Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Cecilie1200]

"BIology is different, so that means the law is being unfair to me by not changing that."

That is the reality of your argument, and so you lose.

The reality of the law is that it is equal for everyone, but BIOLOGY dictates that not everyone takes advantage of the law. You see it as "The law gives only women the right to abort babies." It actually doesn't. The law makes abortion legal to anyone who is pregnant; BIOLOGY makes men not ever need to avail themselves of that law.

Equal under the law doesn't mean that any given law is going to have exactly the same impact and relevance to everyone. It means that IF a law has relevance to you, it will be applied to you exactly the same as it would be to anyone else it is relevant to.

And let me just reiterate this, since it doesn't seem to be sinking into the testosterone-poisoned rock skulls around here: abortion before a child is born and financial responsibility after a child is born is NOT an accurate comparison, so do NOT keep whining at me that "Women can kill their babies, so I shouldn't have to pay child support". Your responsibility begins when that child is actually born, and at that point, she is just as legally and financially liable as you are.

The argument, not my argument.

You are again confusing the act of abortion with the legal act of removing ones responsibility for childrearing. In women they are one in the same.

For men it would obviously be more complicated, notifications and timing and such.

As for your last part, that goes without saying, my attempt at this argument is that BEFORE birth, and as long as an abortion is legal and safe, why does only one side posses the legal ability to remove it's responsibility for parenthood.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

I like how you keep running from the argument you keep arguing.

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

Yes, well, society USED to say that. Common decency USED to say that. Since common decency isn't very common any more, government HAS to say it.

Meanwhile, libertarians aren't required to automatically kneejerk to hating something simply because a government entity said it. Libertarian isn't necessarily a synonym for anarchist.

 

[Vastator]

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

"Women are whiners because they actually expect me to take responsibility for my children! How DARE those stupid bitches not just raise the kid alone and be grateful that I fucked them and wandered off!"

Yeah, that's really "principled" of you. And you might as well give up trying to convince anyone here that your bitter kvetching has nothing personal behind it.

The only "emotional perspective" I have is that I'm tired unto death of having to live in a society of crying me-monkeys who are outraged every two seconds at the very notion that the world isn't catering to their convenience.

You fucked; you made a baby; the baby is now more important than you are. The fact that you have shitty taste in women and resent the outcome is relevant to no one.

I can't say I'm sorry that your position requires the issue to pertain to me personally. That's just a weakness in your argument. It needs work. If it were principled, and we'll reasoned it wouldn't require me...

My position requires nothing from you. I'm simply observing that while you imagine you are making calm, reasoned legal arguments, you are coming off to everyone else here as a bitter misogynist who's been screwed over by a woman at some point in life and can't get over it. That actually has no bearing on my position whatsoever; reality will still be reality whether you're a sad little man or not. It would continue to be reality if you never existed at all, rather than simply being so unimportant it seems like you don't.

And the reality continues to be that if a baby exists, the people who made that baby are legally and financially responsible. Period. And no one feels sorry for them but them.

Again you imagine to know things you dont, and imagine you speak for the board as a whole. You don't. But regardless of your opinion of me; the reality is that change regarding the status quo on this matter is gaining in voice. Especially amongst the younger generations. The ones who are most likely to effect change in this arena. They are already doing so by refraining from marriage, and even parenthood. Many by the virtue of seeing what their parents went through, and making sure it doesn't happen to them.

 

[Faun]

Yes, dear, I get that you're tremendously fixated on "WOMEN can get out of their responsibilities by killing the baby. It's not fair that men can't do that!" However, for the 51st time, men's obligations to the baby start once the baby is born. In that event, the woman ALSO has the same legal obligations to the baby that the man does.

In addition to that, while you're bitching about how "complicated" a man's obligations to the baby are, please consider that the woman's obligations to the baby - still talking about a baby who is actually going to be born and be an obligation to the man, just to refresh your memory - begin nine months earlier and involve far more personal "complications" than his ever will.

So every situation has pros and cons for everyone, huh?

As for your "attempt at before birth", I don't want to fucking hear it, because for the 52nd time, gabbling about comparisons between before and after the baby is born is a gigantic circle jerk of irrelevancy. Might as well compare elephants and polar bears. Not only not in the same ballpark, not even the same sport. Not wasting my time pretending there's anything valid or intelligent there.

dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??

A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their state’s safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.

not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

 

[progressive hunter]

dont forget that after the child is born a women can abandon the child with the proper authorities and give up her legal responsibility's, so why cant a man do the same thing??

A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their state’s safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.

not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

 

[Vastator]

A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their state’s safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.

not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

The courts don't really have any credibility when it comes to being the banner carrier of "the best interests of the child". After all the courts decided the mother can actually kill the child of it suits her...

 

[Faun]

A man can also drop his baby off in such a manner. Which ever parent has custody can in accordance with their state’s safe harbor laws. In most cases, the parent, male or female, must make a reasonable effort to notify the non-relinquishing parent of their intentions.

not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

 

[progressive hunter]

not true, a man would still be financially responsible,,,and the scenario you speak of would mean he has already accepted responsibility

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

 

[Faun]

Not at all true. The laws are not gender specific. Here are the relevant laws in Florida...

383.50
383.51

... they only speak of the “parent” dropping of an infant. A man has the same rights as a woman if they want to abandon their baby in such a fashion.

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

 

[progressive hunter]

I posted a little on it, you are right some states have specifics while others dont,,,

the question of the father is does he have legal custody,

my bigger point is lets say you met a bimbo at a bar and she said she was on the pill when she wasnt and 5 yrs after that one night he gets hit with a 50K back support charge and jail time when he didnt even know the child existed

he should like the women be allowed to relinquish custody if he so chooses

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

so far your wrong,

 

[playtime]

Is there an argument to be made for a man to not have to pay child support, if he can prove he encouraged the mother to get an abortion, and she went against his wishes?

There is an argument, but it is a tough one to make.

The basis is one of equal rights. If a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy, and thus avoid parental responsibility, an absolutist viewpoint on equal rights requires men to have the same ability.

then wear a rubber.

One could say to a woman "then wear a sponge, or a an IUD, or take a pill"

but if you want to be 100% sure, then one takes responsibility for one's own BC.

but only one party has protection if the method fails.

no method, other than abstinence is 100% fail proof. you should know that.

 

[Faun]

Any guy who doesn’t wear a condom to fuck someone he just picked up is an absolute moron. For more reasons than just she could turn up pregnant.

That aside, the situation you describe has nothing to do with this thread topic; which is, while the mother-to-be is pregnant, should men be allowed to legally extinguish financial obligations for their own child.

As far as your hypothetical, again, such laws are gender neutral. While it’s usually the dad who’s out of the picture and who has to pay back child support, it could be the mom, if she were to disappear after giving birth.

In all cases though, it’s what’s in the best interest of the child that is paramount to the courts. What some loser parent, male or female, chose to do years earlier, plays no role in that determination.

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

so far your wrong,

Sorry, I’m all out of fucks...

... I have none left to give.

 

[playtime]

Did the woman rape them? Did the woman make them have sex? I do not think so.

That doesn’t change that fact that men are still held responsible without any say in the matter.

What if the women requested to go raw dog, or lied about being on BC? This hypos can go on all day, the issue at hand is still one party holds the sole decision making ability, and the other is held responsible for it.

then say no maam- no rubber, no sex. & if it's THAT important, don't trust her saying she is on BC.

If you're dumb enough to trust a woman you're not married to with your entire financial and legal future, you deserve whatever happens to you.

well, gotta say though, it depends on who that woman is. trust builds with time - & love is definitely a factor....

Yeah, no. If you're not married to her, you're a dumbass to give her control of your financial and legal future. And if you "love" her enough and have spent enough time to build trust enough to give her control of your future, why the fuck HAVEN'T you married her?

uh.... nobody said anything about giving control to someone else.

 

[progressive hunter]

why limit it to before the child is born???

if the mother can murder her child without the fathers permission then the father can when he is made aware the child exist can just say I dont want it and relinquish his responsibilities

its all about equality

and everything else you said was wrong, not all the laws are gender neutral but specific to legal custody and unless they are married at the time of birth only the women has custody

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

so far your wrong,

Sorry, I’m all out of fucks...

... I have none left to give.

you had to have some to be out of them,,,and so far you havent been worth a fck

 

[Faun]

”why limit it to before the child is born???

... because that’s what this thread is about.

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

so far your wrong,

Sorry, I’m all out of fucks...

... I have none left to give.

you had to have some to be out of them,,,and so far you havent been worth a fck

LOL

Oh? Then why are you still gumming my ankles?

 

[progressive hunter]

its called expanding on the topic, and if the OP wants he can tell me,,

I think its more you cant defend your position so you want the other side to shut up

Nope. But you’re always welcome to start your own thread if that’s something you care to discuss.

so far your wrong,

Sorry, I’m all out of fucks...

... I have none left to give.

you had to have some to be out of them,,,and so far you havent been worth a fck

LOL

Oh? Then why are you still gumming my ankles?

why are you still gumming mine???

 

[Skylar]

And in either instance, neither she nor the father have any financial obligation. Their obligation is always equal. Either they both have financial obligation, or neither does. Which is fair.

Its *perfectly* fair for a father to support his own child.

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

Again, your argument has been universally rejected by every state in every court for 2 reasons

First, it creates unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's obviously ridiculous and wildly unequal.

Second, it deprives a child of the support of one of its parents. The obligation a parent has isn't to the other parent. Its to the child. And you've provided no compelling reason that would override a child's right to the support of its parents when its born.

Which is why your entire argument is rightly rejected in every jurisdiction pseudo-legal nonsense. There is no valid legal argument for it.

 

[Vastator]

Not really. In these example only the woman gets to decide for both, if both must bear the responsibility...

Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.

Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?

A third point: stop being such a whining bitch and thinking "life didn't work out for me, ergo I've been robbed!" Sometimes reality sucks, and it's no one's responsibility to make it suck less.

Actually the only one whining are the women who lose their shit at the prospect of men being able to absolve themselves from unwanted pregnancy, in a legal manner; just like women can. See... For me... Its not a personal problem. So I have the benefit of examining the issue from a principled perspective. Unlike you who seems to be arguing from an emotional perspective. And a principled argument is always better when it concerns law, than an emotional one...

Again, your argument has been universally rejected by every state in every court for 2 reasons

First, it creates unequal obligation. Where a woman is responsible for every child she bears. But a man is never responsible for any child he fathers. That's obviously ridiculous and wildly unequal.

Second, it deprives a child of the support of one of its parents. The obligation a parent has isn't to the other parent. Its to the child. And you've provided no compelling reason that would override a child's right to the support of its parents when its born.

Which is why your entire argument is rightly rejected in every jurisdiction pseudo-legal nonsense. There is no valid legal argument for it.

Actuaully it's rejected because women represent greater than 50% of the voting block. But 3 generations into the feminist movement... Men have wised up. Its becoming increasingly difficult for women to secure a husband. They are birthing children later, and later in life. And fewer as well. The well is running dry...

 

[hadit]

I do find it interesting that a man loses his reproductive freedom when he decides to have sex and that is applauded as right and just, yet when that same standard is applied to women in the context of abortion, suddenly it becomes, "you can't interfere with her reproductive freedom", and it's religious nonsense to even suggest that everyone should keep it zipped until they're ready for the potential consequences of sexual activity.

Quite frankly, that's the best way to avoid the whole issue.

Because you’re not arguing “reproductive freedom” for dads. You’re arguing for deadbeat dads.

Nonsense. I have consistently pointed out in this thread that the sexes cannot be equal in this regard. It's not controversial to point out that a man loses his reproductive freedom the moment his sperm impregnates a woman's egg, while a woman's reproductive freedom extends to the moment of birth.

Actually it doesn't given the current legal limitations placed on abortion, which appears to be on average (in the U.S.) about 23 weeks into the pregnancy, which appears to be prior to what doctors consider the point of viability.

So one might say that the Women gets a 6 month extension of her "reproductive freedom", which seems reasonable since she's the one that has to do all the work of lugging the would be rugrat around inside her.

Reasonable or not is a value judgement, and the actual length of time she holds his freedom in her hands varies from State to state. Regardless, it is factual. A man surrenders his reproductive freedom when his sperm fertilizes her egg.

Of course it's a value judgment, same goes for the position that abstinence is the answer.

All the more reason to keep it zipped. Course, no one wants to hear that idea any more.

Been there, done that, doesn't work, wish it did but it doesn't.

If one is really concerned about reducing the number of abortions it would behoove one to become an advocate for streamlining our domestic adoption process which is so convoluted and bureaucratic that an ever increasing number of Americans are turning to International Adoptions because they don't want to deal with their own governments.

I agree that adoption should be easier. There are very few truly unwanted children.

 

[martybegan]

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

Because a central tenet of libertarianism is that it's immoral to violate the rights of others and foisting off your parental responsibilities onto others (i.e. the mother or the rest of society) is DEFINITELY a violation of their rights.

FYI: contrary to uniformed opinion, libertarianism isn't equivalent to or even related to libertinism.

Without government to impose it's will, it would be between the two parties in the equation.

Assuming legal available abortion, enough time to perform it via notification, and the understanding both parties can reject responsibility in the case of pregnancy, how is this not a subset of libertarian thinking?

The government is imposing nothing on anyone regarding abortion. It’s actually leaving the choice to terminate an abortion up to the pregnant woman’s discretion.

The federal government, via the courts, is imposing its will on State governments that want to ban abortion via their state legislatures, or in some cases, their own State Constitutions.

 

[martybegan]

I am trying to come to an understanding about the position.

Trying to come to an understanding by attempting to foist this spurious argument off onto libertarians? How is that going to help you "come to an understanding"? Especially given that nothing about it aligns with libertarian principles.

Why not? Right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm, even if they don't want the kid.

And the law equally say kids born from a woman’s egg must be supported by the mother.

Is this really your argument?? No wonder you continually run from it.

Again, the mother can legally end this responsibility while a man cannot.

Now you just moved the goal posts again.

You just said, ”right now it's the government saying guys have to support kids born of their sperm...”

Well that speaks to the situation where a child is born. I point out the law treats women equally in those terms, and then you promptly switch back to situations from before the child is born.

I have constantly argued that the issue here is before the child is born, not after, where only women have the legal ability to cancel their parental responsibilities.