• 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!

Child Support

Celebrity said:
Please tell us about your plan to give out vasectomies to 13 year old boys.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing she said something to that effect. If so, can you quote it?
 
Removable Mind said:
Like Henrin, you don't understand my post:

.

I stand firm on what I'm saying. Your arguments about child support is built around a premise that won't get you anywhere. It's an exercise in futility.

Any arguments made about "opting out" should never include the word "Child". When a child comes into the argument, you'll lose every time unless there are special circumstances involved.
Click to expand...

That's false, and clearly shows that you are incapable of having a rational, unbiased discussion on the topic of opting out.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the "please think of the children" line of reasoning. Children are not axioms of the US Constitution. They do not govern how we behave, unless we choose to be a part of a family that includes children. Having children should not abrogate a social contract which includes some legal rights for either men or women.
 
Henrin said:
I'm guessing she said something to that effect. If so, can you quote it?
Click to expand...

She already suggested that I get a vasectomy. I am giving her the benefit of the doubt. Was she referring to the reproductive function that all viable males possess, or being uncivil toward me?

No, I haven't elicited such a quotation from year2late. I am asking for clarification about the matter of birth control.
 
Celebrity said:
That's false, and clearly shows that you are incapable of having a rational, unbiased discussion on the topic of opting out.

Trust me, I'm well aware of the "please think of the children" line of reasoning. Children are not axioms of the US Constitution. They do not govern how we behave, unless we choose to be a part of a family that includes children. Having children should not abrogate a social contract which includes some legal rights for either men or women.
Click to expand...

You have a serious comprehension ability.

Your whining about the inequalities in reproductive rights are often gibberish about are misconstrued, misinterpretations, or misrepresentation of the core sources of the inequalities in laws - along with the constitutional implications. And your arguments are often misogynist comments about women in general. In fact I would equate your claims to be equivalent to things like Trump's saying Obama wiretap his phones at Trump Tower.

Once a fetus has become healthily viable or CHILD has departed from the womb the laws will not not be your friend. So I'll say the same to you as did to Henrin and a host of others - once either of those events occur - it's too late to whine about being a victim.

If men ever gain any chance of reproductive rights where opting out is a primary objective - will only occur between conception and viability. Currently men don't even have the right to know a conception had occurred.

You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time. Common sense should tell you to start your arguments about the inequalities in reproductive laws - at the beginning - NOT AFTER THE FACT!
 
Removable Mind said:
If men ever gain any chance of reproductive rights where opting out is a primary objective - will only occur between conception and viability. Currently men don't even have the right to know a conception had occurred.
Click to expand...

What scientific basis is there to tie the mans choice to viability?
 
Removable Mind said:
You have a serious comprehension ability.

Your whining about the inequalities in reproductive rights are often gibberish about are misconstrued, misinterpretations, or misrepresentation of the core sources of the inequalities in laws - along with the constitutional implications. And your arguments are often misogynist comments about women in general. In fact I would equate your claims to be equivalent to things like Trump's saying Obama wiretap his phones at Trump Tower.

Once a fetus has become healthily viable or CHILD has departed from the womb the laws will not not be your friend. So I'll say the same to you as did to Henrin and a host of others - once either of those events occur - it's too late to whine about being a victim.

If men ever gain any chance of reproductive rights where opting out is a primary objective - will only occur between conception and viability. Currently men don't even have the right to know a conception had occurred.

You can only eat an elephant one bite at a time. Common sense should tell you to start your arguments about the inequalities in reproductive laws - at the beginning - NOT AFTER THE FACT!
Click to expand...

What misogynist comments have I made?

Why is my ability to comprehend serious?

Whose friend is the law and whose foe is the law at any time?

It's not too late to whine about being a victim. In fact, it's always a good time to whine about being a victim when criminals are protected by judicial immunity.
 
Henrin said:
What scientific basis is there to tie the mans choice to viability?
Click to expand...

It's not relevant. From a scientific standpoint the same question could be asked about that of women.

What is relevant is the judicial boundaries scribed in laws. Women don't control that judicial boundary AS A CHOICE anymore than men do.

And Henrin this is what one more example of your attempt to inject a non sequitur comment as though it has some genuine, realistic context to the discourse. So let me end this by saying, "I'm not amused by your implication nor your question ."
 
Removable Mind said:
It's not relevant. From a scientific standpoint the same question could be asked about that of women.

What is relevant is the judicial boundaries scribed in laws. Women don't control that judicial boundary AS A CHOICE anymore than men do.

And Henrin this is what one more example of your attempt to inject a non sequitur comment as though it has some genuine, realistic context to the discourse. So let me end this by saying, "I'm not amused by your implication nor your question ."
Click to expand...

Why not just answer the question? If the state has an interest in the child at viability than child support obligations would have to start at that point. This would be the reason to stop his opt-out at viability since at that point the state considers it's interests greater than interests of everyone else.
 
Henrin said:
Why not just answer the question? If the state has an interest in the child at viability than child support obligations would have to start at that point. This would be the reason to stop his opt-out at viability since at that point the state considers it's interests greater than interests of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Because Removable Mind is not content to take up the station of a hypocrite, he avoids answering the question.
 
Henrin said:
Why not just answer the question? If the state has an interest in the child at viability than child support obligations would have to start at that point. This would be the reason to stop his opt-out at viability since at that point the state considers it's interests greater than interests of everyone else.
Click to expand...

Wake up, Henrin! That's repeatedly been my point. "After The Fact" begins at viability. Men's chance of ever gaining any rights ENDS at viability!

The day a child is born is the first day that men are subject to support laws. A fetus could die between viability and birth.

With that said, you're wrong that state's interests, at viability, has any relationship with child support.

After viability interests by the state is to protect the physical welfare of the fetus until birth. In other words, if a woman is healthy and the fetus is presumed healthy, according to Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992, abortion is no longer a legal option.

The only developmental period for men to remotely be in a position to begin to have any chance to achieve any reproductive rights is between conception and viability...PERIOD!

Once again...

You have to grasp the legal mechanisms that delineate the parameters in which women can have an abortion. And only during this window of time that moral choice and judicial options is a rapidly shrinking period of opportunity, which it is the only timeframe men stand a chance to gain any reproductive rights. Do you know which Right should be the very first to be pursued, which has any chance to be achieved?

And I'm calling BULL**** now - because the prior post you made, you asked me an irrelevant "scientific" choice regarding viability. Your comments above aren't even related to the prior.

I'm done with Henrin's Play Day games.
 
Celebrity said:
Because Removable Mind is not content to take up the station of a hypocrite, he avoids answering the question.
Click to expand...

It'd be really nice to be presented with rational questions and arguments that are related to reality. Neither of you know when, who, how, and where the issues related to the inequalities in men's rights begin or end.

You've created so many mythical villains and nemesis that your arguments are like bad parodies of Night Court starring victimized men everywhere.
 
Removable Mind said:
Wake up, Henrin! That's repeatedly been my point. "After The Fact" begins at viability. Men's chance of ever gaining any rights ENDS at viability!

The day a child is born is the first day that men are subject to support laws. A fetus could die between viability and birth.

With that said, you're wrong that state's interests, at viability, has any relationship with child support.

After viability interests by the state is to protect the physical welfare of the fetus until birth. In other words, if a woman is healthy and the fetus is presumed healthy, according to Roe v Wade and Planned Parenthood v Casey 1992, abortion is no longer a legal option.

The only developmental period for men to remotely be in a position to begin to have any chance to achieve any reproductive rights is between conception and viability...PERIOD!

Once again...

You have to grasp the legal mechanisms that delineate the parameters in which women can have an abortion. And only during this window of time that moral choice and judicial options is a rapidly shrinking period of opportunity, which it is the only timeframe men stand a chance to gain any reproductive rights. Do you know which Right should be the very first to be pursued, which has any chance to be achieved?

And I'm calling BULL**** now - because the prior post you made, you asked me an irrelevant "scientific" choice regarding viability. Your comments above aren't even related to the prior.

I'm done with Henrin's Play Day games.
Click to expand...

I was giving you the argument that I asked for. It is not my argument or anything that I find to be logically sound if you are truly interested in equality. In most cases a woman's intent when she gets an abortion is to kill the unborn as to free herself from being a mother, and so the state balances her ability to kill with the unborns ability to survive. The man's intent when he walks is to simply free himself from being a father, which has no way to kill or otherwise harm the child. A man walking simply denies the child and the mother his support and leaves the caring of the child to the mother that made the choice to carry the child to term. So the realities of men and women opting out are not where near comparable as the possible results are different. What the state does and what you're doing is rationalize starting the clock for the man at birth by stating that he has an obligation to care for the child, but in reality moral obligations are just personal opinions that are many times not backed up by anything. In reality a man is not bound to children nor does his actions to not support children cause harm to those children he has decided to not support. It is simply a play on the idea that men must be responsible for their actions, while at the same time saying women don't have to responsible for their actions regardless of the fact that her actions kill the child, while his does not.
 
Removable Mind said:
It'd be really nice to be presented with rational questions and arguments that are related to reality. Neither of you know when, who, how, and where the issues related to the inequalities in men's rights begin or end.

You've created so many mythical villains and nemesis that your arguments are like bad parodies of Night Court starring victimized men everywhere.
Click to expand...

Just like the entitled jerks in police departments or colleges who refuse to investigate a rape, you stick your head in the sand and pretend that there's "not enough evidence."

Pretending that it isn't real won't make it go away, Removable Mind. You have been shown a logically sound argument to block child support enforcement in cases where men are not prepared to become parents, and your solution is "it just won't work. We must force men to become parents against their will. You don't get to decide what money we take from you forcefully. We don't need your consent to violate you and take everything from you."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom