Is there a legit legal argument here?

[Faun]

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.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

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.

 

[Slyhunter]

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.

Why is it then ok to surrender your child and raise it without support from either parent?

 

[martybegan]

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.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

 

[martybegan]

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.

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

 

[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.

Why is it then ok to surrender your child and raise it without support from either parent?

By surrender, you mean put up for adoption?

 

[Faun]

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.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

 

[martybegan]

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.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

 

[martybegan]

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.

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

 

[Faun]

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

In reality they are used mostly by mothers.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

And for men when they have custody.

 

[Faun]

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

Keep telling yourself that, you NPC nobody.

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

As opposed to appealing to yourself.

 

[martybegan]

In reality they are used mostly by mothers.

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

And for men when they have custody.

How many is that? 1 or 2? a minor percentage?

 

[martybegan]

Keep telling yourself that, you NPC nobody.

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

As opposed to appealing to yourself.

It's called creating and standing by one's opinion, not being part of the herd like progressive morons.

 

[Faun]

So? That’s only because women are more often in custody of the new born in cases where both parents are not involved together. Still, safe haven laws apply equally to both men and women.

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

And for men when they have custody.

How many is that? 1 or 2? a minor percentage?

I don’t know the percentage and it appears neither do you.

 

[Faun]

LOL

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.

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

As opposed to appealing to yourself.

It's called creating and standing by one's opinion, not being part of the herd like progressive morons.

LOL

Call it whatever you want, it still carries zero weight.

 

[martybegan]

It still reduces the effect of the whole "if he doesn't pay for it, the government has to" argument because here you have government giving another out.

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

And for men when they have custody.

How many is that? 1 or 2? a minor percentage?

I don’t know the percentage and it appears neither do you.

I would bet money it is very very very small.

 

[martybegan]

You are claiming the Supreme Court got it right, because they are the supreme court.

fallacy on your part, not on mine.

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

As opposed to appealing to yourself.

It's called creating and standing by one's opinion, not being part of the herd like progressive morons.

LOL

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"

 

[Faun]

Again, it’s an option for men and women, depending on who has custody.

Again, it's usually used by women, another legal out for them.

And for men when they have custody.

How many is that? 1 or 2? a minor percentage?

I don’t know the percentage and it appears neither do you.

I would bet money it is very very very small.

Who cares what you’d wager? You still don’t know. Again, it’s an irrelevant point because the law treats everyone the same on this regardless of gender.

 

[Faun]

Whereas you’re claiming you’re right because you said so.

Meanwhile, they’re the experts on Constitutional law and their opinions matter. Yours? Not so much.

Appeal to authority is appeal to authority. It is one of the common fallacies employed by the weak willed.

As opposed to appealing to yourself.

It's called creating and standing by one's opinion, not being part of the herd like progressive morons.

LOL

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"

Why wouldn’t i when you have nothing?