If you are pro-choice, do you think a man should have the choice not to pay alimony?

[maquiscat]

accidents? you mean something that wasn't an activity that two people consented too . . . yeah your examples dont match and are totally not analogous to the topic here LMAO

Actually he's got a good example here. He clearly shows how bodily autonomy works.

It can also be argued, that where consent to sex is consent to the risk of the woman getting pregnant (a seperate issue from what she chooses after learning she is), so to is consenting to being on a public road in a vehicle consent to the risk of getting into a car accident. To consent to any activity is to consent to all the possible known outcomes, regardless of probability, that could result.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

The surrogate example is one to show that the mother and father, as determined genetically, do not have a direct say in whether their offspring, in the form of a ZEF, gets aborted or not. If the ZEF is not in the mother's body, then she does not get a say, even though those are her genetics.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Wrong
2.), consenting to sex does not equal consenting to pregnancy.
3.) obviously, nobody wants to have an abortion, and if someone knew their actions were going to result in pregnancy they didn't want they would have taken better precautions. Therefore all abortions which are not required for medical reasons or the result of rape would very obviously be classified as accidents.
4.) When you consent to go skydiving you're not consenting to splatter into the ground. You know there is a risk, but you expect the safety measures in place to be more than adequate to save your life. Therefore when someone dies while skydiving we refer to it as an "accident" even though we all know that it's a possibility that could happen.
5.)When you get in your car and drive somewhere you're not consenting to a collision. Even if you're the cause of the collision that's not something you planned on or intended to have happen. Even though everyone who drives a car knows that if you drive a lot it's inevitable that someday you're going to be in some kind of accident we all consent to driving under the assumption that the safety measures in place are enough to prevent any real damage. Still, regardless of your foreknowledge of the potential for a collision we still conclude that said collision is an accident.

1.) actually what i said is 100% right LMAO
2.) never said it did so save a post full of failed retarded strawman because they will just fail
3.) meaningless and precautions arent 100%
4.) no thats what YOU are calling them but that is not anyway analogous to a car accident :lamo
5.) again meaningless and has nothign to do with this topic
6.) wow these are getting worse

so here we are in the same place . . having a car accident is not analogous to this topic :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Why are you so vindictive and condemning? Why do you insist on forcing morality on others?

On who's authority are you trying to do this?

LMAO
what vindictiveness are you referring too?
what condemnation are you referring too?
what force?
what morality?

seems you quoted the wrong person

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Actually he's got a good example here. He clearly shows how bodily autonomy works.

It can also be argued, that where consent to sex is consent to the risk of the woman getting pregnant (a separate issue from what she chooses after learning she is), so to is consenting to being on a public road in a vehicle consent to the risk of getting into a car accident. To consent to any activity is to consent to all the possible known outcomes, regardless of probability, that could result.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

no the unfair laws between a man and womans parental rights do not relate to a car accident in anyway lol

 

[southwest88]

Legal findings are not subject to whim

…

The state does not have to take the child. The father can be given custody or put the child up for adoption. Both options protects the states burden and it would discourage mothers from applying for assistance which would also lessen the states burden.

…

If the father is a non-custodial parent, he can't be given custody of the child without reviewing & revising the award of custody of the child.

Nor can the child be put up for adoption, for the same reason. You'd have to write & pass legislation stripping an incarcerated parent of his/her parental status - for the duration? Forever? & I don't think such legislation would pass, & it might not pass Constitutional review (cruel & unusual punishment).

What does this mean: Both options protects the states burden. What is the states burden?

discourage mothers from applying for assistance which would also lessen the states burden - The state's interest here is protecting the child. If a single mother & dependent child need state assistance, she should apply for it. In the long run, the child's welfare trumps all other concerns.

 

[southwest88]

The proof's in the pudding

I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Oh, excellent! I suggest we call the implied contract (in place, yet!) a pre-Shtupping Agreement.

 

[MrWonka]

1.) actually what I said is 100% right LMAO

Once again, you think you get to just say something and have it be considered true with absolutely no rational backing. All you're proving here is that you're nothing more than a Troll that can be safely ignored so if you would like me to continue to engage your pointless drivel further you're going to have to start coming with substance.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)Once again, you think you get to just say something and have it be considered true with absolutely no rational backing.
2.) All you're proving here is that you're nothing more than a Troll that can be safely ignored
3.) so if you would like me to continue to engage your pointless drivel further you're going to have to start coming with substance.

1.) it has nothign to do with me it has to do with facts and reality. A car wreck is not analogous to the unequal laws of parental rights. If you disagree support your claim, but you cant so then you lash out and make excuses over your failed claims and its hilarious
2.) failed personal attacks only further expose the inability of your posts to be supported with anything logically and rational sound, its VERY telling LMAO
3.) probably a good move on your part since ill continue to own the failed and illogical claims in your posts but I wont stop. If this bothers you in the future simply post things you cant support with intellectual honest and reality based reason or facts and your claims wont fail so hard. You're welcome.

Let us know when you can defend your post with actual facts or sound logic. thanks!

 

[Lursa]

Re: It's child support, not alimony

Sorry we are done. I will not read your posts further.

You dont have to. :roll:

I proved you failed and the posts remain to support my position and my proof.

 

[Lursa]

Re: The pig's not flying

Forms of servitude in the US - indentured servitude, Black slavery (& to a limited extent, Native Peoples slavery). Your definition is too broad, you'd have everyone who pays a fine - traffic ticket? - claiming to be in servitude.

In the case of a father who fails to pay child support - he may or may not have the money to pay. Incarceration is for failure to pay.

If we were to incarcerate a single mother for failure to pay (pay what, exactly?), then the state would have to care for the child(ren). Or are you advocating that any minor children accompany the woman in jail? Providing for child maintenance & care was the point to pursuing the non-custodial parent for child support in the first place. Your proposed line of action is a non sequitur.

The guidelines (not $ amounts) for receiving public assistance are the same for single women, single men, couples, families. Those guidelines are not affected by a need for child support...millions receive it and are not involved in custody or child support.

Child support received however, is considered in the amounts of $$$ that a family receives and so they'll receive less from the state (saving the taxpayers' $)

So here we have a man declaring that all those in need should be punished because some men wish to avoid the consequences of a decision they knowingly risked :doh

 

[Lursa]

Re: Down to the basics

Allowing men to opt out of fatherhood - actually helping raise the child - is doable, although not recommended for the child's sake. No society in the real world that I know of allows men (or the woman, if she's the one with the financial resources) to opt out of financial responsibility for their offspring.

What is rebirth in this context?

Yes. And society and the law recognize the value of both parents in a child's life.

It's completely unfounded that any opt-out would enforce a 'no contact order' for the child. Those are 2 separate things and the courts consider parental access very important. The courts are not 'punitive' on this and would not act against the best interests of the child in doing so just as a contractual agreement. That's why one parent cannot, except under extreme circumstances, prevent complete contact with non-custodial parents.

Today, when a man rapes a woman & impregnates her, is convicted and imprisoned, he still has the right to contact that child and then be involved in that child's life when he gets out. As abhorrent that may be for women, they have no choice.

So the 'no contact' part of the opt-out is total bull**** and men would have it both ways: not financially supporting the kid but opportunities to be in their lives.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Legal findings are not subject to whim

If the father is a non-custodial parent, he can't be given custody of the child without reviewing & revising the award of custody of the child.

Nor can the child be put up for adoption, for the same reason. You'd have to write & pass legislation stripping an incarcerated parent of his/her parental status - for the duration? Forever? & I don't think such legislation would pass, & it might not pass Constitutional review (cruel & unusual punishment).

What does this mean: Both options protects the states burden. What is the states burden?

discourage mothers from applying for assistance which would also lessen the states burden - The state's interest here is protecting the child. If a single mother & dependent child need state assistance, she should apply for it. In the long run, the child's welfare trumps all other concerns.

According to people it's unfair that the taxpayers are providing children welfare when they have the option of coercing unconsenting fathers to provide it or face the penalty of jail time.

I injected an equally cruel application toward women that would also reduce the states cost. When you reject my proposal as most reasonable people should it illustrates that the argument that fathers need to be forced to make payments, because it is essential to the health of the welfare state, exposes it as an argument of convenience.

The bottom line here is men and women are not be given equal consideration when it pertains to family law. Both how the law is written and how its dispensed.

Just because nature has given the female of our species the role of being the incubator does justify how diminished mens roles are in the eyes of the law. Same can also be said about the states interest in saving money is also not an adequate justification.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: The proof's in the pudding

Oh, excellent! I suggest we call the implied contract (in place, yet!) a pre-Shtupping Agreement.

Do you see my point though?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I understood your point but contractual law interferes with your position. There are legal consequences that the person faces for conflicting with the desire of the parents. I think a man could extend the same argument by claiming when sex occurs their is an implied contract in place. When a woman does something that the Male does not agree to we have a contractual dispute.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I think he would have a hard time supporting such a claim, especially since there would be no standard upon which to base an implied contract upon. Whereas the surrogate situation would have a physical written contact upon which the tort would occur. This is also a key point. The breach of contract would fall under tort, but most anti abortion attempts seek criminal law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

no the unfair laws between a man and womans parental rights do not relate to a car accident in anyway lol

Lol. You missed it entirely. He was not trying to relate the two sets of laws. He was using another situation to illustrate how bodily autonomy works and how consenting to certain actions results in consenting to the risks they bring.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[MrWonka]

Let us know when you can defend your post with actual facts or sound logic. thanks!

Yeah, so basically the best response to this would be to just tell you to re-read your own post.

As much fun as it was wasting my time on you I guess I can officially block you now. I mean if you're not even going to attempt to offer a basis for your insane claims there's nothing further to discuss. Congrats, you are officially the first poster whose posts are so devoid of substance or reason that it's not even worth starting to read anything you say.

 

[AGENT J]

Lol. You missed it entirely. He was not trying to relate the two sets of laws. He was using another situation to illustrate how bodily autonomy works and how consenting to certain actions results in consenting to the risks they bring.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

who said he was trying to relate the laws between them? I certainty didnt, i pointed out how his examples fails because THIS topic is about the unfair laws and NOTHING about a car accident relates to that. It doesnt matter what the laws are for a car accident this topic is about the unfair laws so his example completely fails and is no analogous. It doesn't relate on any level at all.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) Yeah, so basically the best response to this would be to just tell you to re-read your own post.
2.) As much fun as it was wasting my time on you I guess I can officially block you now. I mean if you're not even going to attempt to offer a basis for your insane claims there's nothing further to discuss. Congrats, you are officially the first poster whose posts are so devoid of substance or reason that it's not even worth starting to read anything you say.

1.) Translation: you still can't support your failed claim, got, let me know when you can LMAO
2.) aaaaaand another deflection since you cant defend you claims, this makes me happy and ill just keep exposing your posts! :2wave:

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I think he would have a hard time supporting such a claim, especially since there would be no standard upon which to base an implied contract upon. Whereas the surrogate situation would have a physical written contact upon which the tort would occur. This is also a key point. The breach of contract would fall under tort, but most anti abortion attempts seek criminal law.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise. If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered. That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?

Perhaps the man was hoping the opprotunity to sire a child was his goal and when she consented she agreed to enter into a contractual agreement of allowing that opprotunity.

Society is holding men liable to unwritten and unspoken contracts. Why not hold women to the same rigidness

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

who said he was trying to relate the laws between them? I certainty didnt, i pointed out how his examples fails because THIS topic is about the unfair laws and NOTHING about a car accident relates to that. It doesnt matter what the laws are for a car accident this topic is about the unfair laws so his example completely fails and is no analogous. It doesn't relate on any level at all.

who said he was trying to relate the laws between them?

no the unfair laws between a man and womans parental rights do not relate to a car accident in anyway lol

You started with the relate term, so regardless of whether it was laws or whatever you were addressing that's still not what was happening.

I certainty didnt, i pointed out how his examples fails because THIS topic is about the unfair laws and NOTHING about a car accident relates to that. It doesnt matter what the laws are for a car accident this topic is about the unfair laws so his example completely fails and is no analogous. It doesn't relate on any level at all.

Did you miss the part of how we can't force the person who cause the accident to contribute blood to the person he injured in an accident that was his fault? This was an example of how bodily autonomy works.

Additionally he used the same example to show that when we consent to do a given activity, we consent to the known risk that come with that activity.

Bodily autonomy and risk consent work the same no matter what the situation. They don't have to relate.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise. If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered. That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?

Perhaps the man was hoping the opprotunity to sire a child was his goal and when she consented she agreed to enter into a contractual agreement of allowing that opprotunity.

Society is holding men liable to unwritten and unspoken contracts. Why not hold women to the same rigidness

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Were they using birth control when they had sex? If so, any specified 'intention' hoping for a child goes out the window. There would be no grounds.

Child support is completely a long-term mainstream law that all adults know about...so there is no 'unwritten contract' or anything else people are not aware of before they decide to have sex. That's not an 'excuse' to get out of it.

Which standard, that is not controlled by biology, is not the same?

If a woman decides to have sex, she *must* accept the the consequences of her decision to have sex. If there is a pregnancy, there is no escape from consequences...none. She must face a childbirth/parenthood, death, miscarriage, or abortion. Every consequence even carries the risk of death or permanent damage.

So then why is a man not obligated to accept the consequences of his decision to have sex? *THAT* would be equal.

If you dont agree, then fine but do not continue to complain that it's 'not equal.' You need some other reason to allow men to escape their consequences.

THen, which solution proposed (if you have any others) does not place additional, unnecessary burdens on the taxpayers? Society does indeed value children being supported and also values holding people personally responsible for their decisions. The reasons for child support in the first place have not changed. In this case, TODAY, both parents are subject to the exact same laws. Equal. It's changed in favor of men actually, with men getting more say in custody and joint custody (which reduces child support $$)

Another question: do you believe that men are entitled to sex without consequences?

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Mind you this is only an intellectual exercise.

I'm with you there. In other words, you are playing devil's advocate, right?

If it's fair to argue that men accepted responsibility for being a parent when they consented to a sexual encountered.

I would more say that he accepts the risk of having to take parental responsibility

That argument is the same as saying men are entering into an implied contract because they knew of the potential for a pregnancy to occur. Why would applying that same standard be difficult to apply to a woman?

I have no issue with applying the same standard to women as to men, and vice versa. That said, I do not agree that such is an implied contract. Because the basis and details of such a situation are so varied there is no way to really be sure the two individuals are engaging in the activity from a common set of ideas of what follows the occurrence of various potential outcomes.

Perhaps the man was hoping the opprotunity to sire a child was his goal and when she consented she agreed to enter into a contractual agreement of allowing that opprotunity.

If the man is hoping to sire a child and does not explicitly share that with the woman, that is a deceitful practice. It is no difference that a woman sabotaging a man's condom. Taking a risk of pregnancy (birth control methods failing) is different from one increasing the odds without the knowledge and consent of the other.

 

[AGENT J]

1.) You started with the relate term, so regardless of whether it was laws or whatever you were addressing that's still not what was happening.
2.)Did you miss the part of how we can't force the person who cause the accident to contribute blood to the person he injured in an accident that was his fault? This was an example of how bodily autonomy works.
additionally he used the same example to show that when we consent to do a given activity, we consent to the known risk that come with that activity.
Bodily autonomy and risk consent work the same no matter what the situation. They don't have to relate.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

1.) no the OP starts with the premise of the unfair laws and force and i was pointing out how his example doesnt work and it still doesnt
2.) exactly! body autonomy which has nothing to do with this topic or the unfair laws and hence isnt analogous. :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

Why are you so vindictive and condemning? Why do you insist on forcing morality on others?

On who's authority are you trying to do this?

LMAO
what vindictiveness are you referring too?
what condemnation are you referring too?
what force?
what morality?

seems you quoted the wrong person

Crickets!