No one is being "co-opted" or "commandeered." The government didn't tell you where to put your dick. They certainly didn't tell you to forget the condoms.
And the government also didn't tell a woman to give birth or to become a parent. They certainly didn't provide an option in the case of condom failure, due in no part to the fault of any person.
You seem to think the only reason for child support is to screw over men. At a minimum, your comments -- and lack of reaction to a repeated reminder that the purpose of child support is to support children -- indicate you fundamentally misunderstand the concept.
You seem to think that I seem to think something that I don't think. I never said the
only reason for child support was to screw over men. Your false accusation fails to appreciate the gravity of the situation and indicates that you do not understand the concept of servitude, which is to benefit some person, persons, or an organization such as a business or the government.
Now, if it were the case that citizens of the US were to be taxed for a child support fund, that would be a form of public welfare upon which society would have collectively agreed. That is not the case, because it is a socioeconomic policy which is according to the needs of children. Because men are targeted by the court, the law is discriminatory. Men do not have the option out, i.e. to abort. Since sex and reproduction are separate issues, we know that women can have sex and abort. The social
and biological consequences exist for men
and women, when women abort. Because men cannot abort, only women have a say in those consequences. The social consequences are that men are deprived of their liberty, and constrained by a discriminatory social practice.
It's not ok to arrange a marriage against the will of men or women. This is because there are social consequences of marriage which men and women may not be able to abide by. Yet, unlike forced marriage, child support cannot be cancelled by no fault divorce.
Men have absolutely no right, ethically or legally, to force a woman to have an abortion. By the same token, no woman should have the right to force a man to have a vasectomy, or to freeze his sperm against his will.
If a man doesn't want to have a child, he has plenty of options. Such as....
False, if a man doesn't want to have a child, his options are three: celibacy, surgery or surrogacy. Find another patron.
Men do have some influence, as they can most certainly request the woman get an abortion. What they don't have is the right to force a woman to obey the man's unilateral command.
Incorrect. Some influence is not autonomy. Some influence is political, and allows the state to exercise tyranny over men, thereby depriving men of their liberty.
The social, legal, and ethical consequences of letting a man compel a woman to have an abortion are as obvious as they are horrendous, and a definite non-starter. As are your attempts to delegitimize child support on this basis.
Stop bitching, and pay your damned child support.
Nice strawman, why don't we stop bitching and acknowledge the fact that involuntary servitude is un-American. I am truly ashamed to see someone advocate for plantation economics.
