- Joined
- Feb 1, 2006
- Messages
- 20,120
- Reaction score
- 16,169
- Location
- Cheyenne, WY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Well, I have hardly read everything you have ever written, no disrespect intended. Why don't you reference your "debunking" so I can have a little look see myself, not that I don't trust you... or that I do trust you. I just like to measure things myself, to verify. How does paternity work in your estimation? No legal obligation? You only have responsibility for the child if you signed something agreeing to it beforehand, is that how paternity law goes? Men are off the hook if they don't have a formal contract, is that it?
Wow...Methinks someone is much mistaken...
It was in this thread.
No. This argument is a fat stupid sack of fail. Contracts do not work that way. You cannot make contracts work that way. Contracts are by their very nature explicit and deliberate and mutual. You cannot accidentally enter into a contract and you cannot enter into a contract without knowing the terms. A contract involves very specifically agreeing, with full informed consent, that you are going to do a specific thing in exchange for specific remuneration. You are trying to argue that the woman is entering into a contract with a being before it exists, without its consent, which is not now and not ever expected to provide compensation, on the basis of performing an act with a third party that does not in every case or even the majority of cases result in that being existing. There is no possible way under any system of contract law as it is understood by any civilization, regardless of its laws concerning abortion, that having sex can be construed as agreeing to any kind of contract with the unborn child to provide gestation.
As for how paternity works in my estimation, it works like a criminal scheme by the State to save money on welfare programs by extorting men into supporting children that they may or may not even be the biological fathers of-- the State doesn't care who is forced to be responsible for the child's upkeep, as long as it saves money. The fact that men have their money stolen by the State and given to the mothers of their (supposedly) biological children doesn't make them fathers, doesn't make them morally responsible for those children, and doesn't provide any kind of sound moral basis for employing similar coercive measures against women. You're arguing that one wrong justifies another.