• 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!

Sperm Ownership After Deposit, Male Parental Rights, and Child Support:

Out of that entire post the only thing you found to comment on was this nitpicky thing? Wow, kinda speaks more about you than me.

I remember talking about women giving me that impression but i dont remember the exact context of it and im not putting the effort into finding it to defend it. If you want to, go for it. I will tell you bwfore you go through the effort to wrongly try to prove im a liar, my position is consistent and what i was talking about then is not what im talking about now. Your .mistakenly trying to start an argument around two different topics. So if you do go for it and end up looking foolish dont say i did not warn you first.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
It was a rambling post so I commented on something in the beginning. If it was nitpicky - perhaps a nitpicky thing should not be your opening statement. And you opening statement is not in line with other posts that you have made. Since you have accused me of many things, I will take notice when you change your tune..
 
It was a rambling post so I commented on something in the beginning. If it was nitpicky - perhaps a nitpicky thing should not be your opening statement. And you opening statement is not in line with other posts that you have made. Since you have accused me of many things, I will take notice when you change your tune..
You are doimg exactly what i said you do in the post you claim your too lazy too read (interesting dodge tactic)

Instead of engaging in any meaningful dialouge out of everything i said you instead want to shutdown the conversation by calling me a liar. Its fine though i really expected nothing more from you. Its classless but from you par for the course.

You can make your baseless conversation but until you can back it up with proof it does not mean anything to me. Its just you oppinion and your oppinion has no value to me. Your an unreasonable person and talking to you is a fruitless excercise in futility.

Have a nice day [emoji2]

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
You are doimg exactly what i said you do in the post you claim your too lazy too read (interesting dodge tactic)

Instead of engaging in any meaningful dialouge out of everything i said you instead want to shutdown the conversation by calling me a liar. Its fine though i really expected nothing more from you. Its classless but from you par for the course.

You can make your baseless conversation but until you can back it up with proof it does not mean anything to me. Its just you oppinion and your oppinion has no value to me. Your an unreasonable person and talking to you is a fruitless excercise in futility.

Have a nice day [emoji2]

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

I am not saying you are a liar. Your words not mine.

Are you conflicted about your feelings? Do you think most women want to be put on pedestals - or do think they want to be appreciated as an equal?

Try this.

If this is not the main point, try another post that does not include the "trivial" comments in the main subject line of the post.

When you lead with such comments it is natural for people to think it is your main point. Especially on an internet bulletin board where many of us are multitasking .:lamo
 
I am not saying you are a liar. Your words not mine.

Are you conflicted about your feelings? Do you think most women want to be put on pedestals - or do think they want to be appreciated as an equal?

Try this.

If this is not the main point, try another post that does not include the "trivial" comments in the main subject line of the post.

When you lead with such comments it is natural for people to think it is your main point. Especially on an internet bulletin board where many of us are multitasking .:lamo
Get back to me when your ready to talk about why women should or should not make concessions to men for the sake of a harmonious relationship. That was the theme of my post. Till then have fun argueing with yourself

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Henrin my freind i will say there is a splinter of truth in what your saying. I agree that sometimes women think men should do things that men are not intrested in doing and they complain that the man doesnt feel obligated to satisify their desires. Women should not expect that and if they want things a certain way they need to do it for themselves and if they are unhappy with that arrangement they should leave the relationship.

That being said i think alot of what you posted was pretty misogynistic too. Women are under no obligation to cook and clean for you nor are you for them. Its something that 2 mature adults should workout in a way that works for both of them.

All I was saying is that women many times come into the relationship more willing to do those kind of activities, so predictably they end up doing more of them. It's also predictable that men would end up doing them less since many times they come into the relationship not wanting much to do with any of it. The assumption however that men expect women to do those things is many times false.
 
All I was saying is that women many times come into the relationship more willing to do those kind of activities, so predictably they end up doing more of them. It's also predictable that men would end up doing them less since many times they come into the relationship not wanting much to do with any of it. The assumption however that men expect women to do those things is many times false.

I agree with you on that and I also think if women want total say on how the house is kept and decorated, etc.... They should be prepared to do the work. I thinks it's rude of women to expect the man to automatically concede the home to her tastes and that is often the case.

Imo you share the home by sharing in all aspects of it. Ild like to hear women talk about how they would be willing to mow the yard if the guy is willing to do the laundry. I hear them complain how sexist it is to expect them to do certain domestic chores but I rarely hear them talk about taking over traditionally masculine chores in exchange. Like I said earlier too they act like the mans tastes in decor are inferior to theirs and they have a right to overrule anything he wants to do to the home if she don't approve. Women can be as big and bigger sexists than men sometimes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Get back to me when your ready to talk about why women should or should not make concessions to men for the sake of a harmonious relationship. That was the theme of my post. Till then have fun argueing with yourself

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

If men and women cannot have a harmonious relationship then hopefully they can be civil if children are involved.

But if you are talking 1950's style concession (you do what I say or else) that is just not going to happen.
 
If men and women cannot have a harmonious relationship then hopefully they can be civil if children are involved.

But if you are talking 1950's style concession (you do what I say or else) that is just not going to happen.
I swear you troll in every post. I never said anything even remotely close to that.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
Get back to me when your ready to talk about why women should or should not make concessions to men for the sake of a harmonious relationship. That was the theme of my post. Till then have fun argueing with yourself

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

In a healthy relationship men and women should make concessions.

Interesting you only asked if women should make concessions.;)

But if they find themselves unable to have any give and take, perhaps the relationship was not mean to be
 
I agree with you on that and I also think if women want total say on how the house is kept and decorated, etc.... They should be prepared to do the work. I thinks it's rude of women to expect the man to automatically concede the home to her tastes and that is often the case.
Imo you share the home by sharing in all aspects of it. Ild like to hear women talk about how they would be willing to mow the yard if the guy is willing to do the laundry. I hear them complain how sexist it is to expect them to do certain domestic chores but I rarely hear them talk about taking over traditionally masculine chores in exchange. Like I said earlier too they act like the mans tastes in decor are inferior to theirs and they have a right to overrule anything he wants to do to the home if she don't approve. Women can be as big and bigger sexists than men sometimes


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I do not know any women who want TOTAL say.

I have seen (and experienced) one party caring more about one area of the house than another....but not total control. That sounds like a miserable relationship doomed to failure.
 
I agree with you on that and I also think if women want total say on how the house is kept and decorated, etc.... They should be prepared to do the work. I thinks it's rude of women to expect the man to automatically concede the home to her tastes and that is often the case.

Honestly, she can have full say over decoration decisions. I'm just not interested in that kind of thing and I don't feel like going through the trouble. If however she wants my opinion on something I'm more than willing to share it, but otherwise she can do whatever she wants and leave me out of it.

Imo you share the home by sharing in all aspects of it. Ild like to hear women talk about how they would be willing to mow the yard if the guy is willing to do the laundry. I hear them complain how sexist it is to expect them to do certain domestic chores but I rarely hear them talk about taking over traditionally masculine chores in exchange. Like I said earlier too they act like the mans tastes in decor are inferior to theirs and they have a right to overrule anything he wants to do to the home if she don't approve. Women can be as big and bigger sexists than men sometimes

I don't really object to certain things going to the people interested in them. I'm also not really opposed to roles. There are some women that won't do certain traditionally male things and I have no problem with that.
 
Honestly, she can have full say over decoration decisions. I'm just not interested in that kind of thing and I don't feel like going through the trouble. If however she wants my opinion on something I'm more than willing to share it, but otherwise she can do whatever she wants and leave me out of it..

If thatsvwhat works for i think thats fine. Im just saying that if someone is particular about how theybwant their home they should be prepared to do the work that goes with it. Why is somebidy going to dust some crappy figurines they dont like in the first place was the type of thing i was driving at.


.
I don't really object to certain things going to the people interested in them. I'm also not really opposed to roles. There are some women that won't do certain traditionally male things and I have no problem with that.

I agree with this too. I generally date more traditional women. They enjoy that role in the relationship and i enjoy my role too. Its a win/win deal.



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
In a healthy relationship men and women should make concessions.

Interesting you only asked if women should make concessions.;)

But if they find themselves unable to have any give and take, perhaps the relationship was not mean to be
Not interesting at all. We have already established that men had to make concessions, no point in being redundant.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
I do not know any women who want TOTAL say.

I have seen (and experienced) one party caring more about one area of the house than another....but not total control. That sounds like a miserable relationship doomed to failure.
Of course you dont.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
 
So trying to get pregnant is no longer considered private info.
People discuss it openly now.
They discuss trying to get pregnant and becoming pregnant , like getting engaged or setting a wedding date.
You say this as though it was once taboo. I guessed your anecdote's purpose was to draw me into a logical argument, but apparently that is not the case. I guess people doing stuff and gossiping about it is more your area of expertise than mine. Do you expect single men to talk about being pregnant? Good luck with that.

Unless a man is shooting blanks...he clearly and emphatically can be part of the reproductive process. An integral part at that.
The key phrase here is "can be." When a woman who has given birth chooses to take away the autonomy which men deserve to have as citizens in a free society, she deprives them of the option to not be part of the reproductive process. I'm aware that most people see birth as a positive event, and I think quite a few people see sex and insemination as positive event as well. However, forced insemination is unethical and could easily be construed as rape. We shouldn't decide for all women when to inseminate (i.e. inseminate any women when she's not pregnant), and we shouldn't decide to force payment (i.e. pay up following birth). Coerced child support is the exercise of the female reproductive function over other functions in life.

You may use the word "integral" as a way of justifying your position, but you will note that after deposit, this is not the case. I've noticed that throughout this debate, you have been fixated not just on "shooting blanks," but implicitly, the act of sex itself. I'm curious, is there a reason why you continue to avoid the topic of this thread, in order to talk about sex?

in·te·gral
/ˈin(t)əɡrəl,inˈteɡrəl/
adjective
1.
necessary to make a whole complete; essential or fundamental.
"games are an integral part of the school's curriculum"
synonyms: essential, fundamental, basic, intrinsic, inherent, constitutive, innate, structural;

So what? She was responding to your comment. Perhaps you should say "so what" to yourself.:lamo

The fact is that women and men discuss it when they are trying to get pregnant. It is not just a woman thing. The fact that you made a usual occurrence into a bad thing is odd.
My response was in response to her response. The fact is that men and women sometimes do not discuss it when they get pregnant. I'm not sure what you mean by a "bad thing." Must be something you imagined about me, but I must say, it was quite rude of you to butt in and say so. I don't need that kind of response to my comments.
 
Not interesting at all. We have already established that men had to make concessions, no point in being redundant.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk
So we are in agreement, men and woman should make concessions for the relationship to be viable.

In your example...about liking to hear about if a woman is willing to mow the yard if a man is willing to do the laundry......THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. You post makes it sound unusual.

From what you have posted your personal experience was much different. Did not sound like a healthy relationship.
 
So we are in agreement, men and woman should make concessions for the relationship to be viable.

In your example...about liking to hear about if a woman is willing to mow the yard if a man is willing to do the laundry......THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME. You post makes it sound unusual.

From what you have posted your personal experience was much different. Did not sound like a healthy relationship.

You think that because men have to make concessions that this justifies the fact that concessions are made? That is just affirming the consequent.
 
You think that because men have to make concessions that this justifies the fact that concessions are made? That is just affirming the consequent.

Men and women make concessions in relationships all of the time.

What does that have to do with supporting your child?
 
You think that because men have to make concessions that this justifies the fact that concessions are made? That is just affirming the consequent.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here could you elaborate?

Are you saying that because a man makes any concessions he is admitting to defeat or do you have more specific thing in mind like if the concessions are unequal. He makes all, she makes none, kind of thing.

I personally have no problem with making concessions for someone I love provided they are voluntarily given. My contention is when it's demanded and there is an unwilling this to make equal concessions on the other side.

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with the child support issue. The argument they are making that if you want to have sex and a baby is made be prepared to pay for it. If you don't like it keep it your pants.

I am staunchly pro choice and I could live with that position being the rule of law except women don't want that same onus placed on them.

If that's the argument and it's about the child they should have a similar onus placed on them. They should be told if they find themselves accidentally impregnated they just lost total autonomy.

This could mean outlawing abortion except if there is some complication that will most likely result in the woman's death.

It could mean abortions are still legal but she needs a mans permission.

Women are unwilling to make any type of concession. Imo they should be held to same standard as men. If a life is made its now about that life and if they don't like it they should of kept their legs crossed.

I personally think the best compromise is to allow exactly what we are advocating. Men should not be forced into financial servitude. We should have the freedom to choose how much or how little we want to be part of our child's life and our courts are failing to protect that freedom for men.

It really goes deeper than just the support which btw is not even guaranteed to be used for his child's welfare. The courts are enabling women to run roughshod over men's right to parent their child by almost exclusively awarding custody to the woman and excluding men from making important parental a decisions for their child, legal and otherwise. They all face little to no consequences for violating visitation rights. If it's about the child as is claimed, does that child not have the right to have a relationship with their father despite a woman's objections? The relationship they have should be none of her business.

Their entire argument is built on lies. That's why they can't make a sound argument to defend it and resort to ad hominem attacks instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Men and women make concessions in relationships all of the time.

What does that have to do with supporting your child?

Good question. You brought it up, why don't you explain the purpose of making concessions for supporting children?
 
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here could you elaborate?

Are you saying that because a man makes any concessions he is admitting to defeat or do you have more specific thing in mind like if the concessions are unequal. He makes all, she makes none, kind of thing.

I personally have no problem with making concessions for someone I love provided they are voluntarily given. My contention is when it's demanded and there is an unwilling this to make equal concessions on the other side.

This is one of the reasons I have a problem with the child support issue. The argument they are making that if you want to have sex and a baby is made be prepared to pay for it. If you don't like it keep it your pants.

I am staunchly pro choice and I could live with that position being the rule of law except women don't want that same onus placed on them.

If that's the argument and it's about the child they should have a similar onus placed on them. They should be told if they find themselves accidentally impregnated they just lost total autonomy.

This could mean outlawing abortion except if there is some complication that will most likely result in the woman's death.

It could mean abortions are still legal but she needs a mans permission.

Women are unwilling to make any type of concession. Imo they should be held to same standard as men. If a life is made its now about that life and if they don't like it they should of kept their legs crossed.

I personally think the best compromise is to allow exactly what we are advocating. Men should not be forced into financial servitude. We should have the freedom to choose how much or how little we want to be part of our child's life and our courts are failing to protect that freedom for men.

It really goes deeper than just the support which btw is not even guaranteed to be used for his child's welfare. The courts are enabling women to run roughshod over men's right to parent their child by almost exclusively awarding custody to the woman and excluding men from making important parental a decisions for their child, legal and otherwise. They all face little to no consequences for violating visitation rights. If it's about the child as is claimed, does that child not have the right to have a relationship with their father despite a woman's objections? The relationship they have should be none of her business.

Their entire argument is built on lies. That's why they can't make a sound argument to defend it and resort to ad hominem attacks instead.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In an egalitarian society, concessions would be made by both men and women, or not at all. In an egalitarian relationship, sometimes one concession is made in exchange for another concession, especially during negotiation. I once dated a girl who told me that sex should never be used as a bargaining chip. To this day, I believe that is the case in a chain of events that leads to reproduction. Although I cannot say for certain what her intent was in the line of reasoning which led her to believe that sexual favors are not bargained for, I believe the same reasoning should be applied to reproduction, especially in the case of a birth event.

I respect your decision to be pro choice. I believe both men and women should have a choice and I am not "anti-abortion." I think that reproduction is the right thing to do and that men and women should be rewarded, congratulated and generally held in high esteem by their adult peers for their contributions to society. I have the utmost respect for someone who reproduces voluntarily and it is my hope that they have reproduced in a financially secure environment. I do not respect someone who uses a reproductive event, such as pregnancy or birth to bargain for control over someone else's finance.

Men who make concessions do not justify the fact that concessions are made. I agree that concessions can be made. As you pointed out, some men who make concessions do so because they are required to do so by law. That is not a concession, that is a retrograde action of society enforced on men. Submitting to coercion is as much a concession as being a victim of rape is a concession. It is not a concession, in the sense that it may be bargained or negotiated.

Note: I agree with your statement that we should choose how much we want to be involved with our children. In the case of men who opt out, the biological zygotes, embryos, fetuses, and eventually children which are reproduced with biological material do not share any relation with the biological father responsible for furnishing sperm during sexual intercourse. Technically, they are not his children in any meaningful social organization.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom