Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Faun]

”That currently only women have...”

You’ll never gain ground on this argument because currently, only women can get pregnant.

You keep repeating the obvious. Do you have an actual point?I Or is that the ultimate depth of your insight on the issue?

And given men know women have an additional choice they don’t have...

Finally you admit that you see the inequity of the law. You just lack the courage to admit that you fear the consequence of losing the judicial advantage over men...

I never denied women have a choice men don’t have. But not even the law can level a playing field where only women can get pregnant.

Sure it can. Where do you think handicap accessibility laws come from?

Oh? What do you suggest?

 

[Faun]

You reiterate my point. This is all about conservatives, frustrated they lost the abortion argument, seeking an alternative avenue to try to end abortions.

Your argument can be reduced to.... it’s unfair women can choose abortion when men can’t, therefore, abortion should be illegal.

Sorry to break your deadbeat heart, but that ain’t gonna happen. Abortion isn’t going away simply because you think it’s unfair. Nor will conservative men be allowed to legally shirk their responsibilities to raise their own children.

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

Social conservative.

Federalists like me just want it sent back to the States where it belongs.

Progressives want government to replace many personal responsibilities, not most conservatives.

And yet, here you are trying to make this argument. And again, the end goal is really to eliminate abortion.

I'm exploring the argument, I have never said it is my official position.

And yet here you are, trying to make an argument for it.

 

[martybegan]

Again, social conservatives would not use this line of argument, because they usually don't want legal abortion.

You imply my next response would be to make abortion illegal. It's not. again this is a theoretical debate only.

And if you want to get into the political demographics of those men who don't want to support their kids, i don't think you will get "conservative" most of the time.

It would probably lean towards apolitical democrat voters.

And I’m saying this argument is rooted in anti-choice, which is the conservative position. So yes, this notion of shirking personal responsibility in order to be a deadbeat dad is absolutely a conservative position.

Which is why I see only conservatives ever trying to make it.

Social conservative.

Federalists like me just want it sent back to the States where it belongs.

Progressives want government to replace many personal responsibilities, not most conservatives.

And yet, here you are trying to make this argument. And again, the end goal is really to eliminate abortion.

I'm exploring the argument, I have never said it is my official position.

And yet here you are, trying to make an argument for it.

There is a difference between making an argument for something in the hopes of understanding the various positions involved, and thinking the argument will proceed to being a winning concept in reality.

 

[Faun]

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. During that time frame, she can force him to become a father or deny him fatherhood and there's no legal way for him to avoid it. That's not a value judgement, it's simply stating reality.

AFAIC, they both should lose their freedom when she gets pregnant and both should be responsible to raise the child together. Keep it zipped until you can handle the potential consequences and you avoid the whole problem.

Well that’s a fail because it rips away a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy.

 

[NightFox]

So the sexes are not equal and men can and should be considered victims for not having the same reproductive rights as women.

Of course they're not equal, Men don't have ovaries and a womb and thus aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term.

Once the child is born then the father is ethically and legally obligated to provide for the child because the child exists and either the parents of said child are on the hook to care for it, they get someone else to voluntarily take the responsibility (e.g. adoption) or the rest of society is and the rest of society had no say whatsoever in the conception and birth of the child.

Your premise is flawed unless of course you want to advocate for the rights of the male in determining whether or not an abortion or adoption takes place, i.e. using the judiciary to obtain a forced abortion or adoption decree...

It’s not flawed unless the women was forced to carry to term, which she isn’t...because abortion so... Women have reproductive rights, but men don’t.

Men do have reproductive rights, they can choose whether or not to reproduce (either through abstinence or by using birth control), in other words they have all the rights necessary to control the use of their biological reproductive plumbing as they see fit, just like women do.

Your premise is flawed because as I said, lacking ovaries and womb Men aren't obliged to carry a fetus to term and thus aren't biologically affected by the choice of whether or not to do so.

Since when was it ok to distribute things like rights selectively? I thought that was a bad thing.

Where in your estimation do rights originate?

I do agree with you about birth control. If a man doesn't want to be a father he can use a condom or have a vasectomy.

However. Nothing is perfect. Yes something is better than nothing but accidents do happen.

For example:

My sister who is a doctor had a patient who had her tubes tied, her husband had a vasectomy. She ended up pregnant.

The wife of the brother of a friend of mine had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

One of my former assistants had her tubes tied. She ended up pregnant.

A good friend of mine wasn't told by her doctor that the antibiotic he was prescribing her made the pill ineffective. She ended up pregnant.

Yes birth control is sometime like 99% effective. It's that 1% that ends up happening even though precautions were taken.

Yes accidents happen, however that doesn't really have any bearing on whether or not a man has control over his own reproduction nor does it justify the man foisting off his parental obligations unto either the mother or the rest of society just because he decides after the fact he doesn't want to fulfill them.

 

[Faun]

So look at that, you admit you do have choices. And yet you keep arguing past the close.

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (**** you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.

You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, it’s always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.

 

[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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The law isn't actually required to give anyone an "out" for the consequences of their behavior. It may, or it may not, but it's not REQUIRED to.

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

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.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 ***** 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.

 

[martybegan]

Again, I am not arguing for me but for the concept.

If women have a right men don't have, my sense of balance (**** you OCD) demands men have a right women don't have.

It's only fair.

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.

You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, it’s always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.

again, libertarians usually, and it's the Big L ones that are probably believing it.

But continue to try to smear conservatives if it gives you a stiffy.

 

[martybegan]

But if we had true equality under the law, both sides should have the "out", or neither side should have the "out"

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

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.

 

[martybegan]

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.

 

[Faun]

^^^ still running from the inequality that only woman get pregnant.

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.

You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, it’s always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.

again, libertarians usually, and it's the Big L ones that are probably believing it.

But continue to try to smear conservatives if it gives you a stiffy.

LOL

You say that as though conservative and Libertarian are mutually exclusive. They’re not and every single person I’ve seen attempt this argument has been conservative.

 

[Faun]

Okay, let me repeat, since you don't seem to have gotten it the first time.

The purpose of the law is not to "make things equal" - particularly when "equal" is defined strictly as "How marty thinks the universe should work" - or to give anyone "outs".

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.

”The argument, not my argument”

LOLOL

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

 

[martybegan]

That isn't inequality, unless of course you are one of those people that sees pregnancy as only a burden.

It is reality, however legal abortion and the ability to detect pregnancy during said period negates the impact if both parties are given a choice in the matter.

LOLOL

It has nothing to do with burdens and everything to do with biological inequalities.

And here’s yet another failure in your bizarre deadbeat position... the choice women have doesn’t result in a child being raised without a mother. What you’re suggesting is men be given a legal option for the child to be raised without a father.

Yet again, conservatism rears its ugly head and produces deadbeat dads who seek to shirk personal responsibility.

Yeah, no. Conservatism doesn't encourage anyone to be a deadbeat parent or to shirk responsibility in any form. And "Just kill the baby!" is never going to be successfully presented as moral, responsible, compassionate, or any of the other vile, twisted shit you leftists want to tell yourselves.

You can deny it, but in every one of these threads, and there are plenty, it’s always conservatives taking the position that men should be legally allowed to opt out of raising their own child.

again, libertarians usually, and it's the Big L ones that are probably believing it.

But continue to try to smear conservatives if it gives you a stiffy.

LOL

You say that as though conservative and Libertarian are mutually exclusive. They’re not and every single person I’ve seen attempt this argument has been conservative.

You can group people as you see fit, however social conservatives would probably never go with the argument I am making.

 

[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.

”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.

 

[NightFox]

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.

”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.

 

[Faun]

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.

”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.

No, you’re making an argument. At least own it and stop running from it every time you get bitchslapped with 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 ***** 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...

 

[martybegan]

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.

”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.