• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Should the woman's choice dictate that the man has to pay child support?


  • Total voters
    32
You continue to make it a battle between the man and woman while ignoring the child.

nope this is made up, nobody is doing this, its a bold face lie and an appeal to emotion.
 
LOL. Child support began in this country before women had the right to vote. The legal precedent and the laws that codified the principles were developed and passed by men, real men, not a bunch of wimps who want to run out on their responsibilities.

Actually it goes back 300-400 years. I am talking about Child Support as a legal construct within the parameters of the modern setting particularly post RvW. You can cast aspersions all you like, it only affirms that you don't understand the debate.

What did? When you backed off of your previous point?

I didn't back off. Read it again... and again if need be.

The effect is direct and severe. Your argument that everything effects everything is nonsense and not at all relevant. We are not talking about some indirect action that might cause a long chain of events that would inevitably lead to something bad happening to the child. We are talking about a direct causal relationship that has a very severe impact. Before child support developed as a legal precedent in this country nearly all divorced women and their children ended up in poverty.

What happened before child support is irrelevant.
What impact the relationship has due to abandonment is irrelevant.
All this affirms is that, again, you don't understand the point of the actual argument.

You said it had no effect. He said no one made such an argument. In what context could that even possibly be correct?

Within the context of child support being entirely dependent on her choice to not utilize birth control.

And you sound like some scumbag little wimp who has abandoned his children. I don't think you want to turn this argument into ad homs. It's not going to go well for you.

You don't want it to turn into an ad hom battle yet you throw out an ad hom? So you throw out insult (fight) and then hide behind a pathetic statement that you don't want to fight? What kind of sissy are you? :lol:

I am a single father of two beautiful daughters that I have 50% custody of.

I pay FAR more child support than the court mandated when assessing my salary because I wanted to help my crazy abusive ex-wife have the best opportunity to give our children the best when they are with her.

I did not have her salary assesed at all, she pays me nothing in return.

On top of child support to her, I pay for all school fees, all doctor visits, all surgery's, all sports teams fees, their martial arts, dance, guitar lessons, etc. I paid to have her car fixed. I paid her moving fees when she recently moved. I take days off of work to care for the girls when they are sick since I am on salary so that she does not lose her hourly wages.

Anything else, Bonobo? :lol:

There is nothing in my argument that is naive at all. You don't write laws based on unlikely and highly unrealistic scenarios. If the man could somehow prove that he was tricked then he might have some legal grounds, but the burden of proving that would be on him.

I don't want laws based off of unlikely scenarios. I want laws that hold her responsible for her choice and not the other way around.

This is not a valid argument. It is just more ad hom. Please show where my arguments indicate a lack of intellect, other than yours. All you have done is attack those that disagree and claim that some phantom argument you made disproves their points. You are the one turning the argument around. You continue to make it a battle between the man and woman while ignoring the child.

If she has an abortion there is no child. She has a choice. When she chooses the child over birth control against his wishes, he is held accountable. This is sexist and ridiculous. If she does not want to support the child on her own, she can use birth control.

Really now, this is not that hard to understand. It is fair and equitable to both the man and the woman. All that matters is that the child is supported. Who supports the child is irrelevant. That is why you abandon scenario is irrelevant as well and you argument that the child is affective is equally irrelevant. That is, unless you argue that no child should be given up for adoption? IF that is not the case, as I have already stated... Irrelevant.

This is not a battle between a man and a woman. This is about making the woman responsible for her actions (ie Choice).

I am not the only one that thinks so either...
 
If a man could absolve all responsibility with a simple gesture of saying "I don't want the baby - abort now", could he technically go on to impregnate one woman a week, and not have to pay for a single kid? Maybe two women a week? Three? Would the law impose some sort of limit?

What's the man's incentive (besides STDs) for using protection at all?

I'll tell you what the woman's incentive is; I don't want a baby growing inside of me for 9 months if I don't want one.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are not.
 
If a man could absolve all responsibility with a simple gesture of saying "I don't want the baby - abort now", could he technically go on to impregnate one woman a week, and not have to pay for a single kid? Maybe two women a week? Three? Would the law impose some sort of limit?

A man who does that should not be given the option of saying that he does not want to support his kid. Under my fair system he would lose all rights and have to pay the piper.

I'll tell you what the woman's incentive is; I don't want a baby growing inside of me for 9 months if I don't want one.

Sperm is cheap, eggs are not.

Eggs are cheap... that is why they get flushed.
 
actually "I" said that and that is NOTHING like you are saying LMAO
so . . . NOPE

TRYING top make a person pay child support doesn't stop them from abandoning them if they choose, it happens EVERY DAY

so you are still wrong, nobody said what you are arguing and what you are arguing has nothing to do with child support :D

Okay then. Why are you claiming no one said this when you acknowledge that you said it?

Child support stops them from abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. Apparently, you are arguing that because they are still free to abandon their emotional responsibility that it has no effect. That is a very stupid argument which completely fails to understand the purpose of civil actions.
 
Okay then. Why are you claiming no one said this when you acknowledge that you said it?

Child support stops them from abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. Apparently, you are arguing that because they are still free to abandon their emotional responsibility that it has no effect. That is a very stupid argument which completely fails to understand the purpose of civil actions.

Can a woman not have an abortion in your world, or something?
 
Eggs are cheap... that is why they get flushed.

Not at all. Eggs are finite to a female. They run out eventually. Only one potential conceiving period a month. Only one baby every 9 months bearing her DNA (obviously exception w/twins, triplets, ect).

Men on the other hand (healthy men) have unlimited sperm producing capabilities from puberty till death, any time of day. A single male could impregnate hundreds of women each month theoretically, and create thousands of babies bearing his DNA each year potentially.

Sperm is much cheaper. More supply = less demand = lower price.
 
Last edited:
Not at all. Eggs are finite to a female. They run out eventually. Only one potential pregnancy a month. Only one baby at a time (obviously w/exception of twins, ect). Only one baby every 9 months bearing her DNA.

Men on the other hand (healthy men) have unlimited sperm producing capabilities from puberty till death, any time of day. A single male could impregnate hundreds of women each month theoretically, and create thousands of babies bearing his DNA each year potentially.

Sperm is much cheaper. More supply = less price.

If that is your argument, then that is fine. I would argue they are equally valuable if anything. No reproduction without both. Eggs are cheap though non-the-less... and having a limited number over a limited time frame really doesn't mean much. I don't want to argue semantics though... not that big of a deal.
 
Okay then. Why are you claiming no one said this when you acknowledge that you said it?

Child support stops them from abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. Apparently, you are arguing that because they are still free to abandon their emotional responsibility that it has no effect. That is a very stupid argument which completely fails to understand the purpose of civil actions.

because what you are CLAIMING was said and what was actually said are two entirely differnt things, they arent even close to the same thing at all.

I said "In reality the child isnt effected by forced "child support" so that debate is pointless"

then you said "If a parent abandons their child it will effect the child. There is no disputing that."

these arent even close to the same in any reality what so ever, its an appeal to emotion and a random point to try and sell your argument. LOL

now you are trying to change what you said and put in "qualifiers" like fiduciary to try and make it accurate since it was so off to begin with it doesnt work lol

my statement still stands and yours is still false.

TRYING to make somebody pay child support that doesnt want to be a parent has no impact on abandoning" the child, to think otherwise is silly.

You say the argument fails because of civil actions I laugh at that because moms and dads ignore that stuff every day in large numbers.

Like I said I deal in REALITY not fantasy land.

My statement stands and yours fails and is also meaningless to the argument. Maybe try adding more qualifiers to it or change it up some more to see if you can offer something logical, accurate and reality based then.
 
If that is your argument, then that is fine. I would argue they are equally valuable if anything. No reproduction without both. Eggs are cheap though non-the-less... and having a limited number over a limited time frame really doesn't mean much. I don't want to argue semantics though... not that big of a deal.

The point is that a single male has the ability to create thousands of children a year, vs a woman, who has the ability to create ~1.25 children a year.

What happens when you remove all accountability on the part of the male?

Females always will have a built-in accountability via invasive abortion or the pregnancy in general, baby at the end.

Men have no built-in accountability and you are arguing that they should be able to reproduce at will with no consequence (in a world without child support laws)?
 
Last edited:
Can a woman not have an abortion in your world, or something?

obviously his world is void of a lot of real world facts and reality.

Reality is ugly unfortunately and forcing child support to people that dont want to be moms amd dads isnt going to magically make good moms and dads.

acting like its super rare that a person gets pregnant without wanting a child and if it happened it was because of ignorance and nothing else is simply naive also

I simply dont understand this blind, shallow, tunnel vision, void of reality mind set.
 
Actually it goes back 300-400 years. I am talking about Child Support as a legal construct within the parameters of the modern setting particularly post RvW. You can cast aspersions all you like, it only affirms that you don't understand the debate.

No, you said...

'legal construct designed by women and the feminist friendly courts"

You are wrong. Child support was a legal construct that was developed before women had the right to vote. Roe v Wade has no relevance to it at all.

What happened before child support is irrelevant.

Sorry, it is not. It establishes that there is a causal relationship that is damaging to the child.

What impact the relationship has due to abandonment is irrelevant.

Huh? Is this all you got?


All this affirms is that, again, you don't understand the point of the actual argument.

All you are doing is asserting that I am wrong and failing to offer any argument as to why or how. Your point is worthless and without merit for the reasons I have outlined.

Within the context of child support being entirely dependent on her choice to not utilize birth control.

That choice was made by both.

You don't want it to turn into an ad hom battle yet you throw out an ad hom? So you throw out insult (fight) and then hide behind a pathetic statement that you don't want to fight? What kind of sissy are you? :lol:

I responded to your ad hom with an ad hom. Dummy, I did not say that I did not want to turn this into ad homs. I said YOU don't want it to turn into ad homs. You are in the position of being painted as the pusillanimous little twerp that abandoned his child(ren).

I am a single father of two beautiful daughters that I have 50% custody of.

I pay FAR more child support than the court mandated when assessing my salary because I wanted to help my crazy abusive ex-wife have the best opportunity to give our children the best when they are with her.

I did not have her salary assesed at all, she pays me nothing in return.

On top of child support to her, I pay for all school fees, all doctor visits, all surgery's, all sports teams fees, their martial arts, dance, guitar lessons, etc. I paid to have her car fixed. I paid her moving fees when she recently moved. I take days off of work to care for the girls when they are sick since I am on salary so that she does not lose her hourly wages.

Anything else, Bonobo? :lol:

So what you want me to believe is that you are a responsible father who simply has chosen to be a champion for a bunch of deadbeat irresponsible jerks? Okay, does not make much sense, but whatever... you are still flat wrong.

I don't need to use the ad homs to make my point. Your only argument in rebuttal is your claim that I am naive, which is not an argument at all.


I don't want laws based off of unlikely scenarios. I want laws that hold her responsible for her choice and not the other way around.

Your point in this little tangent was that the laws should seriously consider that the woman had punched holes in the condom or tricked the man in some way. There is no reason for that assumption without solid proof, as it is not the common way in which pregnancies occur.

If she has an abortion there is no child. She has a choice. When she chooses the child over birth control against his wishes, he is held accountable. This is sexist and ridiculous. If she does not want to support the child on her own, she can use birth control.

He does not get to choose abortion as the pregnancy has no effect on his body or health. His choices in the matter have already occurred and he is responsible for them.

Really now, this is not that hard to understand. It is fair and equitable to both the man and the woman. All that matters is that the child is supported. Who supports the child is irrelevant. That is why you abandon scenario is irrelevant as well and you argument that the child is affective is equally irrelevant. That is, unless you argue that no child should be given up for adoption? IF that is not the case, as I have already stated... Irrelevant.

Not hard to understand? This is not even coherent. The child is affective??? I don't know wtf ur talking about.

The state is amenable to allowing someone else to assume the father's responsibility. That has nothing to do with any argument you made. You are arguing that the man should be allowed to deny his responsibilities.

This is not a battle between a man and a woman. This is about making the woman responsible for her actions (ie Choice).

You just want the woman to be held solely responsible for the benefit of the father, regardless of its impact on the child. In other words, it's a battle between the man and the woman that ignores the child.

I am not the only one that thinks so either...

You are in a very small minority and most of your cohorts are POS who want to rationalize the abandonment of their responsibilities.
 
The point is that a single male has the ability to create thousands of children a year, vs a woman, who has the ability to create ~1.25 children a year.

What happens when you remove all accountability on the part of the male?

Females always will have a built-in accountability via invasive abortion or the pregnancy in general, baby at the end.

Men have no built-in accountability and you are arguing that they should be able to reproduce at will with no consequence (in a world without child support laws)?

I bet that an unintended consequence would be that woman would be even:

MORE careful with whom they slept with, and;
MORE careful with the birth control if that last sentence was the new reality, and;
MORE careful about waiting to sleep with a man that they were in a relationship with or cared for...

Really, it would be better than it is now for stable relationships and potential families...
 
because what you are CLAIMING was said and what was actually said are two entirely differnt things, they arent even close to the same thing at all.

It was a direct, word for word quote.

I said "In reality the child isnt effected by forced "child support" so that debate is pointless"

then you said "If a parent abandons their child it will effect the child. There is no disputing that."

these arent even close to the same in any reality what so ever, its an appeal to emotion and a random point to try and sell your argument. LOL

Assertions are not argument. You need to make an actual argument for why my point is not relevant. Simply asserting the same thing over and over again is pointless.

There was no appeal to emotion. If a father abandons his part in providing financial support for the child it will have a negative impact on the child.
now you are trying to change what you said and put in "qualifiers" like fiduciary to try and make it accurate since it was so off to begin with it doesnt work lol

BS! You are trying to change what I said to mean "emotional abandonment." I was not talking about emotional abandonment. Child support does not address that, so within the context of the discussion it should have been quite clear that I was talking about abandoning their financial responsibility.

It's unfortunate that you need everything spelled out for you and are not able to glean understanding from context. But that is your problem.

my statement still stands and yours is still false.

TRYING to make somebody pay child support that doesnt want to be a parent has no impact on abandoning" the child, to think otherwise is silly.

Yes, it does. The abandonment effects the child in two ways. Emotionally and financially. The point of child support is to diminish the financial effects of the abandonment. Civil action has little ability to do anything about the emotional damage.

You can't sue your business partner for being a bad friend. You can sue him for failing to meet his financial responsibilities under the partnership agreement.

You say the argument fails because of civil actions I laugh at that because moms and dads ignore that stuff every day in large numbers.

What?

Like I said I deal in REALITY not fantasy land.

My statement stands and yours fails and is also meaningless to the argument. Maybe try adding more qualifiers to it or change it up some more to see if you can offer something logical, accurate and reality based then.

You deal in incoherent bs without any argument to support your positions.
 
No, you said...

'legal construct designed by women and the feminist friendly courts"

You are wrong. Child support was a legal construct that was developed before women had the right to vote. Roe v Wade has no relevance to it at all.

I am talking about what I just stated... the now. I should have said supported instead of created. Big deal... that isn't even relevant. The laws that were created before were also created before abortion was determined to be a legal and valid form of birth control.


Sorry, it is not. It establishes that there is a causal relationship that is damaging to the child.

If there is an abortion then there is no child to damage. Why you can't grasp this is beyond me...

Huh? Is this all you got?

That is all I need for that aspect...

All you are doing is asserting that I am wrong and failing to offer any argument as to why or how. Your point is worthless and without merit for the reasons I have outlined.

I have repeatedly stated to you why you are wrong. I have not just, "asserted that (you) are wrong". :roll:

That choice was made by both.

No. She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. It ultimately is her choice and her choice alone. All you are doing is making excuses for selfishness and trying to hold others accountable.

I responded to your ad hom with an ad hom. Dummy, I did not say that I did not want to turn this into ad homs. I said YOU don't want it to turn into ad homs. You are in the position of being painted as the pusillanimous little twerp that abandoned his child(ren).

I will take you on in an ad hom battle fest if you like... just start one in the basement, mate. :lol:

So what you want me to believe is that you are a responsible father who simply has chosen to be a champion for a bunch of deadbeat irresponsible jerks? Okay, does not make much sense, but whatever... you are still flat wrong.

I am a father and have posted their pictures here and had discussions with many about them and I have met one member of this forum in person who has seen them and another who I will be meeting upor return to the USA in December. If you are in the LA area let me know and my daughters and I can meet you for lunch.

I am not championing dead beats... I am challenging a sexist and flawed law much like others have done in history. I am basing it off logic, not emotion.

I don't need to use the ad homs to make my point. Your only argument in rebuttal is your claim that I am naive, which is not an argument at all.

True enough...

Your point in this little tangent was that the laws should seriously consider that the woman had punched holes in the condom or tricked the man in some way. There is no reason for that assumption without solid proof, as it is not the common way in which pregnancies occur.

I am saying, in this thread that I created (no idea where you got the idea that I am on a tangent), that those instances were the ones that got me thinking about this issue that I just sorta realized about a month or two ago.

1. He does not get to choose abortion as the pregnancy has no effect on his body or health.
2. His choices in the matter have already occurred and he is responsible for them.

1. Agreed
2. Nope. Biology and law need not be intertwined.

Not hard to understand? This is not even coherent. The child is affective??? I don't know wtf ur talking about.

The state is amenable to allowing someone else to assume the father's responsibility. That has nothing to do with any argument you made. You are arguing that the man should be allowed to deny his responsibilities.

jeez... a typo since I was typing fast, am tired and have minor Dyslexia. Affected

The rest was extremely coherent. If there is no baby there is nothing to be responsible for. That is why this is all about her choice... debate that. The rest is irrelevant.

You just want the woman to be held solely responsible for the benefit of the father, regardless of its impact on the child. In other words, it's a battle between the man and the woman that ignores the child.

IF THERE IS NOT CHILD THEN THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE CHILD!!!!!!

Holy freaking christ!

You are in a very small minority and most of your cohorts are POS who want to rationalize the abandonment of their responsibilities.

You realize that Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy and one that did not help Separate But Equal stay law nor keep the woman from attaining the vote. It will also eventually see that gays are allowed to marry. Anything else?
 
I already dealt with this. Abortion has nothing to do with child support.

Correct. That is not the point though... the point is that her choice to abort or not has everything to do with child support.
 
I am talking about what I just stated... the now. I should have said supported instead of created. Big deal... that isn't even relevant.

So now you simply assert that a point that was originally yours is irrelevant without argument because I corrected your ignorance? Your ad hom was not relevant or even remotely accurate.

The laws that were created before were also created before abortion was determined to be a legal and valid form of birth control.

Again, your point is not accurate. Abortion was used and legal in some areas before the legal precedents of child support began to develop. Try again.


If there is an abortion then there is no child to damage. Why you can't grasp this is beyond me...

Relevance? I don't support forcing anyone to pay child support for an aborted child. We are talking about a born child.

That is all I need for that aspect...

Your incoherent claims of irrelevance proves your point valid?

I have repeatedly stated to you why you are wrong. I have not just, "asserted that (you) are wrong". :roll:

Nope.

No. She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. It ultimately is her choice and her choice alone. All you are doing is making excuses for selfishness and trying to hold others accountable.

Most people don't think of abortion as a form of birth control. But okay, if that is what you mean, again, her choice in that matter does not affect the father's responsibility for his part in reproduction which he chose.

I will take you on in an ad hom battle fest if you like... just start one in the basement, mate. :lol:

You have been engaging in ad hom throughout. Again., this tangent started when the entire substance of your response was that I was naive.

I am a father and have posted their pictures here and had discussions with many about them and I have met one member of this forum in person who has seen them and another who I will be meeting upor return to the USA in December. If you are in the LA area let me know and my daughters and I can meet you for lunch.

I have taken you at your word. I don't care whether you are a good father. It has no bearing on the fact that your argument is wrong. I was simply pointing out that you were in no position to engage in ad homs.


I am not championing dead beats... I am challenging a sexist and flawed law much like others have done in history. I am basing it off logic, not emotion.

You are basing it solely on emotion. You want to make the woman appear to be a villain which is why you bring up nonsense about tricking the man.

True enough...

I am saying, in this thread that I created (no idea where you got the idea that I am on a tangent), that those instances were the ones that got me thinking about this issue that I just sorta realized about a month or two ago.

This is tangential to your main argument. You did not argue that if a woman had tricked the man into impregnating her... You added that after the fact and created a tangent within your main argument. But anyway.

1. Agreed
2. Nope. Biology and law need not be intertwined.

The man has taken part in the reproductive process and he is responsible for the result.

jeez... a typo since I was typing fast, am tired and have minor Dyslexia. Affected

The entire quote was incoherent.

The rest was extremely coherent. If there is no baby there is nothing to be responsible for. That is why this is all about her choice... debate that. The rest is irrelevant.

Who is being held responsible when there is no baby?

IF THERE IS NOT CHILD THEN THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE CHILD!!!!!!

And no child support.


You realize that Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy and one that did not help Separate But Equal stay law nor keep the woman from attaining the vote. It will also eventually see that gays are allowed to marry. Anything else?

Do you? You are a funny guy but no one is laughing with you. You are the one that made the appeal to popularity, Einstein. You said, "I am not the only one that thinks so either...", which is an appeal to popularity. I simply pointed out that your position was not that popular. I never said nor implied that you were wrong because your psoition was unpopular. I have given my reasons for why you are wrong and you have failed to respond in any substantive way.
 
Correct. That is not the point though... the point is that her choice to abort or not has everything to do with child support.

It does not. Child support is based on the child's needs not on who most wanted or did not want the child. There is no reason why the state should empower the man to force the woman to choose between abortion and his abandonment of the child. Again, his choice in the reproductive process has already ended and he does not get to walk away from it after the fact.

Abortions can lead to medical complications and the choice should be left solely to the woman since it is her health that is impacted. Again, if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself. It won't end the real pregnancy though, since that does not occur inside the man's body which is why he does not get any say in a real abortion. You can continue to whine about how it's really just a conspiracy by the evil feminist to make men inferior but that has no connection to reality.

Are you pro-choice?
 
I bet that an unintended consequence would be that woman would be even:

MORE careful with whom they slept with, and;
MORE careful with the birth control if that last sentence was the new reality, and;
MORE careful about waiting to sleep with a man that they were in a relationship with or cared for...

Really, it would be better than it is now for stable relationships and potential families...

So - due to the fact that men have no risk involved for having sex - you think that the problem would be solved by the fact that women would subsequently take on additional responsibility for making good sexual choices?

Does this put the male/female accountability split at about 0/100? (if you think I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know why)

Under your scenario, as a male, I really don't see any reason I should use any form of protection as a preventative towards pregnancy.

Your scenario is like two insurance companies going in on a deal together, but just one of the insurance companies is forced to take ALL of the risk for what might happen as a result of the deal. How is that fair?
 
So now you simply assert that a point that was originally yours is irrelevant without argument because I corrected your ignorance? Your ad hom was not relevant or even remotely accurate.

Ignorance? Holy cow you think a lot of yourself. I made a grammatical error and admitted it. I then clarified that this is not the point of my argument. If you want to continue with this "tangent", then have fun. I leave you the last comment as I will not waste any further time with this.

Again, your point is not accurate. Abortion was used and legal in some areas before the legal precedents of child support began to develop. Try again.

Abortion was never really addressed. Whether it was legal or not is also irrelevant. It is legal now. I am talking about now. I don't care what happened 100 years ago any more than I care about Hammurabi's Code. It is irrelevant. Deal with the now. After all, that is the time that we live in.

By your stupid argument, slavery should never have been addressed since slavery was legal in most of the world until recently. Who cares? Times change. Catch up.

Relevance? I don't support forcing anyone to pay child support for an aborted child. We are talking about a born child.

Disingenuous. Just like arguing that a man has an equal right to an abortion or gays have an equal right to marriage. The whole argument wreaks of smelly doo doo.

Your incoherent claims of irrelevance proves your point valid?

Not my fault you have reading comprehension issues...


Nice counter argument. What's next. "I am right and you are wrong"?

Most people don't think of abortion as a form of birth control. But okay, if that is what you mean, again, her choice in that matter does not affect the father's responsibility for his part in reproduction which he chose.

This is like a math problem. 1 plus 1 does not equal 4. Well, her act in sex plus his act in sex does not equal a child. What's missing? What is the number three? Her choice. Her act plus his act plus her choice to not have an abortion = 4 (the child). He has no responsiblity without number 3. No responsibility without her choice to have the child.

You have been engaging in ad hom throughout. Again., this tangent started when the entire substance of your response was that I was naive.

That was not meant as an ad hom. But whatever... it was taken as such. I called you a couple of little things and you then started with the big bombs. The big insults about being a deatbeat, to put it mildly. The two don't equate. Be honest. You know that you actually, "started it". Unless I just don't remember a totally asshole like comment like you made that is...

I have taken you at your word. I don't care whether you are a good father. It has no bearing on the fact that your argument is wrong. I was simply pointing out that you were in no position to engage in ad homs.

... moving on.

You are basing it solely on emotion. You want to make the woman appear to be a villain which is why you bring up nonsense about tricking the man.

No. *sigh* I am not basing it on emotion. I am basing it on logic. You don't know me at all, let alone well enought to know if I am being emotive or not.

Women do trick men. Do you deny this? If so, you are naive. If not, then you have no counter argument against this line of reasoning. Either way you lose.

This is tangential to your main argument. You did not argue that if a woman had tricked the man into impregnating her... You added that after the fact and created a tangent within your main argument. But anyway.

Tricking the man and/or having a baby against his wishes is my entire argument. I have argued this in multiple threads for months now. It is not a tangent, it is the premise of my enitre argument. Without that, I would probably not even have an argument.

The man has taken part in the reproductive process and he is responsible for the result.

Biological sex leads to a pregnancy. Her LEGAL choice to abort comes AFTER sex and BEFORE birth. Her choice is a LEGAL CHOICE. It has nothing to do with the biological act of sex. Maybe your method of sex differs from mine but I don't have any legal contracts going on while we are engaged in intercourse. To each their own though...

The entire quote was incoherent.

No it wasn't. Go back to 4rth grade. Jeez. I left an "r" off of "you" and wrote "affective" instead of "affectED". Break out your grammar book and actually show how the rest of it, or how those two typos made the rest grammatically incorrect or in error of proper sytanx. Dude, give it up. LEARN TO READ. This is not a site where we are working on publishing papers for a journal. Most of us type as we think and Grammar Nazi's, expecially ones that are wrong, don't last long.

Who is being held responsible when there is no baby?

Irrelevant. Again.

And no child support.

Incomplete sentence. I can barely understand this incoherent rant.

Do you? You are a funny guy but no one is laughing with you. You are the one that made the appeal to popularity, Einstein. You said, "I am not the only one that thinks so either...", which is an appeal to popularity. I simply pointed out that your position was not that popular. I never said nor implied that you were wrong because your psoition was unpopular. I have given my reasons for why you are wrong and you have failed to respond in any substantive way.

I am not the only one that thinks so... HERE. Centrist and a hand full of others in this very thread have agreed with me. That is not an appeal, that is a fact. I have responded with appropriate and valid counter arguments as to why I am correct and as to why your argument has failed. What you simply need to do is to do better.

It does not. Child support is based on the child's needs not on who most wanted or did not want the child.

I have already agreed to this. But that is irrelevant. There is no child to support if she uses her choice to have an abortion.

There is no reason why the state should empower the man to force the woman to choose between abortion and his abandonment of the child.

They wouldn't be. They would be forcing her to take responsibility for her choice. I know that this idea scares many people, and even for some valid reasons. Those reasons though, should not be used to force a man into involuntary servitude.

Again, his choice in the reproductive process has already ended and he does not get to walk away from it after the fact.

Agreed and only says some sexist laws...

Abortions can lead to medical complications and the choice should be left solely to the woman since it is her health that is impacted.

Agreed.

Again, if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself.

THERE WE GO!! :roll:

It won't end the real pregnancy though, since that does not occur inside the man's body which is why he does not get any say in a real abortion.

Thanks for the sex ed pops... :roll:

You can continue to whine about how it's really just a conspiracy by the evil feminist to make men inferior but that has no connection to reality.

Who has all of the choice, and consequently power if a pregnancy occurs? Answer this with the man, the woman or both only please. Thank you.

Are you pro-choice?

Yes...
 
So - due to the fact that men have no risk involved for having sex - you think that the problem would be solved by the fact that women would subsequently take on additional responsibility for making good sexual choices?

Does this put the male/female accountability split at about 0/100? (if you think I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know why)

Under your scenario, as a male, I really don't see any reason I should use any form of protection as a preventative towards pregnancy.

Your scenario is like two insurance companies going in on a deal together, but just one of the insurance companies is forced to take ALL of the risk for what might happen as a result of the deal. How is that fair?

What additional responsibilities does the woman take on? Saying no or yes to sex? Doesn't she, or both of them for that matter, already do this?

It makes the act of sex at 50/50 barring something illegal like rape. It makes her decision to abort or not 100%, just like it is now. No change either way.

Didn't I just add that men that are found to not use protection and go around and impregnate women could be found guilty and given a consequence?

How is it fair? That is how it is now. The woman takes all the risks and the man has to pay for her choices. How is that fair?
 
What additional responsibilities does the woman take on? Saying no or yes to sex? Doesn't she, or both of them for that matter, already do this?

It makes the act of sex at 50/50 barring something illegal like rape. It makes her decision to abort or not 100%, just like it is now. No change either way.

Didn't I just add that men that are found to not use protection and go around and impregnate women could be found guilty and given a consequence?

How is it fair? That is how it is now. The woman takes all the risks and the man has to pay for her choices. How is that fair?

True, you did mention the excessive child provision.

Accountability is they key. Under your scenario where men can sign away a child simply by asking a lady to abort, they effectively have no risk/accountability with having sex.

Does accountability/risk on the male side even exist under your scenario? I can't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. If you think so, what is it?
 
Last edited:
True, you did mention the excessive child provision.

Accountability is they key. Under your scenario where men can sign away a child simply by asking a lady to abort, they effectively have no risk/accountability with having sex.

Does accountability/risk on the male side even exist under your scenario? I can't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. If you think so, what is it?

To be honest, my argument really only applies to women that have tricked the man. That being said, it is probably almost impossible to prove. I am also just arguing this from a logical "choice" stance and not from one where I realistically think that my argument could or even should ever be applied.

You are too calm and reasonable to actually "debate"... :lol:
 
Back
Top Bottom