Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Why wouldn’t i when you have nothing?LOLAs opposed to appealing to yourself.Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.
It's called creating and standing by one's opinion, not being part of the herd like progressive morons.
Call it whatever you want, it still carries zero weight.
And yet all you can respond with is "fuh fuh fuh, supreme court, fuh fuh fuh"
Dred Scott... Oooops....LOLNo need for me to try again. You already lost.LOLOLAppeal to authority. If that's the best you got, then you actually lose.
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.
Keep telling yourself that, you NPC nobody.
You claim the Supreme Court got it wrong. Saying that means nothing; you have to prove it.
You failed... miserably.
Oh well, better luck next time.
So? Who said the Supreme Court is infallible? In the Dredd Scott ruling, there is evidence to show they were wrong. In this case where martybegan claims the Supreme Court was wrong for not sending Roe v. Wade back to the states, he presented nothing but citing his own claim that the Supreme Court was wrong.Dred Scott... Oooops....LOLNo need for me to try again. You already lost.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.
Keep telling yourself that, you NPC nobody.
You claim the Supreme Court got it wrong. Saying that means nothing; you have to prove it.
You failed... miserably.
Oh well, better luck next time.
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.
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?
”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?
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...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...Both parties made a choice. Do you have a point that bears on the matter of choice after conception?Again, you made your choice when you went around spewing sperm like a fire hose.
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.
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.
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?
I am dealing with your argument as you're constructing it . . . by pointing out that it's a crappy argument based on a false parallel.
And by the way, your theoretical argument is ALL about post-birth, because you're bitching about having to pay for a baby after he's born because the mother can legally kill him before he's born, and you can't.
"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?
I am dealing with your argument as you're constructing it . . . by pointing out that it's a crappy argument based on a false parallel.
And by the way, your theoretical argument is ALL about post-birth, because you're bitching about having to pay for a baby after he's born because the mother can legally kill him before he's born, and you can't.
The consequences are post-birth, the issues and decisions are pre-birth.
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?
I am dealing with your argument as you're constructing it . . . by pointing out that it's a crappy argument based on a false parallel.
And by the way, your theoretical argument is ALL about post-birth, because you're bitching about having to pay for a baby after he's born because the mother can legally kill him before he's born, and you can't.
The consequences are post-birth, the issues and decisions are pre-birth.
Nice try, but you're still comparing two entirely different things.
The truth is, the man and the woman both have choices and decisions to make both pre- and post-birth. They aren't the same ones, because they don't have the same biology. No amount of legislation is going to change the biology, or the choices provided by it. And no amount of argument is going to make a comparison between a woman's pre-birth choices and a man's post-birth choices applicable.
