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

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

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.

You say when birth control fails implied consent goes out the window yet the law does not accept that when a man claims the condom broke or the pill failed. How do you square that with forcing men to be responsible for accidents. When I bring up the argument you just made I'm told men were aware of the risks that birth control isnt 100% reliable and they should of practiced abstinence if they wanted a guarantee.

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.

Child support is a complex term and topic that I could start an entirely independent thread on. I'm gonna take a pass on this portion of your post because my response will derail the current theme.

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

I'm not sure how biology is a reasonable argument to limit a mans autonomy. Why should not having a uterus limit a persons preventive to be uninvolved in being a parent?

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.

She has choices. Men have none. Men are expected to deal with the consequences of her choices. Men are told the only option they get is to have sex or dont after that all his options evaporate and his consequences rest on the whichever options the woman chooses to excercise.

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

This comment is something I find frustrating in this debate. I readily acknowledge that because of biological differences men and women have different concerns but I dont dismiss a womans consequences because men dont share them. Why do you think its appropriate to dismiss mens consequences because women dont share theirs?

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 $$)

Yet both are not treat the same and you or anyone here has made a coherent rational argument to justify it

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

In answer to your question, I do not nor have I argued that they are.

Question for you
Do you believe women are entitled to be held less accountable for their choices than men are for theirs?





Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

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



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



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.


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.

Ok now I think perhaps you and I are getting somewhere.

A woman can lie and yell a man she is on the pill or if she got pregnant she would abort or would not. Whatever scenerio you can concoct a woman can say anything she wants and it does not matter to the law. Men are at the mercy of whatever she chooses next and men have nothing to say about it. They can kill his offspring after expressing interest in becoming a family or they can insist in becoming family even though he explicitly expressed his lack of desire. Men are told too bad you had sex. Women are told whatever you want we will support. That's what I find objectionable

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Ok now I think perhaps you and I are getting somewhere.

A woman can lie and yell a man she is on the pill or if she got pregnant she would abort or would not. Whatever scenerio you can concoct a woman can say anything she wants and it does not matter to the law. Men are at the mercy of whatever she chooses next and men have nothing to say about it. They can kill his offspring after expressing interest in becoming a family or they can insist in becoming family even though he explicitly expressed his lack of desire. Men are told too bad you had sex. Women are told whatever you want we will support. That's what I find objectionable

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

??? Men do the same things. Men put holes in condoms or lie about vasectomies to keep women in their lives by tying them to them with a child. Some of the cases I've seen were of guys trying to keep their girlfriends from going off to college but there are other examples too. Another example: Men lie to women saying they'll marry them if there's a pregnancy in order to get sex...and then dont. There is NO law that requires them to.

I wrote this earlier: there are few laws that can protect individuals from the ****ty things they do to each other in relationships. Lying, cheating, manipulation. This has to do with way more than abortion or child support and cannot be controlled by laws.

If a man cant trust a woman but decides to have sex with her anyway...who's decision is that? Who's fault is that? Same for women.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

??? Men do the same things. Men put holes in condoms or lie about vasectomies to keep women in their lives by tying them to them with a child. Some of the cases I've seen were of guys trying to keep their girlfriends from going off to college but there are other examples too. Another example: Men lie to women saying they'll marry them if there's a pregnancy in order to get sex...and then dont. There is NO law that requires them to.

I wrote this earlier: there are few laws that can protect individuals from the ****ty things they do to each other in relationships. Lying, cheating, manipulation. This has to do with way more than abortion or child support and cannot be controlled by laws.

If a man cant trust a woman but decides to have sex with her anyway...who's decision is that? Who's fault is that? Same for women.

Let's say a man pokes a hole in a condom and the woman gets pregnant. The law allows her a choice.

If a woman pokes a hole in a condom and she becomes pregnant, the law does not give him a choice

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

You say when birth control fails implied consent goes out the window yet the law does not accept that when a man claims the condom broke or the pill failed. How do you square that with forcing men to be responsible for accidents. When I bring up the argument you just made I'm told men were aware of the risks that birth control isnt 100% reliable and they should of practiced abstinence if they wanted a guarantee.

No I didnt write that. Unless deceit is involved, the use of birth control demonstrates that the man had no reasonable intentions or expectations of fathering a child.

Child support is a complex term and topic that I could start an entirely independent thread on. I'm gonna take a pass on this portion of your post because my response will derail the current theme.

??? this is what is being discussed and it's relevant because it is exactly why (most) men want to be absolved of all responsibility to a child. If it didnt exist, we wouldnt be having this discussion.

This is *the reason* there cannot be an opt out for the man before birth...because society and the law have decided that the people responsible for the creation of the child should be held responsible for it a) in the best interests of the child, b) in the best interests of society, and c) to protect the taxpayers from additional unnecessary burden.

So why on earth would society want to reverse that and allow men (or women) to walk away from this responsibility today?

I'm not sure how biology is a reasonable argument to limit a mans autonomy. Why should not having a uterus limit a persons preventive to be uninvolved in being a parent?

A man has 100% control over his autonomy. Men know the law. They know that women have the decision to keep a pregnancy or not. If a man chooses to have sex, he *knowingly* risks his own autonomy. Are you saying that men are incapable of making these decisions in their own best interest?

She has choices. Men have none. Men are expected to deal with the consequences of her choices. Men are told the only option they get is to have sex or dont after that all his options evaporate and his consequences rest on the whichever options the woman chooses to excercise.

Biology determines her choices.Men DO have a choice. (IMO you just dont like when men have to make it but that is also biologically determined.) Men *know* they have to deal with the consequences of her decisions. So again: why is it wrong or not reasonable to expect men to make THEIR decisions to have sex with this in mind?

Once more: are men entitled to sex without consequences? (This is exactly what some 'pre-birth opt-out' means. If it means something else, please explain.

This comment is something I find frustrating in this debate. I readily acknowledge that because of biological differences men and women have different concerns but I dont dismiss a womans consequences because men dont share them. Why do you think its appropriate to dismiss mens consequences because women dont share theirs?

You think I am dismissing the effects of unwanted child support on men or women? Why? I am just describing reality. I have male friends truly stuck with this...I completely sympathize. It does suck. What does that have to do with a single *fact* that I am posting regarding the best interests of children or additional tax burdens for people?

Yet both are not treat the same and you or anyone here has made a coherent rational argument to justify it

If there is a child, the law treats both the same, or should. I cant control (mostly) male family court judges.

And because of biology and bodily sovereignty, no one else can demand what a woman chooses for her pregnancy. However, since men know this...can you give me a reason why men dont act more carefully about risking their 'autonomy' as you wrote earlier?

In answer to your question, I do not nor have I argued that they are.

re: men entitled to sex without consequences: Then why do you keep insisting on an 'opt out' that would enable men to do so? Against the best interests of children, society, and the taxpayer?

Question for you
Do you believe women are entitled to be held less accountable for their choices than men are for theirs?

No

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Let's say a man pokes a hole in a condom and the woman gets pregnant. The law allows her a choice.

If a woman pokes a hole in a condom and she becomes pregnant, the law does not give him a choice

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What part of this are men not aware of?

And what keeps men from then acting in their own best interests or knowingly taking the risk?

Let's say a couple accidentally gets pregnant...and the man promises to marry her if she gets an abortion (so they can have a child later when they're "ready")? And after she has the abortion, he walks away.

This is so common it has a name, the 'Hail Mary,' btw.

What laws protect a woman here? Nothing...it's her responsibility to have known him better before trusting him or risking pregancy.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

What part of this are men not aware of?

And what keeps men from then acting in their own best interests or knowingly taking the risk?

Let's say a couple accidentally gets pregnant...and the man promises to marry her if she gets an abortion (so they can have a child later when they're "ready")? And after she has the abortion, he walks away.

This is so common it has a name, the 'Hail Mary,' btw.

What laws protect a woman here? Nothing...it's her responsibility to have known him better before trusting him or risking pregancy.

Just so I am clear women are entitled to legal consequences fo men who lie to them but men are not entitled to any legal protection when women lie to them?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Just so I am clear women are entitled to legal consequences fo men who lie to them but men are not entitled to any legal protection when women lie to them?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I thought it was pretty clear from my last sentence that no, I dont believe so. (I provided my reasons why. :doh) Have you heard of any such legislature being proposed?

I hope you are now free to address the rest of that post. There are some questions in it.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I thought it was pretty clear from my last sentence that no, I dont believe so. (I provided my reasons why. :doh) Have you heard of any such legislature being proposed?

I hope you are now free to address the rest of that post. There are some questions in it.

You really want me to RIP apart your post?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[year2late]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Ok now I think perhaps you and I are getting somewhere.

A woman can lie and yell a man she is on the pill or if she got pregnant she would abort or would not. Whatever scenerio you can concoct a woman can say anything she wants and it does not matter to the law. Men are at the mercy of whatever she chooses next and men have nothing to say about it. They can kill his offspring after expressing interest in becoming a family or they can insist in becoming family even though he explicitly expressed his lack of desire. Men are told too bad you had sex. Women are told whatever you want we will support. That's what I find objectionable

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

??? Men do the same things. Men put holes in condoms or lie about vasectomies to keep women in their lives by tying them to them with a child. Some of the cases I've seen were of guys trying to keep their girlfriends from going off to college but there are other examples too. Another example: Men lie to women saying they'll marry them if there's a pregnancy in order to get sex...and then dont. There is NO law that requires them to.

I wrote this earlier: there are few laws that can protect individuals from the ****ty things they do to each other in relationships. Lying, cheating, manipulation. This has to do with way more than abortion or child support and cannot be controlled by laws.

If a man cant trust a woman but decides to have sex with her anyway...who's decision is that? Who's fault is that? Same for women.

That is why each individual should be responsible for their own contraception. It does not matter what the other says they use, you are still responsible for your own contraception.

 

[southwest88]

No sale

Do you see my point though?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

No, I was just having fun with the idea.

No viable society is going to commit fiscal suicide so that unattached males (& females) can whoop it up on society's dime. It doesn't work that way - this is a republic, policy has to square with most taxpayers'/voters' sense of what is fair & allowable.

This notion might fly if the perp is wealthy enough to buy everyone off - but not everyone is for sale.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

You really want me to RIP apart your post?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

If that's how you consider answering the questions.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Parents have to face the music

They can kill his offspring after expressing interest in becoming a family or they can insist in becoming family even though he explicitly expressed his lack of desire.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And this is the part that is misconstrued. You've generalized it as women, but we have to seperate out mothers. The mother does not have an automatic right to terminate the ZEF. She only holds the right to remove it from her body, which, currently results in termination. If the ZEF is in another body, such as the surrogate, then the mother no longer has any right of removal, and never had a right of termination, if the surrogate does not agree to abort, then the mother is as too bad, so sad as the father is. This is why the surrogate example is important. It highlights that difference.

His desire or lack of desire is also irrelevant. She could also have that same lack of desire, but because she doesn't believe in having abortions, the child will be born. That is what one of the risk of sex with a female is for a male is. There is no implied contract. First off implied contract is usually where an agreement is reached and one or more involved assumes that means the agreement is as binding as a contract. Unless you can bring evidence of the other party agreeing and feeling it was mentioned as a contract, it more than like wouldn't hold up in court. Secondly bodily autonomy still override.

Even in the surrogate example, we noted the possibility of breach of contract still being applicable. The difference comes in that if the surrogate announces that she will abort, the couple can do nothing to stop the abortion itself. They can pled and threaten legal action, but that still remains in the tort of the contract breach, and the court cannot place a cease and desist on the abortion. The abortion and the breach of contract are two separate issues.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

And this is the part that is misconstrued. You've generalized it as women, but we have to seperate out mothers. The mother does not have an automatic right to terminate the ZEF. She only holds the right to remove it from her body, which, currently results in termination. If the ZEF is in another body, such as the surrogate, then the mother no longer has any right of removal, and never had a right of termination, if the surrogate does not agree to abort, then the mother is as too bad, so sad as the father is. This is why the surrogate example is important. It highlights that difference.

His desire or lack of desire is also irrelevant. She could also have that same lack of desire, but because she doesn't believe in having abortions, the child will be born. That is what one of the risk of sex with a female is for a male is. There is no implied contract. First off implied contract is usually where an agreement is reached and one or more involved assumes that means the agreement is as binding as a contract. Unless you can bring evidence of the other party agreeing and feeling it was mentioned as a contract, it more than like wouldn't hold up in court. Secondly bodily autonomy still override.

Even in the surrogate example, we noted the possibility of breach of contract still being applicable. The difference comes in that if the surrogate announces that she will abort, the couple can do nothing to stop the abortion itself. They can pled and threaten legal action, but that still remains in the tort of the contract breach, and the court cannot place a cease and desist on the abortion. The abortion and the breach of contract are two separate issues.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

I'm not seeing why the man should have the same breach of contract argument when a women decides to do something without his consent. He can stop her from doing whatever she chooses but he should have the legal option to opt out of the partnership at that point.

Basically what people on your side are arguing that when a man has sex, even if its nonconsensual, they have entered into an implied contract of responsibility for any child that may result from the encounter.

The rigid and unyielding attitude that reinforces this very bad deal for men has some very bad consequences for both genders. Men are becoming less interested in seeking out relationships with women. Women are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable mates.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I'm not seeing why the man should have the same breach of contract argument when a women decides to do something without his consent.

First of all what is it that she needs his consent to do? Remove something from her body? Does he need her consent to remove anything? Why or why not? And there is no breech of contract because there is no contract to breech

He can stop her from doing whatever she chooses but he should have the legal option to opt out of the partnership at that point.

I am assuming that you meant to say that he can't stop her from doing as she chooses. Typos happen. But the question is why? She doesn't have that option in and of itself. Again that is shown by the surrogate example. When the ZEF is not in her body, she can't opt out of the parental responsibilities. If for some reason the ZEF was in his body, he would be the one that could choose to have it removed from his body, and she would have no say.

Basically what people on your side are arguing that when a man has sex, even if its nonconsensual, they have entered into an implied contract of responsibility for any child that may result from the encounter.

By that logic, when you take a job, you enter into an implied contract to pay taxes. That is simply not true in either example. There is no contract. What there is, is law. As for non-consensual, first that is rape. So the first thing is, that he needs to be reporting that to the authorities. Sadly, there is a large disparity in how the law treats male rape victims compared to female rape victims. There was even a case about 5 years ago with a male victim of statutory rape, being under the age of 15 at the time. The then 20 year old woman sought back child support from him 6 years later. Sadly the courts awarded it to her. Yes there is a lot of ground to be covered for such situations. However, that is not the same type of situation as when a man willingly has sex with a woman. So apples and oranges.

Remember that a woman has the exact same parental responsibilities as a man does. Again this is what the surrogate example shows us. If the mother wants to abort the child, but the surrogate refuses, not only does the child get born, but because there would be a definitive record of who the mother is. The mother would then be responsible for child support if she does not seek some sort of custody of the offspring.

The whole problem comes from trying to conflate the issue of bodily autonomy with that of parental responsibility. The surrogate example shows how those two issues are completely separate.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I'm not seeing why the man should have the same breach of contract argument when a women decides to do something without his consent. He can stop her from doing whatever she chooses but he should have the legal option to opt out of the partnership at that point.

Does the man know that the woman he's sleeping with has that option before he sleeps with her? If he's afraid of being stuck with an outcome he cant control...why does he sleep with her?

Basically what people on your side are arguing that when a man has sex, even if its nonconsensual, they have entered into an implied contract of responsibility for any child that may result from the encounter.

You are describing men having sex without consequences. Yes or no?

The rigid and unyielding attitude that reinforces this very bad deal for men has some very bad consequences for both genders. Men are becoming less interested in seeking out relationships with women. Women are finding it increasingly difficult to find suitable mates.

What does finding a suitable mate have to do with pre-birth opting out of fatherhood? Seems to me that if that's what a man is seeking, he is doing more than just having sex with a woman...he's getting to know her and communicate their shared beliefs, etc.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Does the man know that the woman he's sleeping with has that option before he sleeps with her? If he's afraid of being stuck with an outcome he cant control...why does he sleep with her?

Less and less men are involving themselves with women. The sexual drive is a strong thing to overcome but more and more men are learning how to do it.

Btw that's horrible logic your using to rationalize abusing men. It's the equivalent of someone complaining about anti-abortion laws of the past being asked why do women have sex when they know abortions are illegal. It's not a legitimate reason. It is an appeal to authority.

You are describing men having sex without consequences. Yes or no?

No not in the way you mean it. Men consenting to sex are not consenting to parenthood anymore than his partner is.

What does finding a suitable mate have to do with pre-birth opting out of fatherhood? Seems to me that if that's what a man is seeking, he is doing more than just having sex with a woman...he's getting to know her and communicate their shared beliefs, etc.

And if he does all of that and believes he has found a suitable mate and it turns out she lied to him about her desire for a child, then what?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Less and less men are involving themselves with women. The sexual drive is a strong thing to overcome but more and more men are learning how to do it.

Works for us...most women prefer a relationship based on more than just regular access to sex. If that comes later in a relationship, the relationship is often stronger for it.

Btw that's horrible logic your using to rationalize abusing men. It's the equivalent of someone complaining about anti-abortion laws of the past being asked why do women have sex when they know abortions are illegal. It's not a legitimate reason. It is an appeal to authority.

I see you wont answer the direct questions: Does the man know that the woman he's sleeping with has that option before he sleeps with her? If he's afraid of being stuck with an outcome he cant control...why does he sleep with her?

I can answer it for women: we know our options and know that we must face consequences if we get pregnant. And so yes...we must accept those consequences. Again: biology determines that our choices are different...and each of our choices can result in permanent health damage or death, so just how ridiculous do you think it looks when men try to be the victims here?

What men are abused? If a woman gets pregnant...her priorities are her life and that of any dependents she already has. Many women do not believe in abortion, period. Women will make the decision to abort based on "their best interests." How is that wrong? How is it surprising?

After all, the man just wants her to abort (or have a kid) out of his own best interests....right?

But it's her health, her life. Her disruption in commitments to other dependents and society. If you think all that pain and suffering of a pregnancy and childbirth are just casually accepted to 'get back at a man,' or get his money is common, that's ridiculous. Someone thinking that would have a greatly inflated ego.

No not in the way you mean it. Men consenting to sex are not consenting to parenthood anymore than his partner is.

OK, then if this pre-birth opt-out isnt to get men out of paying for the consequences of having sex (in this case child support)...then why do you want it?

And if he does all of that and believes he has found a suitable mate and it turns out she lied to him about her desire for a child, then what?

Same thing she does when she believes him, gets and abortion, ends up sterile, and then he dumps her. She pays the consequences for trusting him. It's called life. Humans can be ****ty. Such are human relationships. This is not news to adults. There are no guarantees.

so again: Since men know that women have complete control over the pregnancy, are they not capable of making a decision in their own best interests? Yes or no? And if yes, then why shouldnt they be held accountable for that decision later, like women are? (and please dont bother reiterating your complaints that our options are different. It's biology. If you dont like our options...dont have sex with those women)

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Works for us...most women prefer a relationship based on more than just regular access to sex. If that comes later in a relationship, the relationship is often stronger for it.


I see you wont answer the direct questions: Does the man know that the woman he's sleeping with has that option before he sleeps with her? If he's afraid of being stuck with an outcome he cant control...why does he sleep with her?

I can answer it for women: we know our options and know that we must face consequences if we get pregnant. And so yes...we must accept those consequences. Again: biology determines that our choices are different...and each of our choices can result in permanent health damage or death, so just how ridiculous do you think it looks when men try to be the victims here?

What men are abused? If a woman gets pregnant...her priorities are her life and that of any dependents she already has. Many women do not believe in abortion, period. Women will make the decision to abort based on "their best interests." How is that wrong? How is it surprising?

After all, the man just wants her to abort (or have a kid) out of his own best interests....right?

But it's her health, her life. Her disruption in commitments to other dependents and society. If you think all that pain and suffering of a pregnancy and childbirth are just casually accepted to 'get back at a man,' or get his money is common, that's ridiculous. Someone thinking that would have a greatly inflated ego.



OK, then if this pre-birth opt-out isnt to get men out of paying for the consequences of having sex (in this case child support)...then why do you want it?




Same thing she does when she believes him, gets and abortion, ends up sterile, and then he dumps her. She pays the consequences for trusting him. It's called life. Humans can be ****ty. Such are human relationships. This is not news to adults. There are no guarantees.

so again: Since men know that women have complete control over the pregnancy, are they not capable of making a decision in their own best interests? Yes or no? And if yes, then why shouldnt they be held accountable for that decision later, like women are? (and please dont bother reiterating your complaints that our options are different. It's biology. If you dont like our options...dont have sex with those women)

I get it you are one of the many that feel women should be the final word on if children live or die and if men become fathers or not. You all conveniently hide behind unjust laws to protect your position.

Women claim to want to be treated as equals until they are and then they whine that it's unfair. Theres a movement growing and it's not just men its women too who dont like how their sons, brothers, fathers, and husbands are being emasculated. The sympathy is evaporating and as far as I'm concerned it cant happen soon enough.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I get it you are one of the many that feel women should be the final word on if children live or die and if men become fathers or not. You all conveniently hide behind unjust laws to protect your position.

Women claim to want to be treated as equals until they are and then they whine that it's unfair. Theres a movement growing and it's not just men its women too who dont like how their sons, brothers, fathers, and husbands are being emasculated. The sympathy is evaporating and as far as I'm concerned it cant happen soon enough.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I dont want the final word...it's a discussion. You are trying to use a personal attack to hide the fact that you cannot support your view.

Why wont you give me direct answers? That would be something to discuss. I politely answer yours.

You cant even give me a legal, fair solution to the current 'unjust laws.'

And you cant even give me a reason why men deserve laws that enable them to escape the consequences of a pregnancy when women cannot do so. The fact that you want that proves your reason isnt equality, because that wouldnt be equal...it would once again enable men to walk away with no consequences. Yes or no?

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I dont want the final word...it's a discussion. You are trying to use a personal attack to hide the fact that you cannot support your view.

First off I'm not saying you want the final word in our conversation. I'm saying in the context of the topic of abortion that people feel that women should have the final word on of the child lives or dies and if the her partner should have any say in the role of parenthood.

Secondly I apologize if you have taken anything I said as a personal attack on you. I have not attacked you but I have been attacking your position.

3rd how can you seriously claim I have not supported my view this far into the thread. You may not like my position and you may disagree with it but to say I have not supported my view is a bit out there.

Why wont you give me direct answers? That would be something to discuss. I politely answer yours.

I have answered every question you have asked. Some are very narrowly framed and I have expanded my answer beyond a simple yes or no because to give you that over simplified of s response would lead to a misleading conclusion. Thst seems to be your hang up.

For instance you asked me if men are aware of the unfair consequences before they have sex hoping I will give you a simple yes answer so you can try to say that its mens own fault. Some men know the consequences up front and some do not but whether they do or do not is irrelevant because my argument is that the law is unfair. I'm not arguing if its hidden from men.

What your trying to is skin to slut shaming. Do you blame who get raped for how they dress too?

You cant even give me a legal, fair solution to the current 'unjust laws.'

I given you my vision of what reforms in law should look like multiple times in this thread. I cant believe your claiming otherwise.

And you cant even give me a reason why men deserve laws that enable them to escape the consequences of a pregnancy when women cannot do so. The fact that you want that proves your reason isnt equality, because that wouldnt be equal...it would once again enable men to walk away with no consequences. Yes or no?

Actually I dont believe men should be able to escape the consequences of a pregnancy. I believe men should the same window of opprotunity to not be a parent. That's equality.

Your position isnt about equality. It's about control.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

First off I'm not saying you want the final word in our conversation. I'm saying in the context of the topic of abortion that people feel that women should have the final word on of the child lives or dies and if the her partner should have any say in the role of parenthood.

She does. Regarding any unborn inside her. No children are involved there. You cant change that law in America.

If a man does not like this...what are his alternatives? You tell me?

Secondly I apologize if you have taken anything I said as a personal attack on you. I have not attacked you but I have been attacking your position.

Ok. I've been civil as well.

3rd how can you seriously claim I have not supported my view this far into the thread. You may not like my position and you may disagree with it but to say I have not supported my view is a bit out there.

You have explained your opinion but you have not supported it with any legal means of change. Again: we have child support for a reason. It applies equally to both genders.

What would be a legal basis for enabling a man to opt-out of that 'pre-birth' when the result: a child with only one parent supporting it, is the exact reason we have child support to begin with. What has changed?

This is a direct question ^^. A directly related answer would be appreciated.

Just saying 'change it!' without a legal foundation is not answering the question.

I have answered every question you have asked. Some are very narrowly framed and I have expanded my answer beyond a simple yes or no because to give you that over simplified of s response would lead to a misleading conclusion. Thst seems to be your hang up.

For instance you asked me if men are aware of the unfair consequences before they have sex hoping I will give you a simple yes answer so you can try to say that its mens own fault. Some men know the consequences up front and some do not but whether they do or do not is irrelevant because my argument is that the law is unfair. I'm not arguing if its hidden from men.

It is completely in their control. ANd you wont admit this. You have refused to admit that men have 100% control over if and who they sleep with.

What you dont like is that men have to decide before sex because that might mean giving up sex with that women. That is biologically determined, not determined by law.

Again: why cant men decide before sex to protect themselves OR accept the risk? Can they or cant they? It's a yes or no question. It's not over-simplified, it's reality.

Or, tell me why they cant say no and protect themselves?

What your trying to is skin to slut shaming. Do you blame who get raped for how they dress too?

This is incorrect. I have the same view of any mother that would attempt to escape her responsibilities as a mother. By law, that minimum is financial. She made her choices, she ended up with a kid, now she must pay or share custody or assume full custody. (exactly the same for men)

I given you my vision of what reforms in law should look like multiple times in this thread. I cant believe your claiming otherwise.

I asked above why society and the justice system would consider changing the laws regarding child support. What are some reasons? Child support has a purpose. It is not eliminated by some pre-birth opt-out...it actually *encourages* more irresponsibility and enables men to walk away from a child that *someone* has to support.

Your "reform" then places additional burden on taxpayers. Your whole claim is build on 'fairness.' How is it MORE fair to stick taxpayers with payments for a child when the people who knowingly risked creating it are available?

This is another direct question that I would be interested in seeing an answer to. Just writing that we all get stuck doing so for welfare anyway is not a solution. It's not fair to taxpayers and the well is not endless. It also means that OTHER kids with one or no parents will get LESS. All because a man or woman doesnt want to be held accountable for a conscious risk they took.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Parents have to face the music

Continued:

Actually I dont believe men should be able to escape the consequences of a pregnancy. I believe men should the same window of opprotunity to not be a parent. That's equality.

Oh come on. What is the difference? Please explain? What do they want that 'window of opportuntity for?' You wrote it: to avoid being a parent which clearly is "a consequence" of having sex.

Please, dont lower yourself and deny this. If the man opts out pre-birth...he escapes consequences.

And it is equal, because women cannot escape the consequences of a pregnancy either. Never have been able to, still cannot.

Your position isnt about equality. It's about control.

This is what alot of men believe. I wrote earlier why it's ridiculous when just 'controlling a man' requires the pain and sacrifices of pregnancy and the disruption it does to a woman's life in general. Men that believe that must have some huge egos.

Some women do it to hang onto a specific relationship. And as I wrote earlier, so do men (holes in condoms for instance). That's not random casual sex, that's people in relationships. And if both parties arent careful, they can get hurt, no doubt. That's how ****ty some people are. But that's a relationship hazard....for everyone.

Many women do not believe in abortion. I know nothing is set in stone but if you dont find this out before sleeping with a woman, you have no right to complain. If you roll the dice, you pay the price...women have to. Why shouldnt men? That is equal.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Parents have to face the music

I believe men should the same window of opprotunity to not be a parent. That's equality.

You are seeing women getting an orange and asking for an apple. Women have the ability to have anything removed from their body that they do not want in there, assuming that they can find the practitioner to do so. You have that same exact right. When we remove the "in her own body" factor, the mother does not have any more of a right to get out of parenthood than the father does. You are conflating the two situations. Yes, in removing the ZEF from her body she does remove her opportunity to be a parent, but that is a side result of exercising her right to bodily autonomy. Should you as a male ever find yourself with a ZEF developing inside you, then you will also have that right to have it removed, regardless of the wishes of the mother.

Basically you are asking for a financial withdraw, to her physical withdraw. That's not equal. And it is especially not equal because the inverse of the decision cannot be done. You can't keep it against her wishes. But that does nothing to remove the fact that it is her ability to have something removed from her body that is the key issue. The surrogate example shows how she has no right to simply remove herself from responsibility in and of itself, as you are asking for, for the man.

 

[trouble13]

Re: Parents have to face the music

She does. Regarding any unborn inside her. No children are involved there. You cant change that law in America.

If a man does not like this...what are his alternatives? You tell me?

Why cant the law be changed? We changed abortion laws. Why cant we change custody laws as well. This has been the theme of my arguments.

The law needs to be changed becaus it currently places men at a disadvantage.

[QUOTE
Ok. I've been civil as well.[/QUOTE]
Yes you have and while I disagree adamantly with your position I would discuss it with you any time you like. It's been a pleasure to have a polite discussion about a very sensitive topic.

You have explained your opinion but you have not supported it with any legal means of change. Again: we have child support for a reason. It applies equally to both genders.

What legal means do you jeed that I have not given you? I have not argued for anyone's rights to be violated. My argument is that men need their rights to be protected better than they are.

What would be a legal basis for enabling a man to opt-out of that 'pre-birth' when the result: a child with only one parent supporting it, is the exact reason we have child support to begin with. What has changed?

Equal protection under the law. Without consent from the man he is being forced into a binding situation against his will. A womans biological functions are not being interfered with by allowing men to have the freedom to choose something as personal as if they are prepared to be a father.

Society is what has changed. Women are not helpless creatures that can not support themselves without a mans support. They are capable of making it on their own if that's what they choose for themselves.

Just saying 'change it!' without a legal foundation is not answering the question.

I cant say I understand why you dont agree with my reasoning but I understand that you dont. Just because you dont agree with it does not mean it has no foundation. I have repetitively told you the foundation is equal protection for men.

It is completely in their control. ANd you wont admit this. You have refused to admit that men have 100% control over if and who they sleep with.

Of course I refuse to admit that because its untrue. Men dont get to have sex with whoever they choose any more than women do. Furthermore both men and women do not always know who they are having sex with either because people are not always who they portray themselves as.

What you dont like is that men have to decide before sex because that might mean giving up sex with that women. That is biologically determined, not determined by law.

Your wrong and frankly it's a misandrist viewpoint that your labeling men with.

Again: why cant men decide before sex to protect themselves OR accept the risk? Can they or cant they? It's a yes or no question. It's not over-simplified, it's reality.

Or, tell me why they cant say no and protect themselves?

Of course its oversimplified but I will appease you and answer yes can do that if they understand the risk to which of course you will again oversimplify it and assume they do. Before you do your celebratory endzone dance because you think you made a winning points let's apply that same logic and answer me if women are capable of deciding before they have sex and they of course also understand the consequences and risks too. You seem to think society should extend women the right to correct their mistakes that your unwilling to extend to men because for men to be given that same curtsey it might invonveince women and in turn she may invonveince the tax payer with her bad choice. That's your justification for putting a burden on men that women are unwilling to accept for themselves. That argument of course works on some people but it does wash with me.





.

Your "reform" then places additional burden on taxpayers. Your whole claim is build on 'fairness.' How is it MORE fair to stick taxpayers with payments for a child when the people who knowingly risked creating it are available?

The man is not sticking the tax payer with anything. The taxpayers have decided that for themselves. They are dumping on the father because they are misandrist who think men should pay the cost of their feelings of guilt. They dont want to be the heavy and tell single mothers they should not of gotten pregnant if they could not afford to have a child so they instead demonize the fathers. The people doing it should be ashamed of themselves.



Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk