Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, itās always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.LOLOL^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.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.
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.
It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.
And hereās yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesnāt result in a child being raised without a mother. What youāre 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.
Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.
And the only ones making it are conservatives. Just like every other one of these same threads Iāve seen.You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, itās always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.LOLOL^^^ 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.
It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.
And hereās yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesnāt result in a child being raised without a mother. What youāre 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.
Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.
No, you're just being obtuse. Even this thread - which is skating closer to the edge than most - is mostly trying to make the theoretical point that leftist-imposed laws and viewpoints are skewed and hypocritical.
Mind you, I personally think it's a really dumb way to make the point and it invites far too much whining from bitter assholes.
Yeah except when the two parties fail to reach an agreement and one party decides to abandon parental responsibility (i.e. one parent decides not to pony up for the child), which ends up resulting in violating the rights of the mother and/or of the rest of society (e.g. when Dad bails and the Mother ends up having to turn to the State to provide support for the child)āThe argument, not my argumentā
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.
See ABOVE.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?
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.
Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.
Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"
Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.
You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.
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.
Heās only saying that because heās a conservative and he doesnāt want to face the sad reality that the only posters making this argument are fellow conservatives.Yeah except when the two parties fail to reach an agreement and one party decides to abandon parental responsibility (i.e. one parent decides not to pony up for the child), which ends up resulting in violating the rights of the mother and/or of the rest of society (e.g. when Dad bails and the Mother ends up having to turn to the State to provide support for the child)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.
Dead beat Dad/Mom is essentially stealing from others by forcing them to foot the bill for his/her parental obligations.
See ABOVE.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?
There's nothing libertarian about foisting off your responsibilities that are a consequence of your own actions onto others, regardless of whether or not you decided you don't want to fulfill them after the fact.
Again you're confusing libertarians with libertines.
Um, the purpose of the 14th amendment is indeed equality under the law.
Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.
Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"
Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.
You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.
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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.
Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"
Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.
You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.
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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
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?
A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
I've never heard that, regarding dad's. Though I suppose in the event of a newborn, and deceased mother, it's possible...Same for dads if they have custody.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...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.
"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.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...And the law equally say kids born from a womanās egg must be supported by the mother.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.
Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.
I've never heard that, regarding dad's. Though I suppose in the event of a newborn, and deceased mother, it's possible...Same for dads if they have custody.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...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.
"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.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...And the law equally say kids born from a womanās egg must be supported by the mother.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.
Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.
Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions."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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility
I wonder what the parameters are in regard to notifying the other parent...?Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility
383.50
383.51
... they only speak of the āparentā dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.
When required, a reasonable effort, such as placing a notice in a newspaper or online.I wonder what the parameters are in regard to notifying the other parent...?Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility
383.50
383.51
... they only speak of the āparentā dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.
Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their stateās safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.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.
Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.
In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.
So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?
As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.
dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??
not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility
383.50
383.51
... they only speak of the āparentā dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.
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?
They're aware, and wouldn't have it any other way. In fact as this thread amply demonstrates... They'll fight tooth, and nail to keep such a thing from ever happening.I've been googling it and as far as I can find unless a father has legal custody he cant relinquish his rights and is required by law to pay support when so ordered
so for all you femmenazis out there wanting equality, its the men that are at a dis-advantage not you women
I can't say I'm sorry that your position requires the issue to pertain to me personally. That's just a weakness in your argument. It needs work. If it were principled, and we'll reasoned it wouldn't require me...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...Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.
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.
"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.
