Is there a legit legal argument here?

[martybegan]

A woman can end her responsibility for parenthood. A man cannot.

That is the reality of the current situation. And the only reason for it being so is the sex of the person in question.

"BIology is different, so that means the law is being unfair to me by not changing that."

That is the reality of your argument, and so you lose.

The reality of the law is that it is equal for everyone, but BIOLOGY dictates that not everyone takes advantage of the law. You see it as "The law gives only women the right to abort babies." It actually doesn't. The law makes abortion legal to anyone who is pregnant; BIOLOGY makes men not ever need to avail themselves of that law.

Equal under the law doesn't mean that any given law is going to have exactly the same impact and relevance to everyone. It means that IF a law has relevance to you, it will be applied to you exactly the same as it would be to anyone else it is relevant to.

And let me just reiterate this, since it doesn't seem to be sinking into the testosterone-poisoned rock skulls around here: abortion before a child is born and financial responsibility after a child is born is NOT an accurate comparison, so do NOT keep whining at me that "Women can kill their babies, so I shouldn't have to pay child support". Your responsibility begins when that child is actually born, and at that point, she is just as legally and financially liable as you are.

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

No, you’re making an argument. At least own it and stop running from it every time you get bitchslapped with it.

Yes I'm making an argument. Do I believe 100% in or do I think the espoused concept will ever become a reality?

No.

What I have not gotten is an answer to why the inequality is justified beyond "biology, men suck, and because"

 

[NightFox]

"BIology is different, so that means the law is being unfair to me by not changing that."

That is the reality of your argument, and so you lose.

The reality of the law is that it is equal for everyone, but BIOLOGY dictates that not everyone takes advantage of the law. You see it as "The law gives only women the right to abort babies." It actually doesn't. The law makes abortion legal to anyone who is pregnant; BIOLOGY makes men not ever need to avail themselves of that law.

Equal under the law doesn't mean that any given law is going to have exactly the same impact and relevance to everyone. It means that IF a law has relevance to you, it will be applied to you exactly the same as it would be to anyone else it is relevant to.

And let me just reiterate this, since it doesn't seem to be sinking into the testosterone-poisoned rock skulls around here: abortion before a child is born and financial responsibility after a child is born is NOT an accurate comparison, so do NOT keep whining at me that "Women can kill their babies, so I shouldn't have to pay child support". Your responsibility begins when that child is actually born, and at that point, she is just as legally and financially liable as you are.

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

Because a central tenet of libertarianism is that it's immoral to violate the rights of others and foisting off your parental responsibilities onto others (i.e. the mother or the rest of society) is DEFINITELY a violation of their rights.

FYI: contrary to uniformed opinion, libertarianism isn't equivalent to or even related to libertinism.

 

[Faun]

"BIology is different, so that means the law is being unfair to me by not changing that."

That is the reality of your argument, and so you lose.

The reality of the law is that it is equal for everyone, but BIOLOGY dictates that not everyone takes advantage of the law. You see it as "The law gives only women the right to abort babies." It actually doesn't. The law makes abortion legal to anyone who is pregnant; BIOLOGY makes men not ever need to avail themselves of that law.

Equal under the law doesn't mean that any given law is going to have exactly the same impact and relevance to everyone. It means that IF a law has relevance to you, it will be applied to you exactly the same as it would be to anyone else it is relevant to.

And let me just reiterate this, since it doesn't seem to be sinking into the testosterone-poisoned rock skulls around here: abortion before a child is born and financial responsibility after a child is born is NOT an accurate comparison, so do NOT keep whining at me that "Women can kill their babies, so I shouldn't have to pay child support". Your responsibility begins when that child is actually born, and at that point, she is just as legally and financially liable as you are.

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

 

[martybegan]

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

Because a central tenet of libertarianism is that it's immoral to violate the rights of others and foisting off your parental responsibilities onto others (i.e. the mother or the rest of society) is DEFINITELY a violation of their rights.

FYI: contrary to uniformed opinion, libertarianism isn't equivalent to or even related to libertinism.

Without government to impose it's will, it would be between the two parties in the equation.

Assuming legal available abortion, enough time to perform it via notification, and the understanding both parties can reject responsibility in the case of pregnancy, how is this not a subset of libertarian thinking?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

Again... No one is wailing... Except maybe you with your injection of hyperbole...

Oh? You're not wailing? Let's take a look at your "calm, principled, unemotional legal points", shall we?

Post #177:
If a woman willingly decides to end the marriage... Then yes. Any real man will still continue to support his child's needs anyway. But if she wants to punch out... Don't expect a severance package for your own descision. You want out? Get the fuck out. If you swear you don't "need him"; then you don't need his money either...
If automatic extortion wasn't handed out like Mardi Grad beads; the divorce rate in this nation would drop like a rock.

Post #178:
Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Post #180:
80% of divorce filings are initiated by women. Therefore it's the women who are opting out. Not the men.

You continued to rant about "whores" and "birthing children for money", then gave us Post #186:
Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

And I like this gem of evidence for your contention that you're providing "legal arguments". Post #191:
I didn't "cite" any laws. I just told you how it works in real life. If you don't like it... Then you agree the system is fatally flawed...

A legal argument that doesn't cite any laws. All righty then.

And then there's Post #196:
Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman. Just ask a guy I know who quit a high paying job he hated, only to be dragged through the court, (and briefly jail); because he chose to pursue a job more to his liking, and preferences. See... The state decided that since it paid less... He was showing contempt for the court. When in any other scenario one is free to quit a job and get another if they desire. Say what you want. It matters little. The fact of the matter is that the "system" is gynocentric, and barbaric when it comes to mens, and fathers rights.

Principled, unemotional legal argument, huh?

I really can't imagine why the entire board thinks you're carrying a matched set of bitter, personal baggage on this subject.

 

[martybegan]

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

Again, the mother can legally end this responsibility while a man cannot.

 

[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?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

"Women are whiners because they actually expect me to take responsibility for my children! How DARE those stupid bitches not just raise the kid alone and be grateful that I fucked them and wandered off!"

Yeah, that's really "principled" of you. And you might as well give up trying to convince anyone here that your bitter kvetching has nothing personal behind it.

The only "emotional perspective" I have is that I'm tired unto death of having to live in a society of crying me-monkeys who are outraged every two seconds at the very notion that the world isn't catering to their convenience.

You fucked; you made a baby; the baby is now more important than you are. The fact that you have shitty taste in women and resent the outcome is relevant to no one.

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

No it doesn't. In fact that mother can drop the baby off at a fire station, and drive away... Never to be held responsible again...

 

[Vastator]

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

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

Again... No one is wailing... Except maybe you with your injection of hyperbole...

Oh? You're not wailing? Let's take a look at your "calm, principled, unemotional legal points", shall we?

Post #177:
If a woman willingly decides to end the marriage... Then yes. Any real man will still continue to support his child's needs anyway. But if she wants to punch out... Don't expect a severance package for your own descision. You want out? Get the fuck out. If you swear you don't "need him"; then you don't need his money either...
If automatic extortion wasn't handed out like Mardi Grad beads; the divorce rate in this nation would drop like a rock.

Post #178:
Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Post #180:
80% of divorce filings are initiated by women. Therefore it's the women who are opting out. Not the men.

You continued to rant about "whores" and "birthing children for money", then gave us Post #186:
Not technically true. Fatherhood has less to do with it, than whom the woman happens to be married to.
She can cheat on her husband, get knocked uo, have a bastard child, divorce her husband, then extort him for support of the bastard child, all the while making a new life with the actual father. Supplemented of course by the husband she betrayeds income.
The best part for the woman? Its all perfectly legal....

And I like this gem of evidence for your contention that you're providing "legal arguments". Post #191:
I didn't "cite" any laws. I just told you how it works in real life. If you don't like it... Then you agree the system is fatally flawed...

A legal argument that doesn't cite any laws. All righty then.

And then there's Post #196:
Actually it doesn't. It gives the state control over the mans body, on behalf of the woman. Just ask a guy I know who quit a high paying job he hated, only to be dragged through the court, (and briefly jail); because he chose to pursue a job more to his liking, and preferences. See... The state decided that since it paid less... He was showing contempt for the court. When in any other scenario one is free to quit a job and get another if they desire. Say what you want. It matters little. The fact of the matter is that the "system" is gynocentric, and barbaric when it comes to mens, and fathers rights.

Principled, unemotional legal argument, huh?

I really can't imagine why the entire board thinks you're carrying a matched set of bitter, personal baggage on this subject.

It's unfortunate for you that facts hurt your feelings. That a side effect of having a poor argument to justify your position. It's on you to improve your position. It's not on me to change the facts to better suit your taste...
As for those facts which hit too close to home for you? You should have made better life choices...

 

[martybegan]

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?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

"Women are whiners because they actually expect me to take responsibility for my children! How DARE those stupid bitches not just raise the kid alone and be grateful that I fucked them and wandered off!"

Yeah, that's really "principled" of you. And you might as well give up trying to convince anyone here that your bitter kvetching has nothing personal behind it.

The only "emotional perspective" I have is that I'm tired unto death of having to live in a society of crying me-monkeys who are outraged every two seconds at the very notion that the world isn't catering to their convenience.

You fucked; you made a baby; the baby is now more important than you are. The fact that you have shitty taste in women and resent the outcome is relevant to no one.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

No it doesn't. In fact that mother can drop the baby off at a fire station, and drive away... Never to be held responsible again...

Only in some juristictions.

and I forgot about those laws....

 

[Faun]

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

Because a central tenet of libertarianism is that it's immoral to violate the rights of others and foisting off your parental responsibilities onto others (i.e. the mother or the rest of society) is DEFINITELY a violation of their rights.

FYI: contrary to uniformed opinion, libertarianism isn't equivalent to or even related to libertinism.

Without government to impose it's will, it would be between the two parties in the equation.

Assuming legal available abortion, enough time to perform it via notification, and the understanding both parties can reject responsibility in the case of pregnancy, how is this not a subset of libertarian thinking?

The government is imposing nothing on anyone regarding abortion. It’s actually leaving the choice to terminate an abortion up to the pregnant woman’s discretion.

 

[Vastator]

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

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

Again... No one is wailing... Except maybe you with your injection of hyperbole...

Oh? You're not wailing? Let's take a look at your "calm, principled, unemotional legal points", shall we?

Post #177:
If a woman willingly decides to end the marriage... Then yes. Any real man will still continue to support his child's needs anyway. But if she wants to punch out... Don't expect a severance package for your own descision. You want out? Get the fuck out. If you swear you don't "need him"; then you don't need his money either...
If automatic extortion wasn't handed out like Mardi Grad beads; the divorce rate in this nation would drop like a rock.

Post #178:
Who decided to file for divorce? 80% of filings are made by women. There's your responsibility. Who grants primary residence to the mother, automagically? The courts. There's your responsibility...

Post #180:
80% of divorce filings are initiated by women. Therefore it's the women who are opting out. Not the men.



I really can't imagine why the entire board thinks you're carrying a matched set of bitter, personal baggage on this subject.

Your electing yourself to speak on behalf of the board is a truly comical insight into your delusion.

 

[Faun]

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

Again, the mother can legally end this responsibility while a man cannot.

Now you just moved the goal posts again.

You just said, ”right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm...”

Well that speaks to the situation where a child is born. I point out the law treats women equally in those terms, and then you promptly switch back to situations from before the child is born.

 

[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?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

"Women are whiners because they actually expect me to take responsibility for my children! How DARE those stupid bitches not just raise the kid alone and be grateful that I fucked them and wandered off".

Not only does your fabrication of a quote I never authored, demonstrate your lack of ability to make a point...
It's also a flagrant violation of board rules to do so.

 

[sartre play]

There are really not that many who are pro abortion, its just that the options are few. birth control of course would cut the number down to very few. but many people fight that simple solution. Even those in our government. its kind of sad that those against abortion really support it by fighting birth control.

 

[Vastator]

There are really not that many who are pro abortion, its just that the options are few. birth control of course would cut the number down to very few. but many people fight that simple solution. Even those in our government. its kind of sad that those against abortion really support it by fighting birth control.

I don't know of many who fight birth control. Just many who don't want pay for someone else's...

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

You don't seem to be successfully following the topic...

I'm not the one who ranted for two pages about "whores" divorcing men and bleeding them dry.

 

[Vastator]

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

Yes. You fucked; you made a baby; your convenience is no longer the priority. The law is more interested in the kid...

Not true. Of it were abortion would be illegal...

Yeah, we're actually talking about after the kid is born, since the financial responsibility of a man which you are wailing about doesn't begin until then. I'm not aware, as yet, of any man being forced to pay child support for an unborn child.

You don't seem to be successfully following the topic...

I'm not the one who ranted for two pages about "whores" divorcing men and bleeding them dry.

...

 

[progressive hunter]

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?

theres a lot of reasons for non child support, but trying to get the mother to murder the child is not one of them


but if a mother can drop off a child to a hospital or police station in the first 24 hrs after birth if she doesnt want it, then a father should be able to do the same thing if he doesnt want to take responsibility

 

[Cecilie1200]

How can one responsibility for a decision that they had zero say in the matter?

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

If you're dumb enough to trust a woman you're not married to with your entire financial and legal future, you deserve whatever happens to you.

well, gotta say though, it depends on who that woman is. trust builds with time - & love is definitely a factor....

Yeah, no. If you're not married to her, you're a dumbass to give her control of your financial and legal future. And if you "love" her enough and have spent enough time to build trust enough to give her control of your future, why the fuck HAVEN'T you married her?

 

[Faun]

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?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

"Women are whiners because they actually expect me to take responsibility for my children! How DARE those stupid bitches not just raise the kid alone and be grateful that I fucked them and wandered off!"

Yeah, that's really "principled" of you. And you might as well give up trying to convince anyone here that your bitter kvetching has nothing personal behind it.

The only "emotional perspective" I have is that I'm tired unto death of having to live in a society of crying me-monkeys who are outraged every two seconds at the very notion that the world isn't catering to their convenience.

You fucked; you made a baby; the baby is now more important than you are. The fact that you have shitty taste in women and resent the outcome is relevant to no one.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

No it doesn't. In fact that mother can drop the baby off at a fire station, and drive away... Never to be held responsible again...

Same for dads if they have custody.