• 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!

Abortion and the Earnings Gap

Where in the Constitution does such provisions exist to make that happen? And please, don’t throw the Equal Protection Clause at me. It’s not going to take this argument anyplace in government. Not even with the SC.

We are talking about money...money that the state has a compelling interest to get from the responsible parties in order to protect kids, taxpayers, and society.

Even a clock is right twice a day.
 
If I say:

You are not a slave. There is one thing a woman can do to make sure she does not get pregnant. Don't have vaginal sex with a man that she does not wish to potentially be tied to for 18 years if she should get pregnant. Now if she brings her own birth control and uses them properly each and every time and disposes of them herself, she can be relatively certain she will not get pregnant either.

I am somehow slut shamimg. But you can attack men as being irresponsible but fully let women off the hook. It is disgusting.
Slut shaming? Great Dred Scott!
 
Where in the Constitution does such provisions exist to make that happen? And please, don’t throw the Equal Protection Clause at me. It’s not going to take this argument anyplace in government. Not even with the SC.

Of course I would invoke the equal protection clause.
 
We are talking about money...money that the state has a compelling interest to get from the responsible parties in order to protect kids, taxpayers, and society.

Even a clock is right twice a day.

The responsible party is the mother if the man opts out
 
Of course I would invoke the equal protection clause.

Then to continue to play that delusional strategy, pray tell, again, how the Clause can be used without your argument being immediately declared as a formal equality issue, which is a measure of equality defined as “similarly situated”, which will not pass muster by an Appellate Court, which of course is an automatic flag to the S.C. as to whether or not it would hear the case?
 
Then to continue to play that delusional strategy, pray tell, again, how the Clause can be used without your argument being immediately declared as a formal equality issue, which is a measure of equality defined as “similarly situated”, which will not pass muster by an Appellate Court, which of course is an automatic flag to the S.C. as to whether or not it would hear the case?

They are as similarly situated as a disabled man and one without disabilities
 
Then to continue to play that delusional strategy, pray tell, again, how the Clause can be used without your argument being immediately declared as a formal equality issue, which is a measure of equality defined as “similarly situated”, which will not pass muster by an Appellate Court, which of course is an automatic flag to the S.C. as to whether or not it would hear the case?
Dred Scott lost at scotus by the way. Civil rights takes time
 
You’re going to have to figure out a way to understand the difference in opt out and lack of access.

And you are going to have to figure out what equal protection under the law means
 
So you couldnt even answer the very simple questions.

Men werent forced to risk being a father. THey chose to gamble and then lost.

Is paying taxes extortion? Some say yes but the courts say no. We all have to pay even tho we dont like it.

Is gambling extortion, when someone is required to pay up when they lose? Nope...it's legal and ethical consequence of taking a risk.

So...you are completely off-base on this attempt as well.

Very well Lursa: when a woman is barred from having an abortion, she is not forced to become a mother. She chose to gamble and then lost. How many people who do this would be called abusive? But according to you, it is perfectly fine to treat women this way. Because you do not respect men, you cannot treat human beings as equals if they can be divided into gender categories.

The longer that you refuse to acknowledge the rights men deserve, the less feasible abortion becomes as a right.
 
Surely any honest, red-blooded American man is competent and responsible enough to take the very simple and necessary steps to avoid impregnating someone unintentionally? Driving a car is not criminalized, but if you act like a jackass, and you smash into something, you're on the hook for the damage.

Now let's try this again, but for the ladies:
"Surely any honest, red-blooded American is competent and responsible enough to take the very simple and necessary steps to avoid impregnating someone unintentionally? Driving a car is not criminalized, but if you act like a jackass, and you smash into something, you're on the hook for the damage."

And here is an argument against abortion on the basis of personal responsibility for which women are presently not held accountable. This is exactly why we live in a gynocentric society where it is acceptable to abuse men, not women.
 
Now let's try this again, but for the ladies:
"Surely any honest, red-blooded American is competent and responsible enough to take the very simple and necessary steps to avoid impregnating someone unintentionally? Driving a car is not criminalized, but if you act like a jackass, and you smash into something, you're on the hook for the damage."

And here is an argument against abortion on the basis of personal responsibility for which women are presently not held accountable. This is exactly why we live in a gynocentric society where it is acceptable to abuse men, not women.

Bla bla bla... Don't care. Come up with another solution other than this "male opt out" nonsense, that deals with and respects already existing rights, rather than extorting women with financial blackmail if you'd rather not acknowledge your responsibilities, this option has been scrutinized to death in this thread and generally found to be lacking.

If you would like to talk about protecting men by demanding access to better birth control options, I'm right there with you. It's not about denying men's rights just for the fun of it. But the fact that you can't simply walk away from things you don't like that you helped cause isn't oppression, it's called being an adult. And, please, I'll save your finger tips the wear and tear, don't bother claiming that women can simply walk away, having an abortion is a choice and a risk, and that's for those that can look at abortion as an option. Lots of women don't, for lots of reasons, and a man's sudden concern about his future AFTER he has helped create a tough situation, shouldn't, and doesn't factor in.

Better just grab your jimmy caps, bud. No one is buying this sob story, if you feel your decisions have led you to a place of "oppression", you only have yourself to blame.
 
Very well Lursa: when a woman is barred from having an abortion, she is not forced to become a mother. She chose to gamble and then lost. How many people who do this would be called abusive? But according to you, it is perfectly fine to treat women this way. Because you do not respect men, you cannot treat human beings as equals if they can be divided into gender categories.

The longer that you refuse to acknowledge the rights men deserve, the less feasible abortion becomes as a right.

Nope...I dont hate men at all and I see the current law as equal. I pointed out that it's not me being sexist.

And what is abusive or about not allowing women abortions; I dont understand your references.

Men dont deserve the right to force their financial obligations onto the taxpayers anymore than women do. That is equal. I hold women to the same standard.

You continue to paint men as pathetic victims that have no choice...you refuse to even address that men can protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood.

Well...if men do that, they do so at their own peril.
 
And here is an argument against abortion on the basis of personal responsibility for which women are presently not held accountable. This is exactly why we live in a gynocentric society where it is acceptable to abuse men, not women.

And how would you do so?

(Btw, male opting out isnt the answer, as women would still get public assistance if needed, but taxpayers would end up paying more. That doesnt 'hold her accountable' altho I'm not sure what you mean by that.)
 
Now let's try this again, but for the ladies:
"Surely any honest, red-blooded American is competent and responsible enough to take the very simple and necessary steps to avoid impregnating someone unintentionally? Driving a car is not criminalized, but if you act like a jackass, and you smash into something, you're on the hook for the damage."

And here is an argument against abortion on the basis of personal responsibility for which women are presently not held accountable. This is exactly why we live in a gynocentric society where it is acceptable to abuse men, not women.

Women are not held accountable? How in the hell do you figure that? Seriously?
\
Thrill us with your acumen.
 
Bla bla bla... Don't care. Come up with another solution other than this "male opt out" nonsense, that deals with and respects already existing rights, rather than extorting women with financial blackmail if you'd rather not acknowledge your responsibilities, this option has been scrutinized to death in this thread and generally found to be lacking.

If you would like to talk about protecting men by demanding access to better birth control options, I'm right there with you. It's not about denying men's rights just for the fun of it. But the fact that you can't simply walk away from things you don't like that you helped cause isn't oppression, it's called being an adult. And, please, I'll save your finger tips the wear and tear, don't bother claiming that women can simply walk away, having an abortion is a choice and a risk, and that's for those that can look at abortion as an option. Lots of women don't, for lots of reasons, and a man's sudden concern about his future AFTER he has helped create a tough situation, shouldn't, and doesn't factor in.

Better just grab your jimmy caps, bud. No one is buying this sob story, if you feel your decisions have led you to a place of "oppression", you only have yourself to blame.

Give me a break. You don't give a **** about protecting men. You think we should erect barriers between men and women. You want to sterilize men. Rendering a party impotent to perform some action is another form of state control over that party, isn't it? Do you think that banning guns will help to protect conservative gun rights advocates?

Here's the difference between gun control and male control: men are people and guns are property. You want to treat men like property. You want to treat men like slaves.
 
Nope...I dont hate men at all and I see the current law as equal. I pointed out that it's not me being sexist.

And what is abusive or about not allowing women abortions; I dont understand your references.

Men dont deserve the right to force their financial obligations onto the taxpayers anymore than women do. That is equal. I hold women to the same standard.

You continue to paint men as pathetic victims that have no choice...you refuse to even address that men can protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood.

Well...if men do that, they do so at their own peril.

Did you really just ask me what's abusive about not allowing women abortions? I can't tell because your punctuation is so goddamn terrible your posts are practically unreadable.

And how would you do so?

(Btw, male opting out isnt the answer, as women would still get public assistance if needed, but taxpayers would end up paying more. That doesnt 'hold her accountable' altho I'm not sure what you mean by that.)

Perfect explanation for why forced fatherhood benefits the state. Right now men are picking up the tab by being held accountable for a decision made by women. If it's your body and your choice, then I have no control over the outcome of a pregnancy.

Women should ask for public assistance if it is necessary, and men and women should both pay taxes. If a tax funded program can ensure the well being of children, like public education does, then that's fine.
 
Women are not held accountable? How in the hell do you figure that? Seriously?
\
Thrill us with your acumen.

I think it's pretty obvious, women make a choice, and men pick up the tab.

I'm a man. If I make a choice, does a women pick up the tab because I feel like it? No, because I'm a man. I pick up after myself. I don't expect other people to carry around my business for me because I'm male. Women expect men to do things for them because they are female.

If you're willing to sell my DNA to the state for a little bit of financial reprieve every month, then you have no respect for my privacy. And frankly that is what you have suggested via paternity testing. I should not be responsible for the decisions of a woman on the basis of whether or not I had sex with her. That's ****ing dumb!

If a woman earns less because she works less because she is raising children, perhaps she should be supported by the state in that endeavor. You don't see the state coming after female DNA. Why should men be forced to prop up a woman's failing budget? In my opinion, an earnings gap should not be resolved on the basis of whether or not a prostitute has had sex with a wealthy john. An earnings gap can be economically resolved by better accounting for a natural, regularly occurring biological condition experienced by some section of the female population.
 
Did you really just ask me what's abusive about not allowing women abortions? I can't tell because your punctuation is so goddamn terrible your posts are practically unreadable.

Well then feel free to explain this, as I wrote, it was not clear.

Very well Lursa: when a woman is barred from having an abortion, she is not forced to become a mother. She chose to gamble and then lost. How many people who do this would be called abusive? But according to you, it is perfectly fine to treat women this way.

What does that mean?
 
Perfect explanation for why forced fatherhood benefits the state. Right now men are picking up the tab by being held accountable for a decision made by women. If it's your body and your choice, then I have no control over the outcome of a pregnancy.

Women should ask for public assistance if it is necessary, and men and women should both pay taxes. If a tax funded program can ensure the well being of children, like public education does, then that's fine.

Why should the taxpayers pay for something that both people knowingly risked creating? If you gamble and lose, you pay. BOTH pay.

Why should taxpayers pay MORE...we are already stuck with a million other things where we are unable to hold people accountable.

If you knowingly put your future in the hands of a woman who has control over her own reproductive decisions and arent willing to accept the consequences...you are not a victim. You are foolish.
 
Give me a break. You don't give a **** about protecting men. You think we should erect barriers between men and women. You want to sterilize men. Rendering a party impotent to perform some action is another form of state control over that party, isn't it? Do you think that banning guns will help to protect conservative gun rights advocates?

Here's the difference between gun control and male control: men are people and guns are property. You want to treat men like property. You want to treat men like slaves.

I, a man, want to treat men like slaves. Mmm...that must be it... lol.

This whole initiative is a joke, as are your assumptions about what I think and do not think. I mean, I could talk about supporting better options for male contraceptives, I could talk about looking at different things I would support looking at in family law that are statistically unfair to men...but that's not what you want to talk about. You want carte blanche to be as irresponsible as you like, and you're using a woman's right to bodily autonomy - which is the same as yours, by the way - as a way to justify it. Pathetic.

And since the laws are not at risk of changing, and all this impotent whining and complaining and the inspiring of zero sympathy at all will result in nothing but your own frustration and general rejection by people who have even the most modest levels of maturity and decency, I get to leave it there, smugly, knowing that all you can do is make wildly inaccurate judgements of me on an anonymous debate forum, and that children will continue to be protected from men who are too stupid to control where they leave their sperm.

Ah well, this wasn't a complete waste, I always welcome a chuckle on Monday morning, no matter where they come from. So thanks. :)
 
This whole initiative is a joke,

And their "patron saint" that 'invented the opt out has admitted as much and is now just leading his followers around by their noses.

Selfishness and bitterness can really blind people to reality.
 
Back
Top Bottom