Abortion and child support

[Celebrity]

WHICH MEANS YOU THINK CUCKOLDED MEN SHOULD PAY FOR THE OFFSPRING OF OTHERS. In two other messages I've mentioned pregnancy caused by extra-marital affairs, and you never responded to that part of either post. I shall assume that means you recognize I pointed out a valid hole in your argument, and you can't admit it. Because the only sensible alternative to claiming cuckolds must pay is to insist the biological fathers must pay. Which has been Standard Societal Practice for ages.

This reasoning is upside down. Men should not pay for families, families should pay for biological material in the form of eggs, sperm, embryos, zygotes and fetuses. It is pornographic to charge for sperm donation. Simply because I do not respond to your post does not imply that you have pointed out a hole in my argument. That is factually flawed and logically inconsistent, since you may not disprove my argument by making your own argument. In order to disprove my argument, you must in some way relate your argument to my argument. If you go down the wrong path, I am not obligated to pursue you with my own argument.

I have spoken about this in other threads and, yes, families ought to support children who are members of that family including non-biological children of cuckolded men, or adoptive parents.

I responded to at least one of those post, so your claim that I never responded is false. Perhaps you can point out where you stumbled, so you may be reminded of where you went wrong.

WHY IS THAT RELEVANT?

Is it not relevant? The church is a social organization, so are concubines. In society, families ought to support one another. I am not advocating for promiscuous behavior, however I am advocating for social order according to autonomy and family planning. It is my hope that this is acceptable to both the church and the state.

AND MY OPINION OF CHURCHES IS, ON OCCASION, NOT SUITABLE FOR PUBLIC PRESENTATION. They basically blather lots of unproved claims, and therefore deserve to be utterly ignored.

Yes, sacred law should be "ignored" by the secular state in practice, as I described in my post, which you quoted.

AGREED

You agree that women should not, in principle, be dependent on the biological father for support?

ASSUMING YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MANDATORY CHILD SUPPORT, modern history still has not changed the Fact that Stupidity Has A Price.

That's just appealing to tradition. No logical conclusion may be drawn from your opinion.

WOMEN DO MOST OF THE TEACHING OF CHILDREN. If they and children are the only survivors, the culture will still survive. The proof of the adage is that Chinese culture did indeed survive all those barbarian invasions for thousands of years.

That is absolutely barbaric of you. We are not living in a society which is being invaded by barbarians who systematically slaughter men, women and children, en masse. This is an example of absolutely paranoid reasoning to expect that conclusions about thriving should be drawn from how to biologically survive. What worked in China then may not work here, now.

Well, then, if such a document cannot be legally binding, then it logically follows that the best defense-tactic for the man is to get involved with some other woman, perhaps one who has already had a tubal ligation. On the other hand, if the man changed his mind about wanting children, then he might regret such a choice of sex-partner. See why I think we hugely need reliable and easily reversible sterilization (like valves)?

This is part of the problem. It logically follows that, in order to escape one woman, a man must go to another woman. It's not ok to continue the cycle of abuse, or discriminate against men on the basis of their gender by stripping them of their autonomy in order to justify sterilization.

 

[FutureIncoming]

My conclusion from the debate thus far is that any speculation of the existence of an unmeasurable "pair bond"

LIES GET YOU NOWHERE. I previously presented several links regarding scientific research on the subject. They DO measure things in that research. Your Denial of Facts just means you have no chance of winning this little Debate, and your worthless blatherings-from-ignorance are hereby snipped.

I won't attempt to deny that any two people who are alive at the same time might share a mutual interest in nurturing each other.

YOUNG CHILDREN SELDOM NURTURE THEIR PARENTS.

However, obligating them to do so without proof that a pair bond exists is like saying,

"YOU ARE SPOUTING BLATHEROUS DISTORTIONS, AGAIN". I have only talked about a father supporting his children. YOU are trying to turn it into something else. And failing miserably. I snip more of your nonsense, therefore.

If you do not understand that men who are forced into relationships are controlled by the state

LIKE CELL-MATES IN JAIL? How is that relevant to sending support money to someone you might not bother to visit?

Continue to push your prostitution BS,

CONTINUE TO DENY FACTS, and I will snip more of your blather.

You have yet to show how such a contradiction will lead us to reason.

STOP DENYING FACTS, FIRST. Reason should follow shortly thereafter.

Otherwise I will conclude that you are being contrarian, unreasonable, and intentionally false.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! I'm not the one Denying Facts relevant to our discussion.

If you cannot be specific, I cannot reply appropriately.

I WAS SPECIFIC. I requested that you show me where I did something that you claimed I did, in your questions. Your questions were loaded with that faulty claim. For me to answer any of them would be to accept your claim that I did something that I actually did not do. And therefore I refused to answer your questions.

I EXPECT ACCURATE COMMUNICATIONS. Details matter! Which you are totally failing to present.

In other words, you cannot defend your position.

MORE DISTORTION. When you state nonsense it is not something that needs to be defended-against. But if you accurately state something understandable, that would be different. Except you mostly haven't been doing that, probably because you are Losing this little Debate, and don't have the courage to admit it.

Right below is another example of your senseless distortions:

Go ahead and continue to argue that we should justify "pair bondage" with an appeal to the historical tradition of persecuting people by their sexual orientation.

I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. Pair bonds are real things that don't need justifying, just like rocks are real things that don't need justifying. Only by Denying Facts can you blather such idiocy.

If you do, you are making an appeal to tradition.

SINCE I DON'T, I'M NOT.

 

[Celebrity]

First of all, I have reviewed your links as follows:
Pair-Bonding: A Strength and A Weakness | Reuniting
The Neural Basis of Pair Bonding in a Monogamous Species: A Model for Understanding the Biological Basis of Human Behavior - Offspring - NCBI Bookshelf
http://www.ulm.edu/~palmer/Pair.pdf
The neurobiology of pair bonding - Nature Neuroscience
Are Humans Meant to Be Monogamous?
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/busting-myths-about-human-nature/201205/marriage-and-pair-bonds

I searched these articles for any mention of child support. There is none. You have provided plenty of information about bonding and monogamy, however none of this substantiates the claim that biological fathers should be required to finance the biological function of women, or anything or anyone which is derived from that. I think it's clear that they should not, hence, sexually active men are not required by law to pay for contraception, or birth control. You are not arguing with me, you are simply blowing hot air. My argument is that child support should be voluntary for unmarried men, and men unrelated to pregnant women by family. Your argument is that pair bonds exist and that is not proof of child support, or abortion.

Please do not accuse me of lying if you cannot prove it. You don't substantiate your claim that child support should be mandatory by providing information that does not relate "pair bondage" to child support. Yet you continue to ask me to substantiate my claim, which makes your hypocritical BS marginally relevant to my rational argument.

LIES GET YOU NOWHERE. I previously presented several links regarding scientific research on the subject. They DO measure things in that research. Your Denial of Facts just means you have no chance of winning this little Debate, and your worthless blatherings-from-ignorance are hereby snipped.

Actually, you are the one who is being ignorant. BS does not suffice for a debate.

YOUNG CHILDREN SELDOM NURTURE THEIR PARENTS.

This has nothing to do with the thread, just more BS. I've come to expect it from you since you can't provide a logical basis for your argument.

"YOU ARE SPOUTING BLATHEROUS DISTORTIONS, AGAIN". I have only talked about a father supporting his children. YOU are trying to turn it into something else. And failing miserably. I snip more of your nonsense, therefore.

You are projecting, and refusing to engage in debate. If you cannot disprove my logical argument, then it is a clear flaw that you advocate for the exploitation of men when no pair bond between biological fathers and their children exists. What is a "pair bond?" Maybe you should review what you've said in this thread about psychological and social bonds. A social bond is a form of support. You are the only one who has failed, not me.

LIKE CELL-MATES IN JAIL? How is that relevant to sending support money to someone you might not bother to visit?

In other words, supporting someone you might not bother to support? There is no reasonable justification for this via "pair bondage." You are really going out on a limb with your comment about incarcerated men. Women should not be incarcerated due to the biological function of men, nor should men be incarcerated due to the biological function of women. It's really quite easy to understand.

STOP DENYING FACTS, FIRST. Reason should follow shortly thereafter.

Time to take your own medicine, FutureIncoming. Once you accept the fact that you are being unreasonable by spouting BS, and you have yet to justify any reason why biological fathers must support their biological offspring, you will realize that you are wrong to ask me to stop denying facts. Please, be reasonable.

HAW! HAW!! HAW!!! I'm not the one Denying Facts relevant to our discussion.

A perfect example of your contrarian ignorance. You have repeatedly failed to link "pair bondage" with child support or abortion by any means other than an appeal to tradition, which is a logical fallacy. Not only do you deny facts and falsely accuse me, but you obstruct logical argument with BS. That's quite unreasonable of you, isn't it?

 

[Celebrity]

I WAS SPECIFIC. I requested that you show me where I did something that you claimed I did, in your questions. Your questions were loaded with that faulty claim. For me to answer any of them would be to accept your claim that I did something that I actually did not do. And therefore I refused to answer your questions.

I think you are confused, due to a formatting error, it appears that you are taking words not in all caps to be my words. Those are actually your words. I have fixed the formatting, for your convenience:

MORE LOADED BLATHER. If you cannot be specific, I cannot reply appropriately.


I EXPECT ACCURATE COMMUNICATIONS. Details matter! Which you are totally failing to present.

In other words, you cannot defend your position. Go ahead and continue to argue that we should justify "pair bondage" with an appeal to the historical tradition of persecuting people by their sexual orientation. If you do, you are making an appeal to tradition.

MORE DISTORTION. When you state nonsense it is not something that needs to be defended-against. But if you accurately state something understandable, that would be different. Except you mostly haven't been doing that, probably because you are Losing this little Debate, and don't have the courage to admit it.

Right below is another example of your senseless distortions:

I HAVE DONE NO SUCH THING. Pair bonds are real things that don't need justifying, just like rocks are real things that don't need justifying. Only by Denying Facts can you blather such idiocy.


SINCE I DON'T, I'M NOT.

This is a good example of why you are losing this "little Debate," not me. Neither rocks nor "pair bonds" have been shown to relate to child support except by an appeal to tradition in the case of "pair bondage." Straws are real too, and you are grasping at them.

 

[dnsmith]

Under current laws if a man gets a woman pregnant and she has the child he is required to pay child support for that child. Given that abortion allows a woman to choose to either have the child or abort it should men be given the right to disown the child prior to birth and not have to pay child support. The essential question is, if a man doesnt want the child but the woman keeps it anyway should he be required to pay for it?

The real question is, WHY SHOULD THE WOMAN EVER HAVE THE RIGHT TO ABORTION FOR CONVENIENCE. I vote NO DARN WAY.

 

[chuckiechan]

A child is only a child when the democrats say it is.

If we didn't have abortion, we wouldn't need open borders.

 

[Celebrity]

A child is only a child when the democrats say it is.

If we didn't have abortion, we wouldn't need open borders.

Gotta get those young wage slaves from somewhere.

 

[FutureIncoming]

First of all, I have reviewed your links ...

GOOD.

Please do not accuse me of lying if you cannot prove it.

THIS IS THE LIE YOU TOLD, which I was talking about (and previously quoted in #352):

My conclusion from the debate thus far is that any speculation of the existence of an unmeasurable "pair bond"

Pair bonds do exist in measurable ways, else those links would not have existed for you to read them. THAT proves you lied.

I searched these articles for any mention of child support.

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, SPEWING DISTORTION. By searching for mandatory monetary child support, you ignored data about voluntary child support, a Natural consequence of pair-bonding in human males.

Your Primary Debating Tactic has become obvious. (1) You lie about, or otherwise introduce distortions of, your opponent's arguments. (2) Your arguments then focus on pointing out holes in the lies/distortions you presented, instead of the actual arguments presented by your opponent.

But that's not going to work, Debating me. I have all my uneditable-after-20-minutes messages in this entire Thread to prove I wrote what I actually wrote, and not what you lyingly/distortingly claimed I wrote. And I'm going to insist you respond to what I actually wrote (and what was actually written in links I provided), and not your lies-about/distortions-of what I (and others) wrote.

FACT 1: In Nature, where various species "do" pair bonds, if a parent doesn't support self's offspring, then the offspring die more often than if both parents provide support. That fact let me claim reproduction is a privilege that must be earned, with "reproduction" defined in terms of at least one offspring surviving to become able to leave the nest and rely on self for survival. If the offspring die before then, reproduction did not get earned.

FACT 2: Every newborn human always has the genes of male and female biological parents. (You might realize that will still be true even if cloning becomes popular --a clone is technically a twin, not an offspring.)
FACT 3: Infant humans require extraordinary care, compared to infants of most other species.
FACT 4: Human cultures generally claim human infants generally have a right to survive. (Some cultures have made certain exceptions. In ancient Rome, for example, physically deformed human infants could be left out to die of exposure.)

LOGIC 1: Those last two Facts have caused most human cultures throughout History to insist that most infant humans be appropriately cared-for. This is not normally a problem when the first Fact leads to a pair-bonded human male voluntarily supporting his offspring. Furthermore, the human male voluntarily supporting his offspring is by-far the most-common situation.

FACT 5: Human cultures noticed that most men voluntarily supported their offspring. No knowledge about pair bonds was needed to make the observation. I only introduced the data about pair bonds to explain how it was possible that that observation could have been made in the first place.

FACT 6: The observation that most men support their offspring, plus "Logic 1" above, led to Laws generally mandating that men support their offspring. In one sense those laws don't have any affect on most men, who would voluntarily support their offspring anyway, thanks to pair bonds. It only affects the men that society perceives as abandoning a responsibility. Because human infants with right-to-life consequently must be cared for!

THAT is what you are up against, in this little Debate between us. You want to claim it is OK for some men to abandon a responsibility that society associates with having offspring, entirely because human infants are claimed to have right-to-life and consequently MUST be cared for --and most men are willing to voluntarily do it.

Due to special circumstances previously mentioned, we do know that a few men, sperm bank donors, are not normally expected to support their offspring. We also know that when a child is formally adopted (qualifies as another special circumstance), neither biological parent is expected to support that offspring. But you want to also exclude other men in non-special circumstances. So far, though, you have not presented a valid reason for allowing that. "Personal autonomy" does not-at-all affect Facts 2 and 3 and 4 above. "Family" as created by marriage does not force any husband to support the offspring of a wife who gets pregnant via an extra-marital affair. (Some cultures were so against the notion that it was allowed to publicly stone-to-death the pregnant wife.)

Which leaves you, so far, Losing this Debate.

 

[Celebrity]

Pair bonds do exist in measurable ways, else those links would not have existed for you to read them. THAT proves you lied.

If so, then how can they be measured, practically speaking? You seem to think that a certain finite number of sexual encounters can form a "pair bond," but I haven't seen you list a figure or describe any mechanism of measurement. Outside of a laboratory setting, where most "pair bondage" occurs is of primary importance. We are not only talking about a matter of scientific fact versus fantasy, but an issue with ethical concerns. If you cannot prove that it is practical to measure "pair bonds" then it suffices to say that they are immeasurable. I did not lie, however it is my belief that "pair bonds" cannot be measured in a meaningful way for application of family law in society. Furthermore, if you did not take my statements out of context (mutual verification) it would be clear that I did not lie.

You seem to treat the psychological properties of "pair bondage" like quantum entanglement. Even if one particle disappeared into a black hole, or was teleported across the universe, its position might be measurable by the velocity and position of its companion particle. Neither particle's future position could be explained in any system without the inclusion of the other entangled particle. This demonstrable, physical phenomena cannot be reliably reported in family court; its measurement would likely come with ethical concerns.

THERE YOU GO AGAIN, SPEWING DISTORTION. By searching for mandatory monetary child support, you ignored data about voluntary child support, a Natural consequence of pair-bonding in human males.

What are you talking about? In this thread about child support I have advocated for volunteerism in my posts. Child support should only be voluntary, and data about voluntary child support in no way proves any claim about involuntary child support. I'm not sure how you mean "spewing distortion." You seem to be the one spewing distortion. I am skeptical, not psychotic.

Your Primary Debating Tactic has become obvious. (1) You lie about, or otherwise introduce distortions of, your opponent's arguments. (2) Your arguments then focus on pointing out holes in the lies/distortions you presented, instead of the actual arguments presented by your opponent.

No, I am not lying, nor am I presenting a strawman argument. I have provided a logical argument for why families should support children who are members of those families on the basis of social accountability. You seem to think that an alternative to your own views is a distortion of your own argument, which is not only self-centered, but incorrigible.

Which leaves you, so far, Losing this Debate.

Your "Logic" may or may not use factual information, however in your appeal to tradition you commit a logical fallacy. Hence, your argument that all men should adhere to principles that most men have historically embraced for the purpose of all future child support payments is logically inconsistent.

You appear to be applying the idea that history is the best indicator of future behavior. I am not denying that, however, we live in a free society which must allow for independent and autonomous behavior. Our society guarantees protection of men and women who operate on principles which exist outside the norm, so long as they do not violate the autonomy or safety of other individuals. Since you have yet to prove that "pair bondage" is both necessary and sufficient for child support, I cannot accept logic which jumps to conclusions by fallacious reasoning.

 

[FutureIncoming]

If so, then how can they be measured, practically speaking? ...{snip}

THAT'S NOT THE POINT, and harping about such details doesn't change the FACTS that pair bonds do exist, and they have throughout human history influenced most men to support their offspring --which human cultures/societies noticed, and began expecting all men to support their offspring. Again, as long as those cultures insist that infant humans have right-to-life, and yet cannot survive without significant help, mandated child support is a perfectly logical consequence. And THAT is the answer to this next thing I'm quoting:

What are you talking about? In this thread about child support I have advocated for volunteerism in my posts. Child support should only be voluntary, and data about voluntary child support in no way proves any claim about involuntary child support.

NO PROOF NECESSARY. I was simply describing Facts and Logic. It Remains True that infant humans need lots of support. It Remains True that human cultures tend to claim that infant humans have a right to life. Therefore that support must come from somewhere. It Remains True that, evolutionarily speaking, parental genes "benefit" if their offspring survive. Why shouldn't those that benefit be given the responsibility for providing the necessary support? All Through Most Human Cultures/Societies, It Is Normal For Those That Put Forth Effort To Benefit From The Results.

I have provided a logical argument for why families should support children who are members of those families

AND THEREFORE YOU PROMOTE CUCKOLDED HUSBANDS SUPPORTING THE OFFSPRING OF OTHERS.

on the basis of social accountability.

THAT INCLUDES ACCOUNTING FOR BENEFITING FROM PASSING ON ONE'S GENES.

You seem to think that an alternative to your own views is a distortion of your own argument,

UTTERLY FALSE. Because when I say you have distorted what I wrote, it is because YOU said that **I** said something I didn't actually say. If you had presented your alternative as your own words, instead of claiming it was mine, I would have recognized the difference.

AND HERE IS MORE OF YOUR DISTORTION:

Your "Logic" may or may not use factual information,

DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DISCOUNT THE VALIDITY OF THE DATA I PRESENTED. Without being specific. If one of the things, that I stated was factual, was not actually factual, you should be able to point it out (I even numbered them, recently!), and show how it is not actually factual.

however in your appeal to tradition

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I merely explained why the existing Law is what it is, and I explained why it is likely to remain existing in that form. I never once said that the Law must continue to exist in that traditional form (which is what would qualify as an appeal to tradition).

Hence, your argument that all men should adhere to principles that most men have historically embraced for the purpose of all future child support payments is logically inconsistent.

MORE DISTORTION. Find an exact quote of **me saying** "all men should do a certain thing" Because Of History, instead of **me describing why existing Law says** "all men should do a certain thing". The most you will find is me saying all men should do a certain thing because they genetically benefit from it, and because Stupidity Has A Price!

 

[Celebrity]

NO PROOF NECESSARY. I was simply describing Facts and Logic. It Remains True that infant humans need lots of support. It Remains True that human cultures tend to claim that infant humans have a right to life. Therefore that support must come from somewhere. It Remains True that, evolutionarily speaking, parental genes "benefit" if their offspring survive. Why shouldn't those that benefit be given the responsibility for providing the necessary support? All Through Most Human Cultures/Societies, It Is Normal For Those That Put Forth Effort To Benefit From The Results.

I understand what you mean by "pair bonds." I understand that humans need support, especially infants. The fact that support must come from somewhere in no way indicates that that place is the same place where biological fathers are. You have yet to link that need to biology, or socially link reproduction to child support in any meaningful way, other than "that's how it's done." That is not how it's done, and there are instances of unreported children who are either given away via safe harbor laws, or unknown, bastard children raised by single mothers, aunts, uncles, grandparents, etc. Biological fathers need not support their children, though it is clear that children need support. Although biological fathers may want that social bond, it is not required. The fact that it is required for cases involving public benefits is an arbitrary action by the state to defer the costs of raising taxpayers. If our arguments are not in direct opposition, then I maintain that payment by individuals should be voluntary, but not ordered.

THAT INCLUDES ACCOUNTING FOR BENEFITING FROM PASSING ON ONE'S GENES.

Really, all of biology is contained in all of sociology? I'm not familiar with a hierarchy which allows for this. It's not a financial benefit, is it? Moreover, child support should not be a mechanism for selling people their genetic benefits. I have ethical concerns with the state using children for public use.

UTTERLY FALSE. Because when I say you have distorted what I wrote, it is because YOU said that **I** said something I didn't actually say. If you had presented your alternative as your own words, instead of claiming it was mine, I would have recognized the difference.

And yet, you are not capable of participation in rational debate if the alternative as presented by my own words is characterized as "distortion" by you. For example,

My conclusion from the debate thus far is that any speculation of the existence of an unmeasurable "pair bond" which cannot be mutually verified indicates a lack of empathy, a lack of love and unhappiness. A man who is "pair bonded" against his will is therefore not deficient in any of the categories; empathy, love, or happiness. He is however, subject to a psychotic departure from the reality of the fact that no relationship exists. Any argument which pretends that such a relationship should exist by a form of "bondage" is an insult to freedom as well as reason.

LIES GET YOU NOWHERE. I previously presented several links regarding scientific research on the subject. They DO measure things in that research. Your Denial of Facts just means you have no chance of winning this little Debate, and your worthless blatherings-from-ignorance are hereby snipped.

This is an example of how you have tried to dodge a direct response from me. Do you really expect me to treat the measurement of "things" as meaningful, when you have not indicated how they are measured, or how those measurements should reflect on the topic of the thread? You did recognize the difference between my words and your words when you failed to include any reason by accusing me of denying facts. Can you comment on how so-called "pair bondage" impacts either of the topics of this thread, without appealing to tradition?

AND HERE IS MORE OF YOUR DISTORTION:

The purpose of the ambiguity is to intentionally not distort, or pay any mind at all to your data, while showing that your logic is flawed. For a moment, I set aside the validity/invalidity of premises in an attempt to show you that your logic is flawed. For your purposes, assume that the premise (whatever that may be) is valid; do not allow abstraction to shroud your comprehension.

 

[Celebrity]

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. I merely explained why the existing Law is what it is, and I explained why it is likely to remain existing in that form. I never once said that the Law must continue to exist in that traditional form (which is what would qualify as an appeal to tradition).

Exchanging one fallacy (appeal to tradition) for another (appeal to authority) won't help you. I am glad that you and I can agree that your logic is by no means reasoning for why men who impregnate women ought to continue being trapped in financially irresponsible relationships. In what other way can you justify not changing the law? I have not provided any facts to substantiate "that which has not yet happened, but should happen," if that's what you have been asking me for all this time. The reason why the law ought to change is not because of the way things were. The reason why the law ought to change is because of the way support ought to be treated, in my argument, the reproductive equality of men and women in a free society. I believe I have expressed this inequity to you and others on more than one occasion, but I'm not quite sure whether or not you accept the validity of the argument.

MORE DISTORTION. Find an exact quote of **me saying** "all men should do a certain thing" Because Of History, instead of **me describing why existing Law says** "all men should do a certain thing". The most you will find is me saying all men should do a certain thing because they genetically benefit from it, and because Stupidity Has A Price!

Am I mistaken in thinking that you are of the opinion that men have historically supported their children and that you think that men should continue to do so? Sorry if I mistook your description of current law for an opinion. I guess it's not hard to do when you write the following two sections in the same post:

The only "convenience" relates to the Facts that for humans, reproduction can be a side-effect of all that sex, and human infants are unusually helpless. The quantity of sex compensates for the uncertainty of fertility, and so offspring still get born --and most of the time they also get cared-for adequately conveniently because of pair bonds. That has been the Historical situation for thousands of years; only in the modern era have we learned enough to relatively-safely mess with The Natural Order That Has Worked So Well For Those Thousands Of Years.

Humans may whimsically indulge in sex, but if they do they have to work at avoiding the Natural Consequence of pair-bonding (like the prostitute faking her orgasms), and likely with more determination than working at avoiding a pregnancy. All because pair bonding is the primary purpose of human sex, and reproduction is just a side-effect.

As you did not mention any law, it is easy to see how I would mistake this for an opinion, by your omission and vague allusion to messing with "the Natural Order". Why else should humans work at avoiding the "Natural Consequence of pair bonding?" Even if reproduction is just a "side-effect," men should not be obligated to support their children, however men should support their children voluntarily.

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #361)

I understand what you mean by "pair bonds." I understand that humans need support, especially infants. The fact that support must come from somewhere in no way indicates that that place is the same place where biological fathers are.

SO? In no way are the biological fathers excluded from providing support. There Remains The Fact That Stupidity Has A Price --plus the widely observed thing that folks who never pay the price for some particular stupid thing never learn to stop doing that stupid thing. And the world IS overpopulated. WHERE IN WHAT YOU PROPOSE IS ANYTHING TO BRAKE THE POPULATION EXPLOSION? One of the major reasons folks in "developed" countries have relatively few offspring is because it is so expensive to raise offspring in those places. Remember the thing we might call The Octomom Creed: "I'm going to have all the offspring I want, and YOU are going to pay for them!" YOU PROPOSE TO ASSIST THAT???

You have yet to link that need to biology, or socially link reproduction to child support in any meaningful way,

SATISFIED NOW?

other than "that's how it's done."

NOT QUITE. You seem to have failed to realize that every life-form is just a tool of its genes, existing to make more copies of those genes. In a Secular society, only verifiable scientific data can be accepted as the explanation for "Why are we here?" --and the answer is, we are here (didn't go extinct) because we just happened to be a good way to make lots of copies of our genes, compared to other life-forms. And so every individual human has some level of a biological drive to pass genes on to the next generation. QUESTION: Why should Person A's genes get passed on, instead of Person B's genes?

ANSWER: Since a biological drive is equivalent to a "want", and human societies generally expect humans to pay for what they want, especially because of the Law of Supply and Demand, It Logically Follows that parents should support their offspring. There is no "appeal to tradition" or "appeal to authority" in that. To break that Logic, you have to explain why humans should not need to pay for what they want, regardless of the level of Supply! (like the supply of resources needed for supporting offspring)

I snip some irrelevant stuff you wrote about exceptions. So? Exceptions don't define the rule!

Really, all of biology is contained in all of sociology?

Perhaps you should read "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. You'd be surprised how much of human sociology is similar to the sociology of other animals. And what do we have in common with those animals? Biology! Genes!

I'm not familiar with a hierarchy which allows for this.

OBVIOUSLY. Your perspective needs adjusting, regarding why you exist.

It's not a financial benefit, is it?

NOPE. The mindless biological drive to pass genes on does not care about anything except passing genes on --and embraces anything that can aid that goal.

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #361)

Moreover, child support should not be a mechanism for selling people their genetic benefits.

DISTORTION AGAIN. That is not what I'm talking about. Genes don't care one whit what people think. But people have the power to think about the consequences of mindless genetic drives, and act according to how they want to deal with (including prevent) those consequences.

I have ethical concerns with the state using children for public use.

IRRELEVANT with respect to parents being expected to support their offspring.

And yet, you are not capable of participation in rational debate

FALSE. I'm quite capable; that's why I can recognize your distortions and call them out.

if the alternative as presented by my own words is characterized as "distortion" by you.

MORE DISTORTION, because that is NOT what you have mostly done! You have claimed **I** intended the alternative phrasing! LIKE THIS:

Your description of bondage as a whimsical indulgence

And you have been doing such things all-too-often since that post (#290)

For example,

YOUR EXAMPLE USES WORDS BADLY. You indicated pair bonds were both "speculation" and "unmeasurable" --FALSE, TWICE. Whatever you wrote that followed could not possibly be true, so long as it depended on the faulty stuff you started with. There was no reason for me to go further in replying to what you wrote, because of that. And so I didn't.

Now, if you would deign to start with actually-valid data, instead of falsities and distortions, we could maybe make some progress.

This is an example of how you have tried to dodge a direct response from me.

NOPE; SEE ABOVE. If you start with valid data, then what you write afterward might be worth reading and responding-to.

OH, I ALMOST FORGOT: Why are you nitpicking something that that was introduced only to explain why the current Law is the way it is, regarding child support? **I** find it useful to understand why things are the way they are; YOU seem to think that if you don't like it, it doesn't matter in the least how it got that way. Do you need to be reminded that "There Is No Accounting For Taste"? Just because you don't like something, that doesn't automatically make it wrong!

The purpose of the ambiguity is ... showing that your logic is flawed.

YUP; Pretty much like I've been saying. Your tactic is to introduce errors of interpretation, and then pounce on the errors YOU created. Not errors **I** created.
And I also said it's not going to work, Debating me.

 

[year2late]

Your tactic is to introduce errors of interpretation, and then pounce on the errors YOU created.

Sums it up nicely.

 

[Celebrity]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #361)


SO? In no way are the biological fathers excluded from providing support. There Remains The Fact That Stupidity Has A Price --plus the widely observed thing that folks who never pay the price for some particular stupid thing never learn to stop doing that stupid thing. And the world IS overpopulated. WHERE IN WHAT YOU PROPOSE IS ANYTHING TO BRAKE THE POPULATION EXPLOSION? One of the major reasons folks in "developed" countries have relatively few offspring is because it is so expensive to raise offspring in those places. Remember the thing we might call The Octomom Creed: "I'm going to have all the offspring I want, and YOU are going to pay for them!" YOU PROPOSE TO ASSIST THAT???


SATISFIED NOW?

This is nothing more than what you have previously stated about the way men are treated. It is no more logical proof than saying that we should harvest cheese from the moon because we were the first country to plant a flag there.

NOT QUITE. You seem to have failed to realize that every life-form is just a tool of its genes, existing to make more copies of those genes. In a Secular society, only verifiable scientific data can be accepted as the explanation for "Why are we here?" --and the answer is, we are here (didn't go extinct) because we just happened to be a good way to make lots of copies of our genes, compared to other life-forms. And so every individual human has some level of a biological drive to pass genes on to the next generation. QUESTION: Why should Person A's genes get passed on, instead of Person B's genes?

ANSWER: Since a biological drive is equivalent to a "want", and human societies generally expect humans to pay for what they want, especially because of the Law of Supply and Demand, It Logically Follows that parents should support their offspring. There is no "appeal to tradition" or "appeal to authority" in that. To break that Logic, you have to explain why humans should not need to pay for what they want, regardless of the level of Supply! (like the supply of resources needed for supporting offspring)

I snip some irrelevant stuff you wrote about exceptions. So? Exceptions don't define the rule!

Exceptions are allowed in a free country that does not treat an exception with tyranny. You are welcome to hold your own opinion about evolution justifying payment of child support. Just the same, men should enjoy the same reproductive rights which pertain to non-extinction that women do.

Perhaps you should read "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris. You'd be surprised how much of human sociology is similar to the sociology of other animals. And what do we have in common with those animals? Biology! Genes!

This has nothing to do with abortion or child support. BS about biology doesn't serve to justify coerced child support payments.

OBVIOUSLY. Your perspective needs adjusting, regarding why you exist.

Further proof that you prefer coercion to autonomy. My perspective is that people should reproduce voluntarily.

NOPE. The mindless biological drive to pass genes on does not care about anything except passing genes on --and embraces anything that can aid that goal.

Once again, this is a circular argument that claims biological drive is justification of biological reproduction. In order for men and women to pass on genes equally, they should have an equal opportunity to include, or not include new members of their family.

 

[Celebrity]

Sums it up nicely.

You'd like to think that, wouldn't you? You have yet to justify coercion with anything more than bigotry.

 

[Celebrity]

DISTORTION AGAIN. That is not what I'm talking about. Genes don't care one whit what people think. But people have the power to think about the consequences of mindless genetic drives, and act according to how they want to deal with (including prevent) those consequences.

Sorry, but my argument is not a distortion of your argument. It is of my own volition that I present a logical argument for why men should not be coerced into financing reproduction over which they have no control. Genes not caring what people think does not assign a higher order to genetics than society. Genetics is not above the law of a country which treats its citizens equally.

IRRELEVANT with respect to parents being expected to support their offspring.

The state expects biological fathers to support their offspring when the state coerces biological fathers into self incrimination and financially unstable relationships. It is relevant that the state should not justify financial coercion of individual financial contribution for public use by a biological premise. Biology and finance are like apples and oranges.

FALSE. I'm quite capable; that's why I can recognize your distortions and call them out.

You claim that my arguments are distortions of your arguments. That is not the case.

MORE DISTORTION, because that is NOT what you have mostly done! You have claimed **I** intended the alternative phrasing! LIKE THIS:

That's not what I have mostly done? You provide one example in order to make a contentious claim that my words are not my own. My conclusion that "pair bondage" is whimsical was in response to this quote from you:

As for "sufficient", being part of a pair bond can certainly suffice as a reason for the pair to indulge in sex. But humans already have the power to indulge on whim, no excuse of any sort needed.

If this were in the form of a logical argument, it would follow from the premise via logical statement to the conclusion. However your premise was not clear and you have yet to explain whether or not it is the case that this argument was flawed, or if it has any meaning whatsoever. My conclusion was that you were referring to the previous sentence about "being part of a pair bond." Your conclusion was that my conclusion was flawed, yet you seem to be unwilling to explain just what was meant by "indulge on a whim," if not humans indulging in "being part of a pair bond" on a "whim". I will grant you that your description of participation in "pair bondage" indicates a dependent relationship, however that is not to say that "whimsical" cannot be characteristic of that relationship or how humans "indulge." In short, if humans can "indulge in sex," what is to say that they cannot indulge in a "pair bond?" Your lack of specificity is perplexing, perhaps because you don't know what you are talking about.

And you have been doing such things all-too-often since that post (#290)

And prior to that, you were vague in post #287.

 

[Celebrity]

YOUR EXAMPLE USES WORDS BADLY. You indicated pair bonds were both "speculation" and "unmeasurable" --FALSE, TWICE. Whatever you wrote that followed could not possibly be true, so long as it depended on the faulty stuff you started with. There was no reason for me to go further in replying to what you wrote, because of that. And so I didn't.

Actually, I believe I said the use of "pair bonds" in any meaningful way by which reason can be made, such as in a court of law, is speculative and unmeasurable. You claim it is false and ask us to believe what you say, but why should I believe that you are telling the truth? "Pair bonds" should not be used to coerce people into financially unstable relationships. If a man or a woman does not want to be "pair bonded," he or she should simply leave. Anything which binds a citizen of a free country to enter into an agreement against his/her will is involuntary, and abhorrent to the principles of a free country. I am not arguing that marriage should be abolished, or that husbands and wives do not sometimes make personal sacrifices. I am arguing that single people are by no means in bondage, however if they are it is in violation of their right to liberty.

Now, if you would deign to start with actually-valid data, instead of falsities and distortions, we could maybe make some progress.

Before I provide any more data, please make a logically sound argument which is not in principle reliant on fallacy. Data is useful to report, however we should be able to understand the difference between right and wrong without making use of data.

NOPE; SEE ABOVE. If you start with valid data, then what you write afterward might be worth reading and responding-to.

I can draw a logical conclusion without making use of data. The scientific method, which makes use of data, is close in spirit to logical argument, however it is just one part of logic. What I find challenging about your reasoning is that it puts on the garb of science and pretends to be logical, while failing miserably to make a solid connection between the premise that "pair bondage" exists and the conclusion that men should be obligated to pay child support.

OH, I ALMOST FORGOT: Why are you nitpicking something that that was introduced only to explain why the current Law is the way it is, regarding child support? **I** find it useful to understand why things are the way they are; YOU seem to think that if you don't like it, it doesn't matter in the least how it got that way. Do you need to be reminded that "There Is No Accounting For Taste"? Just because you don't like something, that doesn't automatically make it wrong!

No, however it also does not automatically make it right if you like it, instead of me. I have said that bigotry and coercion are abhorrent to reason and liberty. To that end, a free society should allow men to opt out of a required social relationship which is not met by the preponderance of biological evidence due to the fact that the two are unrelated inasmuch as one does not require the other.

YUP; Pretty much like I've been saying. Your tactic is to introduce errors of interpretation, and then pounce on the errors YOU created. Not errors **I** created.
And I also said it's not going to work, Debating me.

The fact of the matter is, I won't accept evidence as proof. You need to make a rational, logical argument which links point A to point B. For my purposes, political rambling and BS do not suffice for anything more than evidence of your own personal conviction by which I am unaffected.

 

[FutureIncoming]

...what you have previously stated ...

FACTS ARE FACTS. The only valid way to discount facts is to present better/more-appropriate facts. So far, you have done no such thing.

It is no more logical proof than ...

FALSE. Your mere claim needs to be supported with evidence. Point out a specific flaw in the logical proof. Generic denunciation is no such thing!

Exceptions are allowed in a free country ...

I SAID NOTHING AGAINST EXCEPTIONS. I merely stated they do not define the law. They certainly are useful in revealing boundaries of a Law.

You are welcome to hold your own opinion ....

FACTS ARE NOT OPINION. The only actual opinion in my argument is the claim by human societies that human infants have right-to-life. Nature is perfectly OK with letting offspring die. But for humans, that opinion makes all the difference. To keep human infants from dying requires providing support. And the Law of Supply and Demand, relevant to resources needed for support, is pitiless and merciless. That Law (never codified as such by human legal systems, much like the Law of Gravitation) fully explains why each person is generally expected to pay for what each wants. That does not exclude the want of genes to replicate themselves.

I therefore point out that any man who claims he doesn't want offspring, but fails to act in a manner to decrease the chance of that happening, is actually on some level wanting his genes to get passed on. And therefore, as indicated above, he can be expected to obtain resources for supporting his offspring. Societies know full well that Just Because A Demand Exists, that does not automatically/immediately cause a Supply to exist (example: flying cars). The existence of offspring fully equals a Demand for resources, and because of the societal opinion that infant humans have right-to-life, that Demand must be met, somehow. Society as a whole is under no obligation to meet it, when it can focus on the original "want" that caused the Demand to exist in the first place. Consider that Ben Franklin quote in term of wide-spread Demand for happiness --each self still has to do the pursuing of it. It is not the society's responsibility!

... men should enjoy the same reproductive rights ...

"WOMB ENVY"? Denying Facts, not accepting them, is the root of many idiocies in the Overall Abortion Debate (mostly by abortion opponents). Tell your "should" to Mother Nature, and see how far it gets you.

AS PERSONS, human men and women should indeed be as equal as possible under the Law. BUT AS HUMANS, there are differences that no "should" can touch at this time. When human reproduction is divorced from normal human physiology --like after artificial wombs are perfected-- then a man could certainly have as much say as a woman, in deciding to abort the occupant of an artificial womb. He likely would have been paying half the support-cost from the womb-implantation event, after all! And since unborn humans are not persons under the Law, they don't have right-to-life. It would be extremely simple for a Law to say both parents must want the birth, else the unborn human must be aborted from the artificial womb.

This has nothing to do with abortion or child support ...

YOU ASKED ABOUT A CONNECTION BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY. I provided relevant data. The Law Of Supply And Demand, however, does justify coerced child support payments, as explained above.

Further proof that you prefer coercion to autonomy.

FURTHER PROOF I DON'T DENY FACTS.

... people should reproduce voluntarily.

SEE ABOVE. If the man doesn't take steps to prevent reproduction, and it happens, he did voluntarily reproduce, on some level.

...a circular argument

FALSE. The drive to replicate genes is at the foundation of Life itself. That's Just The Way It Is. There is no "root cause" for that (which could allow circularity); Evolution Is Random.

...biological drive is justification ...

NO JUSTIFICATION NECESSARY. The biological drive causes reproduction; gravitation causes rocks to fall. A simple description of something happening is not "justification".

... for men and women to pass on genes equally, ...

THERE ALREADY IS, and it normally is called "contraception" or "sterilization". Men who stupidly delude themselves, and don't take steps to match their claims about reproduction with actions, deserve to pay the price for their stupidity.

 

[Celebrity]

FACTS ARE FACTS.

I've not discounted your facts, I've discounted your argument.

FALSE. Your mere claim needs to be supported with evidence. Point out a specific flaw in the logical proof. Generic denunciation is no such thing!

My evidence is that when your argument is confronted, you refuse to explain it, or deflect by saying you are explaining the law of the land. If you are simply attempting to discuss the way things are, then I have no debate with you. My argument clearly advocates for changing the law, and I have explained for whom and what changes must be made in order to achieve reproductive equality. To allow men the reproductive autonomy they deserve, we should not bind men to biological events which take place without their consent. However, I believe we should preserve the production of children in families. As you mentioned, this means holding cuckolds accountable for pregnant women at later stages of viability with whom they are in a committed relationship. Biology makes no difference in regards to the social decision to become a parent, or supporting children. Unfortunately, women who are adulteresses have to live with that fact, and cannot claim plausible deniability if they choose not to bring a pregnancy to term for biological reasons.

The proof is in the debate. You have not contributed to a meaningful exchange, but attempted to link an unrelated form of bondage to the reproductive imperative of supporting children, in your argument.

I SAID NOTHING AGAINST EXCEPTIONS. I merely stated they do not define the law. They certainly are useful in revealing boundaries of a Law.

I didn't say you said anything against exceptions. Men may or may not choose to be exempt from reproduction by opting out. They already opt out of the families that care for the children and it makes no sense to hold them accountable for another family's child with whom they have no contact. Just let it go, and move on.

FACTS ARE NOT OPINION. The only actual opinion in my argument is the claim by human societies that human infants have right-to-life. Nature is perfectly OK with letting offspring die. But for humans, that opinion makes all the difference. To keep human infants from dying requires providing support. And the Law of Supply and Demand, relevant to resources needed for support, is pitiless and merciless. That Law (never codified as such by human legal systems, much like the Law of Gravitation) fully explains why each person is generally expected to pay for what each wants. That does not exclude the want of genes to replicate themselves.

I therefore point out that any man who claims he doesn't want offspring, but fails to act in a manner to decrease the chance of that happening, is actually on some level wanting his genes to get passed on. And therefore, as indicated above, he can be expected to obtain resources for supporting his offspring. Societies know full well that Just Because A Demand Exists, that does not automatically/immediately cause a Supply to exist (example: flying cars). The existence of offspring fully equals a Demand for resources, and because of the societal opinion that infant humans have right-to-life, that Demand must be met, somehow. Society as a whole is under no obligation to meet it, when it can focus on the original "want" that caused the Demand to exist in the first place. Consider that Ben Franklin quote in term of wide-spread Demand for happiness --each self still has to do the pursuing of it. It is not the society's responsibility!

If you think it's not society's responsibility to support future taxpayers, then it's your opinion. If you thought genes acted autonomously, then that's your opinion. The economizing of human kind is not ethical by any supply/demand model. Though it may be practical to examine a population in a scientific study from this angle, enforcing law which discriminates by gender is in no way practical. These are real people, not lab rats. What's more is, there is no evidence to suggest that society should coerce men young, or old into financially unstable relationships. Neither female autonomy, nor fetal autonomy diminish male autonomy, and in turn, male autonomy and fetal autonomy do not diminish female autonomy. Forcing the patronage on a biological father because a supply is not caused by the demand for resources is quite frankly hypocritical. There is no reason to suggest why an absence of supply justifies use of force against individuals by all of society, except cannibalizing men's finances for the "greater good." Raping and pillaging is the alternative case of conflict among different societies (instead of the same society cannibalizing its own).

 

[Celebrity]

"WOMB ENVY"? Denying Facts, not accepting them, is the root of many idiocies in the Overall Abortion Debate (mostly by abortion opponents). Tell your "should" to Mother Nature, and see how far it gets you.

Allowing men to opt out is very natural and in no way expresses any type of envy. It's retrograde to suggest that exiting a relationship implies any attachment to the other party; exiting should be clean and without emotional attachment. You may even suspect, due to your earning model that men envy women who "earn" the right to reproduce, due to being deprived earnings. I would simply suggest that the absence of negative earnings in the form of child support is enough to assuage any man's fears that he is deficient in some way. There's no reason to justify negative earnings by attributing envy to an argument that calls for equality. Now, why do you continue to call my assertion that men should enjoy equal reproductive rights "denial?" I advocated for progress from what ought not to be to what ought to be, I didn't deny facts when I pointed out your argument's flaws.

AS PERSONS, human men and women should indeed be as equal as possible under the Law. BUT AS HUMANS, there are differences that no "should" can touch at this time. When human reproduction is divorced from normal human physiology --like after artificial wombs are perfected-- then a man could certainly have as much say as a woman, in deciding to abort the occupant of an artificial womb. He likely would have been paying half the support-cost from the womb-implantation event, after all! And since unborn humans are not persons under the Law, they don't have right-to-life. It would be extremely simple for a Law to say both parents must want the birth, else the unborn human must be aborted from the artificial womb.

This is a strawman tactic. I am not claiming that men should have wombs in order to achieve reproductive autonomy. I am not claiming that women should endure forced abortions in order for men to achieve anything. By the way, human reproduction is divorced from psychology at birth, when reproduction ends and autonomous production begins. Three's not a pair, either, it's a family. Men should be allowed to reproduce voluntarily in a family, within a society. Men should not be forced by society, nor should they be obligated to support children without a family. Single men who opt out prior to viability should enjoy protection of their autonomy under the law, in the same way that any woman can opt out at any time prior to viability. Women can opt out regardless of whether or not they are already a mother, however men should only opt out of supporting another family, not opt out of their own family which they are legally obligated to support.

YOU ASKED ABOUT A CONNECTION BETWEEN BIOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY. I provided relevant data. The Law Of Supply And Demand, however, does justify coerced child support payments, as explained above.

No, I asked you to link your argument about "pair bonds" to society. It does not suffice to prove your claim for you to bellow "everyone has genes so they should all be supported." Your data is worth diddly-squat, if it's relevant to only biology and not child support or abortion.

 

[Celebrity]

FURTHER PROOF I DON'T DENY FACTS.

Logic is still beyond your grasp, though. Just gonna keep spewing facts? No problem. I'll just wait for an argument to surface. Until then, we're not in disagreement and I haven't been disproven by the facts. Facts are a bit like building blocks, if you just throw them around you won't build anything that works, logically speaking. If you carefully assemble a proof, then by that proof, a true fact can be added to your collection. Deriving an opinion from facts like, men should support their children because apes do it, makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever, unless our justice system is run by apes. I didn't ask you to anthropologically compare society's biology to animal society's biology because, surprise, that anthropology doesn't justify abortion or coercive child support!

SEE ABOVE. If the man doesn't take steps to prevent reproduction, and it happens, he did voluntarily reproduce, on some level.

On a purely biological level, by which no financial conclusion may be drawn from any amount of reason. Were his genes passed on voluntarily? If a woman also autonomously exercised her reproductive function, yes. Does the passing of genes by either men or women imply any level of financial contribution from men? No, it does not. Families should care for family members. Family members should not have involuntary obligations to other families.

FALSE. The drive to replicate genes is at the foundation of Life itself. That's Just The Way It Is. There is no "root cause" for that (which could allow circularity); Evolution Is Random.

NO JUSTIFICATION NECESSARY. The biological drive causes reproduction; gravitation causes rocks to fall. A simple description of something happening is not "justification"

Congratulations. I'm glad you've achieved this mechanism of thinking logically by introducing the premise "That's Just The Way It Is" to justify tyranny. Unfortunately, this type of logic really has nothing to do with reason. One could simply say, men have the right to opt out because That's Just The Way It Is. In fact, I would not be correct to say that, since it isn't the law to allow men to financially opt out. Although, if it was simply your intent to report to me the present state of affairs, then that in no way disproves my statement as false. In fact, your argument is still circular.

THERE ALREADY IS, and it normally is called "contraception" or "sterilization". Men who stupidly delude themselves, and don't take steps to match their claims about reproduction with actions, deserve to pay the price for their stupidity.

Correction: birth control and child support are the topics of this thread. Abortion is not really intended as a form of contraception, or sterilization. Men are not deluding themselves when their rights are overridden by the female reproductive function. As it is unjust to allow discrimination on the basis of gender, statute should be introduce to formalize the equality of men and women in family law.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I've not discounted your facts,

A STUPID LIE. Here:

any speculation of the existence of an unmeasurable "pair bond"

THAT IS MOST DEFINITELY AN ATTEMPT TO DISCOUNT FACTS about the existence of pair bonds.

I've discounted your argument.

VIA GENERIC DENUNCIATION. I have yet to see you point out an actual error in my argument.

My evidence is that when your argument is confronted,

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO DO THAT WITHOUT DISTORTING IT, like this, for example:

Your description of bondage as a whimsical indulgence

There is no rational reason to reply to the nonsense you spout when it has nothing to do with my actual argument. Like I previously said, your tactic is to introduce errors of interpretation into what a Debate opponent presents, and then you pounce on those errors, instead of any actual errors in what the opponent presented. But that isn't going to work, Debating me. And complaining about how I don't cooperate with your nonsense isn't going to work, either!

My argument clearly advocates for changing the law,

I AGREE THAT IS WHAT YOU WANT.

and I have explained for whom and what changes must be made in order to achieve reproductive equality.

FALSE. Mostly because your definition of "reproductive equality" doesn't take into account plain ordinary human biology, which Naturally makes human males different from (and thus not exactly equal to) human females. If humanity was a race of hermaphrodites, then it would be easy to have the type of reproductive equality you want. And I greatly doubt your "for whom and what changes" remotely approach the notion of genetically engineering humanity into hermaphrodites.

To allow men the reproductive autonomy they deserve,

A BALD CLAIM. Where is the evidence to support that claim? ("men deserve reproductive autonomy") Remember to take NATURAL BIOLOGY into account!

I think I'll stop here. If you can't prove your claim, taking Natural Biology into account, then you don't have a valid argument. Period.

 

[Celebrity]

There is no rational reason to reply to the nonsense you spout when it has nothing to do with my actual argument. Like I previously said, your tactic is to introduce errors of interpretation into what a Debate opponent presents, and then you pounce on those errors, instead of any actual errors in what the opponent presented. But that isn't going to work, Debating me. And complaining about how I don't cooperate with your nonsense isn't going to work, either!

I think I'll stop here. If you can't prove your claim, taking Natural Biology into account, then you don't have a valid argument. Period.

I am not discounting Natural Biology by not assigning to it a higher order of operation. Biology does not cause family members to support one another in society. Any correlation among families which have been biologically separated due to coerced child support payments is evidence of a vestigial function of the law. In a society which values surrogacy as a reproductive option and adoption as a form of family planning, it's clear that we don't need to force biological parents to form a relationship with their children. People who stick together in order to form long term social bonds are families. If these families are distinct and don't form social bonds which are measurable with other families, for example any real number of visits or amount of paid support, they should be allowed to move on and operate within the context of their own family.

I'm aware that the support paid does not imply a number of visits per month, and that is not what I'm saying. I am simply saying that it doesn't make sense to force any kind of relationship simply because a biological relation exists. Everywhere else in society, we form bonds socially and don't force someone to do something because they are our biological father, or 'mate.' Forced mating is socially and ethically irresponsible. Historical breeding among indentured servants and slaves is enough to show that the enslavement of one's biological children is wrong. Why is it not also easy to conclude that the enslavement of one's biological parents, or of a former sexual partner is also wrong? In order to award men the reproductive rights they deserve, we cannot transfer their children and assign an involuntary payment for biological reasons. Men should be allowed to opt out.

If and only if men are allowed to opt out, then will payment become truly voluntary. Then we will be able to distinguish between men who are making lemonade out of lemons and men who have a vested interest in nurturing their biological children. There is a difference. For men who opt out, it is not the right thing to do for them to enter into any kind of relationship with the future child of a pregnant woman.