Is there a legit legal argument here?

[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.

Yeah except when the two parties fail to reach an agreement and one party decides to abandon parental responsibility (i.e. one parent decides not to pony up for the child), which ends up resulting in violating the rights of the mother and/or of the rest of society (e.g. when Dad bails and the Mother ends up having to turn to the State to provide support for the child)

Dead beat Dad/Mom is essentially stealing from others by forcing them to foot the bill for his/her parental obligations.

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?

See ABOVE.

There's nothing libertarian about foisting off your responsibilities that are a consequence of your own actions onto others, regardless of whether or not you decided you don't want to fulfill them after the fact.

Again you're confusing libertarians with libertines.

the thing is that as long as abortion is legal, the woman would be given the information to decide if she had the means or ability to take care of the child herself, if notified in time.

Again, this argument of course ignores the whole thing about the State's desire to make someone else pay for the child's well being, although to be honest looking at the numbers and monetary values of programs for women who need help, they aren't doing a very good job.

 

[martybegan]

Um, the purpose of the 14th amendment is indeed equality under the law.

Um, look at that phrase "under the law". It is not the purpose of the 14th Amendment or any other law to make things equal in the universe. However much you want to pretend this is about the law treating men and women unequally, it's actually about Nature making men and women different, and the law recognizing that there's not a damned thing it can do about that.

Also, please note that in my post, I specified that the law is not about making things equal defined as how YOU think the universe should work. So maybe in the future you should read and understand the whole post instead of jumping straight to "Aha! I have a chance to spew my slogan!"

Also, Talking Points Lad, I object strenuously to this descent into left-think where we just assume that the 14th Amendment is some universal cure-all conveying upon everyone the right to re-order the world to suit them, under the rubric of "equality". If you want to shut your brain off and think like a leftist, that's your lookout. But do not expect me to treat it as any more valid or intelligent than I do when the professional leftist boobs do it.

You are no more or less protected by the law than a woman is. What you are is not subject to the same realities of nature and biology as she is. You can legislate until you're blue in the face, and that's still going to be true.

A woman can end her responsibility for parenthood. A man cannot.

That is the reality of the current situation. And the only reason for it being so is the sex of the person in question.

"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.

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.

And again, my theoretical argument involves not thinking about post birth, only pre-birth during the window of legal abortion.

If you don't want to "deal" with the argument as I am constructing it, why do you keep responding?

 

[martybegan]

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.

Yeah except when the two parties fail to reach an agreement and one party decides to abandon parental responsibility (i.e. one parent decides not to pony up for the child), which ends up resulting in violating the rights of the mother and/or of the rest of society (e.g. when Dad bails and the Mother ends up having to turn to the State to provide support for the child)

Dead beat Dad/Mom is essentially stealing from others by forcing them to foot the bill for his/her parental obligations.

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?

See ABOVE.

There's nothing libertarian about foisting off your responsibilities that are a consequence of your own actions onto others, regardless of whether or not you decided you don't want to fulfill them after the fact.

Again you're confusing libertarians with libertines.

He’s only saying that because he’s a conservative and he doesn’t want to face the sad reality that the only posters making this argument are fellow conservatives.

I am a strict constructional federalist with libertarian leanings.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Kind of like how the government has to force a baker to bake a cake for a SSM wedding?

 

[Faun]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because women are not leaving kids who are born without support. Your silly notion does exactly that, which is wrong for the child who is born. Just because you want to separate the issue from before birth and after birth; doesn’t mean the two can actually be separated. They can’t. You’re proposing kids be raised without support from dads. That’s not the case now with moms. The law is not about to legalize deadbeat dads.

 

[Faun]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

Appeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Because women are not leaving kids who are born without support. Your silly notion does exactly that, which is wrong for the child who is born. Just because you want to separate the issue from before birth and after birth; doesn’t mean the two can actually be separated. They can’t. You’re proposing kids be raised without support from dads. That’s not the case now with moms. The law is not about to legalize deadbeat dads.

They arent?

Safe-haven law - Wikipedia

 

[Faun]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

Appeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.

LOLOL

For me to lose, you would have to prove they’re wrong. You can’t. The best you can do is shoot spit balls at them.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

Too bad the woman isn't required to understand this personal responsibility thing.

 

[martybegan]

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.

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

Appeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.

LOLOL

For me to lose, you would have to prove they’re wrong. You can’t. The best you can do is shoot spit balls at them.

If you have to go running to authority, you lose.

Try harder.

 

[Faun]

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.

Because women are not leaving kids who are born without support. Your silly notion does exactly that, which is wrong for the child who is born. Just because you want to separate the issue from before birth and after birth; doesn’t mean the two can actually be separated. They can’t. You’re proposing kids be raised without support from dads. That’s not the case now with moms. The law is not about to legalize deadbeat dads.

They arent?

Safe-haven law - Wikipedia

Safe haven laws are not gender specific. They don’t apply only to mothers.

 

[Faun]

You have that backwards. The federal government is preventing states from imposing on women. It’s letting women choose for themselves.

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

Appeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.

LOLOL

For me to lose, you would have to prove they’re wrong. You can’t. The best you can do is shoot spit balls at them.

If you have to go running to authority, you lose.

Try harder.

No need for me to try again. You already lost.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Because women are not leaving kids who are born without support. Your silly notion does exactly that, which is wrong for the child who is born. Just because you want to separate the issue from before birth and after birth; doesn’t mean the two can actually be separated. They can’t. You’re proposing kids be raised without support from dads. That’s not the case now with moms. The law is not about to legalize deadbeat dads.

They arent?

Safe-haven law - Wikipedia

Safe haven laws are not gender specific. They don’t apply only to mothers.

In reality they are used mostly by mothers.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution says nothing about it being able to do that, it is moot on the subject.

Thus it devolves to the State legislatures to figure it out.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. And since their opinion matters while yours does not, you lose.

Appeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.

LOLOL

For me to lose, you would have to prove they’re wrong. You can’t. The best you can do is shoot spit balls at them.

If you have to go running to authority, you lose.

Try harder.

No need for me to try again. You already lost.

Keep telling yourself that, you NPC nobody.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Why not?

It is called "personal responsibility"

Too bad the woman isn't required to understand this personal responsibility thing.

Who the fuck do you think is raising the child in this scenario?

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Who the fuck do you think is raising the child in this scenario?

I'm talking about those women who make the OTHER choice, dimwit. Try to keep up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Who the fuck do you think is raising the child in this scenario?

I'm talking about those women who make the OTHER choice, dimwit. Try to keep up.

Then you are in the wrong thread.