Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Faun]

”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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

 

[martybegan]

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.

My initial response was sarcasm.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

 

[Faun]

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.

No, both men and women have options on not becoming parents. You choose to ignore that because you think it’s unfair that only women can choose abortion while trying to eliminate the stark reality that only women can get pregnant from the argument.

 

[Faun]

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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

 

[Vastator]

In principle; it is perfectly reasonable to allow a man to absolve himself of the responsibility of an unwanted pregnancy, so long as women have the right to do so as well.
However given the gynocentric nature of the laws concerning parental responsibility; women as a whole would stand to lose countless millions of dollars per year in strong arm extortion, and immesurable amounts of power and control over another person's life, and future. That is why such a law is unlikely to ever get passed. Women would have to vote to willingly cede their imbalance of power in this matter. Few people ever give up power willingly...

 

[Faun]

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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

 

[Vastator]

No.

Because "Biology."

Ask any pro-abort leftard. . . It's a well known biological fact that if you are a male, children's lives begin at and by conception and "children" are entitled to child support, medical care etc.

And! If you are a woman, a child's life (and rights) do not begin until you decide that it does OR roughly sometime in the third trimester, if you just can't decide.

Didn't you have biology in school?

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

 

[Faun]

Just because you never had to use it doesn’t mean you never will. So go ahead, exercise your equality and shove that IUD up your vagina.

And it’s absurd to argue that biology is not material. That would actually be you, trying to eliminate the argument that utterly destroys your moronic deadbeat position. And that ain’t gonna happen since this is all about biology. More specifically, the biological differences between men and women.

You also ignore the stark reality that men do have a choice not to become a father. Men too can rely on birth control to avoid getting a woman pregnant.

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

 

[Faun]

Wrong forum. We're having a discussion of the law. If you want to discuss the biology of abortion, feel free to do so in another thread. That's not what we're discussing here.

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

 

[Vastator]

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"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

But the reality is that abortion is overwhelmingly used exactly for that reason. As such abortion laws need to be revisited, and examined for how they are actually being used. Not just repeating the intial argument used to sell the notion in the first place.

 

[Vastator]

The point is; either through abortion, or legally surrender of said kid, there are ways the mother can get out of the responsibility of raising the child. The man doesn't get a choice. If the woman keeps the kid the guy is stuck paying child support. That isn't fair.

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

 

[Faun]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

 

[martybegan]

No, I use condoms, and I use them in such a way that I am 100% sure they work. And why do you go with the most intrusive form of birth control? Pills do the same thing, as do dams, sponges or other methods.

The biology question becomes moot if abortion is legal, and the man gives a response within the legal time frame.

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (fuck you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Or given the information that she will be raising the child herself, she chooses to abort.

This actually isn't a conservative position at all, at least not a social conservative one. Most social conservatives would go the opposite way, ban abortion and make everyone equally responsible.

 

[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.

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"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

Um, the purpose of the 14th amendment is indeed equality under the law.

 

[Vastator]

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

There’s only one choice post conception. And that choice is terminating the pregnancy. And that choice is available to the person who’s pregnant.

Actually there are others such as adoption. But regardless that is the point I think that the OP raises. That currently only women have an effective means of absorbing themselves of the responsibilities of an un wanted pregnancy. In a nation that prides itself on equal opportunity it only stands to reason that both parties are given that choice.

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?