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