, I am saying the man would have to declare, during the legal abortion period, that he has no interest in the child. at that point the woman could keep the baby herself, or abort it.

This is of course, contingent on legal abortion being available, the man being notified of the pregnancy within the legal period, and him responding within a set time frame.

I can’t help but notice the only men I ever see try to make this argument are conservatives. Looks like conservatism is about shirking personal responsibility and being a deadbeat dad.

Another snippy response and not a response to the questions at hand.

It’s a ridiculous argument and gets the response it deserves.

All I am asking is if the sexes are supposed to be equal under the law, why then do women have a legal "out" to remove the responsibility of parenthood, and men do not?

I’m confused. When it comes to being pregnant, there is clearly an inherent inequality. So why do you persist on insisting there should be an equality where none exists?

The inequality is lessened by legal abortion. It does take two to tango, and it appears you have the quaint victorian belief that men are the only really sexual beings, and thus bear the onerous of the result of a liason.

 

[Crepitus]

Who are the people freaking out against birth control? It’s maybe a fractal of 1% who think that extremely cheap and extremely effective BC should be banned. I don’t think there’s a bigger strawman argument made than the one suggesting that the right wants to ban birth control. Sure there are Catholics who make a personal choice not to use, and parents who don’t want their 14 year old kids to be given condoms at school...but again those are personal decisions made since maybe it isn’t the best idea to encourage or condone, irresponsible kids to be participating in the act of reproduction. Religion is often mocked as being anti-sex and encouraging abstinence when there is a very clear biological logic to waiting until marriage to have sex. I didn’t wait, and I was lucky because I was pretty damn irresponsible when it came to wrapping before tapping. Why? Because I was a shithead, like most other shitheads at that age. I had raging hormones and society told me that it was ok to not try to control those urges.

Republicans in general tend to have problems with it, particularly with providing it in employer or government insurance policies.

That is an outright false statement. Republicans in general have absolutely no problem with birth control, and in general have absolutely no problem with employers offering insurance that covers it.

The sticking point, and any honest person will acknowledge it, is where an employer is forced by law to provide insurance that covers it, even though he personally abhors it.

And I want my condoms covered too, dammit.

I say sure, let's cover them too. Only fair.

Or maybe we all just pay for our own shit?

I agreed with you, and you changed your position. This is exactly why I said arguing with you is like the round room thing.

You have a nice day, and I hope you find a corner soon.