Abortion and child support

[FutureIncoming]

I am not discounting Natural Biology by not assigning to it a higher order of operation.

SPIN. First, persons are minds, not bodies. To the extent possible, all persons deserve equal rights/freedoms (keeping in mind restrictions can legitimately exist for child-persons, because they have so much to learn). Second, bodies limit the abilities of persons. As a result, a typical men's restroom has urinals, while a typical women's restroom doesn't. To insist that every aspect of a person must be treated equally with every aspect of any other person means that important differences in bodies can get overlooked, when they actually need to be taken into account (do you put urinals in women's restrooms or remove them from men's restrooms, to ensure equality?).

Human reproduction inherently features significant body-related differences between men and women. To fail to take that into account, when Debating things strongly related to reproduction, IS THE ESSENCE of discounting Natural Biology --"not counting" Natural Biology as highly as it deserves.

Biology does not cause family members to support one another in society.

UTTERLY FALSE. Any cop will tell you that the thing to most dread is getting caught in the middle of a domestic disturbance --both sides of the dispute are all-too-often likely to join forces against what they perceive to be an interfering busybody cop.

ALSO, here is a little something you might not know about. You want equality, right? Well, maybe you should be glad men can get away with just paying money!

Any correlation among families which have been biologically separated due to coerced child support payments is evidence of a vestigial function of the law.

BLATHEROUS DISTORTIONS. First, you are idiotically stating that coerced child support payments cause biological separations (the "due to" I bolded above). We all know that child support payments only become required AFTER a separation! (Prior to a separation, they are "part of normal family expenses".) Second, you are calling part of the law a "vestigial function", but just because you call it that, that doesn't mean it is true. Especially when the "evidence" you supposedly provided was just an idiotic distortion of actual situations!

TRY AGAIN. Remember, A Chain Of Facts And Logic Is Only As Strong As Its Weakest Link. If any link breaks, the conclusion is rendered invalid. And this very-near-to-the-beginning link of yours has shattered utterly. Which means the rest of what you wrote in #375 can be ignored, until you either provide better evidence, or replace that link with something else.

 

[Celebrity]

SPIN. First, persons are minds, not bodies. To the extent possible, all persons deserve equal rights/freedoms (keeping in mind restrictions can legitimately exist for child-persons, because they have so much to learn). Second, bodies limit the abilities of persons. As a result, a typical men's restroom has urinals, while a typical women's restroom doesn't. To insist that every aspect of a person must be treated equally with every aspect of any other person means that important differences in bodies can get overlooked, when they actually need to be taken into account (do you put urinals in women's restrooms or remove them from men's restrooms, to ensure equality?).

Human reproduction inherently features significant body-related differences between men and women. To fail to take that into account, when Debating things strongly related to reproduction, IS THE ESSENCE of discounting Natural Biology --"not counting" Natural Biology as highly as it deserves.

No, you are conflating equality and uniformity. As you stated, all persons deserve equal rights and freedoms. Putting biology on a pedestal is your spin, not mine.

UTTERLY FALSE. Any cop will tell you that the thing to most dread is getting caught in the middle of a domestic disturbance --both sides of the dispute are all-too-often likely to join forces against what they perceive to be an interfering busybody cop.

That force is a social force, not a biological force. You are conflating people as societal actors with people as biological actors. Police officers operate in society in their interaction with civilian members of society. Who is the one spinning yarns? Not me, and you have yet to show that your accusations are an iota more than baseless.

ALSO, here is a little something you might not know about. You want equality, right? Well, maybe you should be glad men can get away with just paying money!

Good point, men can achieve equality by breastfeeding. However one form of equality does not justify inequality of another form. I think you are trying to make it seem like I want men to be like women. That is not the case. Do men want women to be like men when they advocate for birth control? I doubt it, however people who advocate for women's rights do so simply because it is the right thing to do. Men do not "get away" with just paying money, if they are forced into doing it. Do coercive ex-lovers deserve any reprieve because they are not also murderers? I'm sure their victims are glad to be alive, but that doesn't change the fact that the use of coercion is wrong.

 

[Celebrity]

BLATHEROUS DISTORTIONS. First, you are idiotically stating that coerced child support payments cause biological separations (the "due to" I bolded above). We all know that child support payments only become required AFTER a separation! (Prior to a separation, they are "part of normal family expenses".) Second, you are calling part of the law a "vestigial function", but just because you call it that, that doesn't mean it is true. Especially when the "evidence" you supposedly provided was just an idiotic distortion of actual situations!

Once again you are resorting to ad hominem attacks, claiming that my position is "idiotic." It is not idiotic to expect equal reproductive rights for men and women, and allowing men to opt out is the way to achieve that by statute. Pray tell, what is my argument distorting? Biology does not actually suffice to show cause for societal organizations, whether that is a separation or a unification. It is merely by convenience of the state that biological fathers are bound to serve a financial order for nearly two decades, at the discretion of the collaborative efforts of a woman and the state. This relationship seems characteristic of an oppressive force, much in the same way that women are trapped into relationships by abusive men. It's not ok for fathers to financially trap and abuse biological mothers, or any other kind of mother, and it's not ok for mothers to financially trap and abuse biological fathers.

TRY AGAIN. Remember, A Chain Of Facts And Logic Is Only As Strong As Its Weakest Link. If any link breaks, the conclusion is rendered invalid. And this very-near-to-the-beginning link of yours has shattered utterly. Which means the rest of what you wrote in #375 can be ignored, until you either provide better evidence, or replace that link with something else.

You have yet to point out a single flaw in my argument, since your logic is hypocritical. A collection of ad hominem attacks, logical fallacies and unnecessary evidence does not suffice to prove the claim that child support should be paid on the basis of biology. Furthermore, there is no biological reason that men should not have the autonomy to reproduce within a family at will. That means allowing single, childless men to opt out prior to viability. Until you can show that this is not possible, you are left with your appeal to tradition, treating men like apes.

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #377)

No, you are conflating equality and uniformity.

NOPE. Your mere claim is worthless without evidence. Uniformity is one way of actualizing equality. In the restroom analogy, it can be observed that 3 urinals can fit along the same wall-space as 2 toilet stalls. Therefore a men's restroom tends to have more facilities than a woman's restroom. And so I was actually promoting equality by suggesting the "uniformity" options of either excluding urinals from men's restrooms, or installing them in women's restrooms.

As you stated, all persons deserve equal rights and freedoms. Putting biology on a pedestal is your spin, not mine.

THERE IS NEITHER SPIN NOR PEDESTAL INVOLVED IN ACCEPTING FACT. And like I said, you are Discounting if not actually Denying Fact.

That force is a social force, not a biological force.

PARTLY FALSE. I didn't say who was involved in a domestic disturbance. It could be teenage brothers, for example, with the parents out shopping. And the classic adage "blood is thicker than water" exists for a reason.

You are conflating people as societal actors with people as biological actors.

HUMAN PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY BOTH, so no conflation.

Police officers operate in society in their interaction with civilian members of society.

TRUE.

Who is the one spinning yarns?

WHAT YARN?

Not me, and you have yet to show that your accusations are an iota more than baseless.

FALSE. Every single time I say you distort something (one way or another, like "spin") I either explain the distortion or demand that you provide the exact quote, showing me saying the distorted thing you claimed I said. HERE you appear to be making a generic claim without providing any evidence. Why should your claim be believed?

Good point, men can achieve equality by breastfeeding. However one form of equality does not justify inequality of another form.

WHAT INEQUALITY? Human cultures generally expect both parents to support their offspring (excluding exceptions like sperm banks and adoption). Perhaps **you** are the one conflating equality with uniformity!

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #377)

I think you are trying to make it seem like I want men to be like women.

CERTAIN NONUNIFORMITIES EXIST, entirely because the two sexes are not identical to each other. All by yourself, you have claimed men should have a particular equality with women, while failing to take into account the biological differences in the two sexes with respect to human reproduction, which is why the current nonuniformities exist. Yet both are generally still equally expected to support their offspring! No matter how nonuniform is that equality!

That is not the case.

THEN YOU HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB OF EXPLAINING HOW YOUR VERSION OF "EQUALITY" TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL NONUNIFORMITY OF THE HUMAN SEXES.

Do men want women to be like men when they advocate for birth control?

TSK, TSK! It is my understanding that men usually want women to take on all the birth-control responsibilities, so that they don't have to wear condoms.

I doubt it,

SEE ABOVE

however people who advocate for women's rights do so simply because it is the right thing to do.

DEPENDS ON THE "RIGHT". You yourself appear to have argued something to the effect that a woman shouldn't have the right to decide, all by herself, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Even though that is an already-existing right of women.

Men do not "get away" with just paying money, if they are forced into doing it.

MISINTERPRETATION. Would you rather men become forced breastfeeders? While I'm quite aware you don't want men to be forced at all, what I was talking about you could call a "choice between evils", the other of which is "getting away with being forced to just pay money".

Do coercive ex-lovers deserve any reprieve because they are not also murderers?

??? I have no idea how that is relevant. Please explain in detail what you are talking about, there.

I'm sure their victims are glad to be alive,

ARE YOU SERIOUSLY CALLING STUPID MEN "victims"? Like I previously said, if a man is too stupid to wear a seat belt in a car (when he wants to avoid serious injury), or to use contraception during sex (when he wants to avoid parenthood), then he deserves to suffer the consequences. I also previously said that no matter what he claims about avoiding parenthood, if he doesn't act consistently with that claim then on some level he actually does want to be a parent. Actions Speak Louder Than Words!

but that doesn't change the fact that the use of coercion is wrong.

FALSE. The Legal Code is chock-full of coercive consequences of various actions. See "community service", for example. See "chain gangs" for another. See the Thirteenth Amendment! Due Process Of Law allows all sorts of coercive Legal Decisions!

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 1 of 2, in reply to Msg #378)

Once again you are resorting to ad hominem attacks, claiming that my position is "idiotic."

UTTERLY FALSE. YOU ARE NOT YOUR ARGUMENT. It is perfectly possible for quite-intelligent folks to spout idiotic arguments; abortion opponents do it regularly.

It is not idiotic to expect equal reproductive rights for men and women,

NOT WHAT I CALLED "IDIOTIC" --once again, you are resorting to blatherous distortions! I keep telling you that tactic is not going to work, Debating me, yet you persist in doing it. Do you want me to conclude, based on the evidence you provided in your posts, that you might in actuality qualify for "idiot" status?

and allowing men to opt out is the way to achieve that by statute.

FALSE; YOU WOULD BE CREATING AN INEQUALITY. Simply because human offspring must get support from somewhere, so long as human societies claim they have right-to-life. Currently that burden is usually shared between the biological parents, in alignment with Nature, which has spent hundreds of millions of years evolving the best ways for the most offspring to survive. In their egotism humans have too-often claimed they "knew better than Nature", with disastrous results.

Pray tell, what is my argument distorting?

MORE DISTORTION; I wasn't talking about your entire argument. I was talking about just two pieces of it, specifically the claim that child support payments caused family separations, and also your calling part of the Law a "vestigial function" without supporting the claim with valid evidence.

Biology does not actually suffice to show cause for societal organizations,

FALSE. Ever observed an anthill or a beehive or termite mound? Every individual member of such is a biological robot, acting in accordance with biological programming, and we call them "social insects" because their biology makes them social.

whether that is a separation or a unification.

OUR HUMAN BIOLOGY allows us to be far more social than other primates. Just consider an ordinary crowded bus in rush hour traffic, and think about how many women on that bus might be experiencing a "fertile day". For other species, this is an obvious thing that tends to cause males to go on a competitive rampage for access to mating. That makes it kind of tough to be sociable! But because humans don't notice female ovulation, we can be and generally are quite social, most of the time. ON THE OTHER HAND, biology makes every living thing inherently selfish. If you don't think you are acting selfishly when you feed your face, you need to think again! Almost every awake human is constantly weighing selfishness vs sociality at a subconscious level, and frequently at a conscious level (bank robbers are not acting subconsciously!).

It is merely by convenience of the state that biological fathers are bound to serve a financial order for nearly two decades, at the discretion of the collaborative efforts of a woman and the state.

MORE DISTORTION. The Laws that mandate child support by fathers existed long before women could vote, much less have power to insist certain Laws get passed!

This relationship seems characteristic of an oppressive force,

FALSE, since your conclusion is, as usual, based on an invalid distortion of facts. WHEN are you going to stop doing that???

much in the same way that women are trapped into relationships by abusive men.

HOW ARE THEY TRAPPED? Shelters do exist for such women! You are still spewing distortion!!!

It's not ok for fathers to financially trap and abuse biological mothers, or any other kind of mother,

TRUE

 

[FutureIncoming]

(part 2 of 2, in reply to Msg #378)

and it's not ok for mothers to financially trap and abuse biological fathers.

MOSTLY AGREED, EXCEPT IT IS TOTALLY OK AND NORMAL FOR STUPIDITY TO GET PUNISHED. When will you stop distorting --or, worse, ignoring-- relevant facts? A man who doesn't want offspring should use contraception, or else pay the price for stupidity. How is that not obvious??? (There is no "abuse" in punishing stupidity, because it is OK and normal --and therefore you distort the truth by associating abuse with mandatory child support.) Any argument based on cherry-picked data is a flawed argument!

You have yet to point out a single flaw in my argument,

A STUPID LIE (distinguishable from an ordinary lie by the ease with which a statement can be proved a lie). I stopped writing Msg #376 specifically because I had pointed out a flaw in your argument (one link of the chain could not withstand close scrutiny, and shattered). And in these more-recent posts I've been demolishing your nonsense in multiple places.

since your logic is hypocritical.

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE.

A collection of ad hominem attacks,

MORE DISTORTION BY YOU.

logical fallacies

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE

and unnecessary evidence

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Especially when THAT claim has the basic purpose of Denying Relevant Fact(s). Historically, working within almost any "system", no one has succeeded at changing the status quo without thoroughly understanding how/why the status quo became the status quo. That knowledge allows one to say, "Hey, here's something that got overlooked!" --AND be able to back that statement up with evidence. It is by dealing with the oversight that one has the best chance of altering the status quo. In your case, you have not only not been interested in the relevant History, you have failed to present a valid oversight. There is a very long History of societies punishing stupid men by demanding they pay child support!

does not suffice to prove the claim that child support should be paid on the basis of biology.

NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR, since in actual fact I have not done ad hominem attacks, presented logical fallacies, or provided irrelevant evidence. It Remains True that you are the custodian of your genes, and if they benefit by getting reproduced, YOU get to pay for them experiencing that benefit. Almost exactly like, say, if you are the custodian of a child, and the child breaks a window, you get to pay for that. The only difference is the total magnitude of payment.

Furthermore, there is no biological reason that men should not have the autonomy to reproduce within a family at will.

CURRENTLY? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH! There is no way a man can do that without the help of a woman. Give us a few more years of scientific and technological advancements, before saying that....

That means allowing single, childless men to opt out prior to viability.

THEY CAN DO THAT ALREADY, BY PRACTICING CONTRACEPTION. AND THEY KNOW IT!!! So, if they don't, then either they are Stupid, and deserve to suffer the consequences, or they are actually at some level wanting to have offspring (Actions Speak Louder Than Words!!!), and deserve to pay for the consequences.

Until you can show that this is not possible,

NO NEED; SEE ABOVE.

you are left with your appeal to tradition, treating men like apes.

FALSE, as usual. I am not in the least "appealing to tradition". Actions Have Consequences. PERIOD!

 

[Celebrity]

NOPE. Your mere claim is worthless without evidence. Uniformity is one way of actualizing equality. In the restroom analogy, it can be observed that 3 urinals can fit along the same wall-space as 2 toilet stalls. Therefore a men's restroom tends to have more facilities than a woman's restroom. And so I was actually promoting equality by suggesting the "uniformity" options of either excluding urinals from men's restrooms, or installing them in women's restrooms.

I don't know what evidence you are looking for, but uniformity and equality are not the same thing, and I have stated that opting out is not about making men more like women, or vice-versa. The suggestion you made about restrooms is a strawman argument, and it doesn't matter how many urinals a restroom has. Restrooms need not have an equal number of toilets or urinals fixed to the wall in order to achieve equitable use by men or women. I think this really speaks to your style of argument. Here's the quote we're talking about:

To insist that every aspect of a person must be treated equally with every aspect of any other person means that important differences in bodies can get overlooked, when they actually need to be taken into account (do you put urinals in women's restrooms or remove them from men's restrooms, to ensure equality?).

You do not put urinals in women's restrooms or remove them from men's restrooms in order to ensure equality.
Here is the definition of equality:
equality
/əˈkwälədē/
noun
the state of being equal, especially in status, rights, and opportunities.

Here is the definition of uniformity:

uniformity
[yoo-nuh-fawr-mi-tee]
noun, plural uniformities.
1. the state or quality of being uniform; overall sameness, homogeneity, or regularity:
uniformity of style.
2. something uniform.

These two words are very similar, and as you pointed out, uniformity can be a means to achieve equality. However, I am not interested in how these two words are the same, because I am not interested in uniform reproduction among men and women, I am interested in equitable reproduction among men and women. So, how are they different. Let's look at homogeneity.

Here is the definition of homogeneous
ho·mo·ge·ne·ous
/hōməˈjēnēəs/
adjective
of the same kind; alike.
"timbermen prefer to deal with homogeneous woods"
synonyms: uniform, identical, unvaried, consistent, indistinguishable, homologous, homogenized;
consisting of parts all of the same kind.
"culturally speaking the farmers constitute an extremely homogeneous group"
synonyms: uniform, identical, unvaried, consistent, indistinguishable, homologous, homogenized;

Notice that "uniform" and "identical" occur in the first and second positions, respectively, in the list of synonyms for both definitions. I do not believe that men and women are identical; neither are their respective restroom facilities, nor should their reproductive functions be identical in nature. How is unequal treatment different than equal treatment of men and women? Men and women are treated equally, since they both have the right to use or not use the bathroom, separately. However, men and women are not always treated equally, since they do not both have the right to choose not to reproduce, separately. Only women have this right. Men should also have this right.

THERE IS NEITHER SPIN NOR PEDESTAL INVOLVED IN ACCEPTING FACT. And like I said, you are Discounting if not actually Denying Fact.

Am I to accept the truth of your statements at face value? Your accusation is baseless. Biology should not be used to determine whether or not child support is paid, because the two are unrelated in society except by a vestigial function of the law. It is unusual for involuntary payment to be legally ordered due to biological qualities, or at least, I cannot think of another example which justifies the obligation of child support.

 

[Celebrity]

PARTLY FALSE. I didn't say who was involved in a domestic disturbance. It could be teenage brothers, for example, with the parents out shopping. And the classic adage "blood is thicker than water" exists for a reason.

I think you are confused. I didn't ask whether or not it was a domestic disturbance, regardless of what you may have wanted for me to conclude. Police officers are employed in society, not as biological actors. If family members support one another, it is due to the fact that they share a social bond. Teenage brothers can be half brothers, or not biologically related at all. Can you substantiate any proof that biology compels us to act on a biological relative's behalf? I think not. Not only does your domestic disturbance analogy employ a false premise (that biology causes family members to support one another in society), but its logic doesn't show how biology is of any more importance than coincidence. Domestic disturbances occur with people other than family members.

HUMAN PEOPLE ARE GENERALLY BOTH, so no conflation.

Generally will not work for a proof here. Biology and society are not the same thing, and you are conflating the two. Even if you see both elements in humanity, there are times when a social relationship cannot be characterized as a genetic relationship, or when a genetic relationship cannot be characterized as a social relationship.

FALSE. Every single time I say you distort something (one way or another, like "spin") I either explain the distortion or demand that you provide the exact quote, showing me saying the distorted thing you claimed I said. HERE you appear to be making a generic claim without providing any evidence. Why should your claim be believed?

Your explanations are far from satisfactory, since they engage in fallacy. Your arguments are wanting for logical explanation, since an abundance of evidence with no proof is useless. You have yet to explain how biology compels us to act in certain ways in society, which it does not. Therefore, my claim is not "utterly false."

WHAT INEQUALITY? Human cultures generally expect both parents to support their offspring (excluding exceptions like sperm banks and adoption). Perhaps **you** are the one conflating equality with uniformity!

I am not conflating equality with uniformity. From what I understand, men and women are equally capable of breastfeeding. Do you disagree? My statement that men and women can both breastfeed in no way implies uniformity of male and female breasts.

Can you give an example of how a "general expectation" of culture is anything more than just that? Try to avoid committing the fallacies of appealing to tradition and appealing to authority. If you cannot, then a logical argument for why men should be obligated to support their children on the basis of biology cannot be made by you.

CERTAIN NONUNIFORMITIES EXIST, entirely because the two sexes are not identical to each other. All by yourself, you have claimed men should have a particular equality with women, while failing to take into account the biological differences in the two sexes with respect to human reproduction, which is why the current nonuniformities exist. Yet both are generally still equally expected to support their offspring! No matter how nonuniform is that equality!

Your premise that men and women have biological dissimilarity is sound. I agree that it is the case that men and women are sometimes forced to support their biological children. However, if it is your argument that men and women should be equally repressed, then I must say I disagree with you. If you are repeating your statement about the way things are, then that is not a debate. Either way, you have failed to deconstruct my argument that men and women should have an equal opportunity to not reproduce.

 

[Celebrity]

THEN YOU HAVE DONE A VERY POOR JOB OF EXPLAINING HOW YOUR VERSION OF "EQUALITY" TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE ACTUAL NONUNIFORMITY OF THE HUMAN SEXES.

It is not my duty to explain to you the difference between two words. You may look them up on your own time. I have not done a poor job of explaining how opting out would take place, however you may want to take abortion as analogous to opting out. Once again, the word abort means to cease a process. Since reproductive equality means that society either does or does not allow abortion by men and women, men should have the right to opt out when women have the right to abort. The following are basic principles:
1) If a pregnant woman does not notify any man that she is pregnant, he is not opted in, but opted out by default. He cannot be a part of a relationship of which he has no knowledge, hence he can neither opt in, nor out. Therefore the pregnant woman must notify any one man that she is pregnant in order for him to be considered the father.
2) Any man who is notified of a woman's pregnancy may or may not claim paternity.
3) Any man who opts out of paternity earns the right to a place in a civil paternity suit. If no suit is contested, he is automatically the father.
4) Priority of paternity is given to the biological father for parental rights in the case that paternity is contested.

I realize that this simple concept, if made into statute, would have a significant effect in society and families. That is why it should be made statute. Certain time frames may be applied, for example it has been suggested that viability be used as a threshold beyond which men cannot opt out. Written notification of the decision to opt out can be submitted to a family court in an affidavit, personally retained in written form, or even simply entered and time stamped in a file for use at a later date, much like how emails are stored as digital files on a server.

TSK, TSK! It is my understanding that men usually want women to take on all the birth-control responsibilities, so that they don't have to wear condoms.

Precisely why men should have their own form of social birth control. Not so women don't have to wear dental dams or diaphragms, but for men.

SEE ABOVE

See above.

DEPENDS ON THE "RIGHT". You yourself appear to have argued something to the effect that a woman shouldn't have the right to decide, all by herself, whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term. Even though that is an already-existing right of women.

That is deliberately false and I resent your false accusation. You are flaming, and your argument is getting stale.

MISINTERPRETATION. Would you rather men become forced breastfeeders? While I'm quite aware you don't want men to be forced at all, what I was talking about you could call a "choice between evils", the other of which is "getting away with being forced to just pay money".

False dichotomy. Men should not have to choose between evils, if there is no cause for forcing them. Indentured servants should not have had to make a choice between enduring servitude and getting murdered for leaving their service before their contract was up. We know that indentured servitude is wrong, and we've known it for some time. It's time to stop holding men accountable for something over which they do not have control nor are they a part of.

??? I have no idea how that is relevant. Please explain in detail what you are talking about, there.

Rape is not justified by a choice between rape or murder. We should not celebrate rapists who are also not murderers. We should prosecute rapists for their crimes, and murders for their crimes.

FALSE. The Legal Code is chock-full of coercive consequences of various actions. See "community service", for example. See "chain gangs" for another. See the Thirteenth Amendment! Due Process Of Law allows all sorts of coercive Legal Decisions!

The Thirteenth Amendment does not permit coercive punishment of people who are not criminals. Forcing someone to choose between financial payment or criminal non-payment is coercive in this case. The reason why it is coercive is because it requires that men who are biologically related to children be patrons. Biological fathers are victims if they are not allowed to exercise their reproductive function autonomously, without coercion or forced application of any other individual's reproduction to their livelihood or the livelihood of their family members. We do not force women to reproduce, and we do not force women to abort. We shouldn't force men to reproduce.

 

[Celebrity]

UTTERLY FALSE. YOU ARE NOT YOUR ARGUMENT. It is perfectly possible for quite-intelligent folks to spout idiotic arguments; abortion opponents do it regularly.

Since I made the statement, and not my argument, I take offense to you describing the manner in which it was stated to be idiotic. Your mistake in engaging in personal attacks is compounded by your failure to recognize my description of ad hominem as accurate.
If there is any confusion of how the adverb "idiotically" modifying the construction "you are stating" was in reference to my personal disposition, or how the action could be attributed to anyone but myself, please review below.

First, you are idiotically stating that coerced child support payments cause biological separations (the "due to" I bolded above).

NOT WHAT I CALLED "IDIOTIC" --once again, you are resorting to blatherous distortions! I keep telling you that tactic is not going to work, Debating me, yet you persist in doing it. Do you want me to conclude, based on the evidence you provided in your posts, that you might in actuality qualify for "idiot" status?

Insulting me will not win this debate. Refusing to comment on my statements except to call them "distortions" will not win this debate. Decorating your argument with personal attacks does not serve the purpose of debate. In that respect you have not only failed me, but you have failed anyone who has participated in this debate, or read my posts or yours, including yourself. Aren't you here to do more than just suggest that I am an idiot? I really ought to report you, but by all means, continue to embarrass yourself. I find it amusing, but please do not infer that I enjoy your posts barbed with personal insults. I do not. We simply cannot proceed if you refuse to debate me.

FALSE; YOU WOULD BE CREATING AN INEQUALITY. Simply because human offspring must get support from somewhere, so long as human societies claim they have right-to-life. Currently that burden is usually shared between the biological parents, in alignment with Nature, which has spent hundreds of millions of years evolving the best ways for the most offspring to survive. In their egotism humans have too-often claimed they "knew better than Nature", with disastrous results.

Allowing men to opt out is not creating inequality. Child support coming from somewhere implies neither that biological mothers or biological fathers must be responsible. Biological mothers always choose to be parents voluntarily. We know that because they have a legal choice. Likewise, biological fathers should choose to be parents, or patrons, voluntarily.

MORE DISTORTION; I wasn't talking about your entire argument. I was talking about just two pieces of it, specifically the claim that child support payments caused family separations, and also your calling part of the Law a "vestigial function" without supporting the claim with valid evidence.

My question was actually not a distortion, however it has become clear that you are incapable of reason. When you are confronted with something that is not your opinion, you should try to understand it. Unless you believe that reality is subjective, in which case it might be advantageous to neither pass judgement, nor admit to its existence at all.
Here, I added two commas, now is that better?

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 other words this is meant to say that child support payments can only be used in a circular argument to justify child support payments. Child support payments are a vestigial function of family law.

 

[Celebrity]

FALSE. Ever observed an anthill or a beehive or termite mound? Every individual member of such is a biological robot, acting in accordance with biological programming, and we call them "social insects" because their biology makes them social.

Social behavior is observed in both humans and insects, and biology does not make humans social.

OUR HUMAN BIOLOGY allows us to be far more social than other primates. Just consider an ordinary crowded bus in rush hour traffic, and think about how many women on that bus might be experiencing a "fertile day". For other species, this is an obvious thing that tends to cause males to go on a competitive rampage for access to mating. That makes it kind of tough to be sociable! But because humans don't notice female ovulation, we can be and generally are quite social, most of the time. ON THE OTHER HAND, biology makes every living thing inherently selfish. If you don't think you are acting selfishly when you feed your face, you need to think again! Almost every awake human is constantly weighing selfishness vs sociality at a subconscious level, and frequently at a conscious level (bank robbers are not acting subconsciously!).

In fact, if you're feeling existential, life itself allows us to be more social than inanimate objects. Yes, we are different than other animals and inanimate objects. No, we are not "biologically programmed" to compensate our former sexual partners, regardless of whether or not they choose to procreate.

MORE DISTORTION. The Laws that mandate child support by fathers existed long before women could vote, much less have power to insist certain Laws get passed!

I fail to see the relevance of women's suffrage. Perhaps if you are appealing to tradition you would like to review the longstanding practice of indentured servitude in the US. Neither indentured servitude, nor coercive child support are ethical. This is not distortion.

FALSE, since your conclusion is, as usual, based on an invalid distortion of facts. WHEN are you going to stop doing that???

Can you disprove the premise, logic or conclusion of my arguments? If not, feel free to abstain from typing out every thought that occurs to you in a futile attempt at rational debate.

HOW ARE THEY TRAPPED? Shelters do exist for such women! You are still spewing distortion!!!

Do you not understand what I mean by abuse? There are many different flavors to abuse, none of them worthwhile. Abuse, while unethical is not always illegal and I know that some women would rather entertain an abusive partner than leave an affluent lifestyle. That trap exists only in their mind. For biological fathers, child support is a very real societal force. It cannot be escaped, only deferred or litigated. It can be both chronic and abusive.

 

[Celebrity]

A man who doesn't want offspring should use contraception, or else pay the price for stupidity. How is that not obvious??? (There is no "abuse" in punishing stupidity, because it is OK and normal --and therefore you distort the truth by associating abuse with mandatory child support.) Any argument based on cherry-picked data is a flawed argument!

Should we also tell rape victims that they should have kept their legs closed? This is a thread about birth control, not contraception. Review the OP.

A STUPID LIE (distinguishable from an ordinary lie by the ease with which a statement can be proved a lie). I stopped writing Msg #376 specifically because I had pointed out a flaw in your argument (one link of the chain could not withstand close scrutiny, and shattered). And in these more-recent posts I've been demolishing your nonsense in multiple places.

Please be specific, what link in the chain cannot withstand scrutiny. Whether or not that scrutiny is cause of shattering is not for you to decide. You may be deluded in thinking that you are demolishing my "nonsense," however I have presented a logically sound argument. You have not.

YOUR MERE CLAIM IS WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Especially when THAT claim has the basic purpose of Denying Relevant Fact(s). Historically, working within almost any "system", no one has succeeded at changing the status quo without thoroughly understanding how/why the status quo became the status quo. That knowledge allows one to say, "Hey, here's something that got overlooked!" --AND be able to back that statement up with evidence. It is by dealing with the oversight that one has the best chance of altering the status quo. In your case, you have not only not been interested in the relevant History, you have failed to present a valid oversight. There is a very long History of societies punishing stupid men by demanding they pay child support!

I actually pity you for believing in yourself. Bless your heart, you have come this far just to repeat yourself over and over again. But your evidence is actually not sensible without logical argument. Now you might actually believe the phrase "Your mere claim is worthless without evidence." But how is this relevant? I simply claimed that you have introduced evidence in a facetious argument which attempts to create links among urinals and insects among other things. Granted, it could be done. I simply cannot accept that a claim that society is governed by biology has been shown to be true by a logical argument which you have provided in this thread.

NICE TRY, BUT NO CIGAR, since in actual fact I have not done ad hominem attacks, presented logical fallacies, or provided irrelevant evidence. It Remains True that you are the custodian of your genes, and if they benefit by getting reproduced, YOU get to pay for them experiencing that benefit. Almost exactly like, say, if you are the custodian of a child, and the child breaks a window, you get to pay for that. The only difference is the total magnitude of payment.

Well said, yet absolutely false. You may or may not be the custodian of your genes. If a man reproduced, he would not need to stick around. His misfortune would not be the cause of the end of his lineage.

CURRENTLY? DON'T MAKE ME LAUGH! There is no way a man can do that without the help of a woman. Give us a few more years of scientific and technological advancements, before saying that....

Review what I said. A woman does not suffice as a biological reason for why men should not reproduce within a family. Should she deflect the advances of a man by social endeavors to evade him, then that would be a social reason.

 

[Celebrity]

THEY CAN DO THAT ALREADY, BY PRACTICING CONTRACEPTION. AND THEY KNOW IT!!! So, if they don't, then either they are Stupid, and deserve to suffer the consequences, or they are actually at some level wanting to have offspring (Actions Speak Louder Than Words!!!), and deserve to pay for the consequences.

Contraception is very marginally related to the topic of this thread, if at all. Feel free to review the original post.

My opinion of it is that any use of contraception during a sexual act has nothing to do with an action to stop paternity, and everything to do with an action to prevent insemination. In that sense, contraception and birth control are different. Are they sometimes compared by similarities? Yes, however they may also be contrasted.

Actions Have Consequences. PERIOD!

Indeed, actions have consequences. However, that does not mean that rape victims should have to endure rape by the actions of the perpetrators of a heinous crime. Is rape a consequence? Yes, though the action without consent should have never occurred.

Men should reproduce of their own autonomy, and a violation of that action by removal of consent is far worse than a mistake or misunderstanding. It is coercive and unethical. That is why men should choose between opting out and reproducing autonomously at any stage prior to viability.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I don't know what evidence you are looking for,

YOU CLAIMED I conflated uniformity and equality. THAT is the claim you should support with evidence, else withdraw the claim.

but uniformity and equality are not the same thing,

TRUE

and I have stated ...

YOU DID STATE THAT, YES. You have yet to explain why such selfishness should be tolerated.

... about restrooms is a strawman ...

IT WAS AN EXAMPLE, of why it is important to keep human biology in mind, when Debating things intimately connected to human biology.

and it doesn't matter how many urinals a restroom has.

IT DOES. Most public places have a "maximum occupancy", and one of the factors deciding the number is the ability of its restrooms to accommodate that maximum.

Restrooms need not have an equal number of toilets or ....

TELL THAT TO THE WOMEN STANDING IN LINE.

Here's the quote :

I PRESENTED DATA SUPPORTING A FACTOR YOU WANT TO IGNORE. Human biology can be very relevant to a Conclusion (such as restroom design). While we are Debating a different thing, your mere CLAIM that human biology is irrelevant is just a CLAIM, not supported by any evidence. While I have presented evidence that human biology is extremely relevant.

You do not ... to ensure equality.

I DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY SPECIFY THE EXACT EQUALITY I HAD IN MIND. Partly to see how badly you would miss the target. A very specific equality is quite possible to achieve, and that equality relates to the wait time for access to the facilities. Removing something from the men's restroom would increase their wait time; adding something to the women's restroom could decrease their wait time.

... as you pointed out, uniformity can be a means to achieve equality. ... I am interested in equitable reproduction among men and women.

YET YOUR DEFINITION OF "EQUITABLE" SEEMS TO INVOLVE SELFISHLY DUMPING RESPONSIBILITY ON OTHERS. Therefore it is not actually equitable!

... How is unequal treatment different than equal treatment of men and women?

DUH! EQUAL =/= UNEQUAL I shall assume that was a rhetorical question.

Men and women are treated equally, since they both have the right to use or not use the bathroom, separately.

IT IS NOT EQUAL WHEN WOMEN HAVE TO WAIT LONGER TO GET AT THE FACILITIES.

However, men and women ... do not both have the right to choose not to reproduce, separately.

UTTERLY FALSE. I'm a male who personally/separately spent several decades choosing not to reproduce, quite successfully.

Only women have this right.

UTTERLY FALSE. I know from personal experience.

Men should also have this right.

THEY DO. I know from personal experience.

Am I to accept the truth of your statements at face value?

NOT WHEN I TYPICALLY PROVIDE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. There is no "only face value" in those situations.

Your accusation is baseless.

FALSE. YOU PROVED THE ACCUSATION IS CORRECT, BY SAYING THIS:

Biology should not be used to determine whether or not child support is paid,

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF DENYING ALL RELEVANT FACTS ABOUT BIOLOGY!!!

because the two are unrelated in society except by a vestigial function of the law.

YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF. Any existing legal exception proves the two **ARE** related! And your calling that law a "vestigial function" is once again worthless blather, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

... I cannot think of another example which justifies the obligation of child support.

THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO CRIME FORENSICS. Biology, DNA matching, has made many a criminal pay. And biology controls fingerprints, which also has made many a criminal pay. All such cases are about biology identifying someone responsible. And when a man stupidly becomes responsible for a child, the Law is there to make sure he pays for his stupidity!

 

[year2late]

I . However, men and women are not always treated equally, since they do not both have the right to choose not to reproduce, separately. Only women have this right. Men should also have this right.

Both have the right. Their methods of preventing pregnancy are different.

 

[Henrin]

However, men and women are not always treated equally, since they do not both have the right to choose not to reproduce, separately. Only women have this right. Men should also have this right.

You should word it as the right to opt out of parenthood or the right to choose to be a parent. I choose the later since I don't care for the opt-out idea.

 

[Celebrity]

Both have the right. Their methods of preventing pregnancy are different.

Prevention and birth control are two different things. You appear to be conflating birth control with contraception. The two have similarities, however they are different:

All types of contraception are forms of birth control, but contraceptive forms are more specific in that they are used for the purpose of preventing sperm from reaching a female’s egg. These methods include hormonal pills (birth control pills, known as The Pill”), intra-uterine devices (IUDs), coitus interruptus (the withdrawal method), tubal ligation, hysterectomy, vasectomy, natural planning in which the menstrual cycle is followed to avoid having sex on days when a woman is more likely to get pregnant, barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms), and spermicides.

https://www.stdcheck.com/blog/difference-between-protection-birth-control-and-contraception/

 

[Celebrity]

You should word it as the right to opt out of parenthood or the right to choose to be a parent. I choose the later since I don't care for the opt-out idea.

That is very wise, Henrin.

 

[Celebrity]

YOU CLAIMED I conflated uniformity and equality. THAT is the claim you should support with evidence, else withdraw the claim.

Please refer to my post #383. Unless your analogy is unrelated to the discussion by any serious, meaningful course of logic, then it is conflating the uniform presence of urinals in both men and women's restrooms with equal opportunity to use restroom facilities.

YOU DID STATE THAT, YES. You have yet to explain why such selfishness should be tolerated.

Not only should opting out be tolerated, but it should be accepted as a viable course of action by autonomous male human beings. The explanation I have provided time, and time again, is that it is a matter of equal opportunity reproduction. Coercing men to follow along with the reproductive actions of women by subsidizing their reproductive function is opportunistic, but it is not egalitarian.

IT WAS AN EXAMPLE, of why it is important to keep human biology in mind, when Debating things intimately connected to human biology.

The example is poorly suited to this particular debate, as are some of your other far-fetched claims. Being creative does not make you any more right than a person who uses logic to reveal truthful statements.

IT DOES. Most public places have a "maximum occupancy", and one of the factors deciding the number is the ability of its restrooms to accommodate that maximum.

How is that relevant to this debate? This is the exact same problem you had with "pair bonds" earlier. They may exist in some immaterial, objective and psychological sense, but they in no way define a relationship that should cause men to be coerced into financial instability. We should not allow law to uniformly oppress or engage men to support their biological children simply because the "pair bond" works for some men or some women. The same logic was used to award [SUP]3[/SUP]/[SUB]5[/SUB] of personhood for census purposes. Men should be considered whole persons and they should be wholly autonomous.

Now, we do tax people on things like property, or income. In fact, one could argue that before colonial settlers arrived here, that ownership of land did not exist. That's the subject of another debate. A financial exchange for biological material is a step too far, and should not be asked of any individual who is not in a market for selling reproductive material. Sex, in principle, is not a market. Yes, sex is marketable, but one cannot define all of sex by a series of financial exchanges. We should not prostitute women's reproductive functions, however we should allow men to opt out.

[URL="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/07/womens-restrooms-sexist_n_6431184.html"]TELL THAT TO THE WOMEN STANDING IN LINE

.

Whether or not there is a line for use of restrooms is of no importance to this debate. I cannot think of any reason why this would prevent someone from opting out of one facility, for another facility. For example, women sometimes use men's restrooms because they are cleaner. That's not to say that men's restrooms are always cleaner than women's restrooms, but a woman might choose to use the cleaner of the two.

I PRESENTED DATA SUPPORTING A FACTOR YOU WANT TO IGNORE. Human biology can be very relevant to a Conclusion (such as restroom design). While we are Debating a different thing, your mere CLAIM that human biology is irrelevant is just a CLAIM, not supported by any evidence. While I have presented evidence that human biology is extremely relevant.

I think that you are projecting. I have confronted your data by asking you to link it to society, and you have supported your argument with a failed analogy to domestic dispute. I do not want to ignore human biology. Your argument does not logically lead to the conclusion that men should be forced to pay child support. Human biology may be relevant, but it is in no way sufficient cause for societal function except at the convenience of a vestigial function of family law which discriminates based on gender.

 

[Celebrity]

I DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY SPECIFY THE EXACT EQUALITY I HAD IN MIND. Partly to see how badly you would miss the target. A very specific equality is quite possible to achieve, and that equality relates to the wait time for access to the facilities. Removing something from the men's restroom would increase their wait time; adding something to the women's restroom could decrease their wait time.

I did not miss the target at all by refuting your claim and showing it's lack of support for the argument that men should be forced to pay child support. Simply because your logic failed does not mean that I missed the target. The goal of my argument is to show that men should opt out of reproduction autonomously, and you have either strayed from an attempt to refute that, or failed.

YET YOUR DEFINITION OF "EQUITABLE" SEEMS TO INVOLVE SELFISHLY DUMPING RESPONSIBILITY ON OTHERS. Therefore it is not actually equitable!

It does not selfishly dump responsibility on others. Where are you getting this? Men and women should both reproduce autonomously. Opting out does not force women to reproduce, nor does it force them to take on more responsibility. Any man can be a father, not just the biological father. It's not the responsibility of single mothers to find a suitable father for their future child, however it is their choice. Men should also choose who they want to be involved in their life.

DUH! EQUAL =/= UNEQUAL I shall assume that was a rhetorical question.

Indeed it was. Your reply is a good example of your primitive argument.

IT IS NOT EQUAL WHEN WOMEN HAVE TO WAIT LONGER TO GET AT THE FACILITIES.

Men and women are equally capable of choosing another facility.

UTTERLY FALSE. I'm a male who personally/separately spent several decades choosing not to reproduce, quite successfully.

Congratulations. Your anecdote does not suffice as evidence for a logical argument.

UTTERLY FALSE. I know from personal experience.

See above.

THEY DO. I know from personal experience.

See above, and please, do not expect other people to act like you. Men do not have the right to reproduce autonomously, if they cannot choose to not reproduce autonomously. They simply reproduce or do not reproduce at the discretion of a woman.

NOT WHEN I TYPICALLY PROVIDE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. There is no "only face value" in those situations.

When you do not use logic to link evidence to a conclusion, you are asking for a lot of inference. I cannot accept evidence of being anything more than inherently true, if unrelated to your claim. I could provide evidence of many different, unrelated things which would not relate to this debate. I choose not to as part of a reasoned approach.

THAT IS THE ESSENCE OF DENYING ALL RELEVANT FACTS ABOUT BIOLOGY!!!

No, that is not denying any facts about biology. That is showing the non-existence of a link between biology and actions in society. Once again, your accusation is baseless.

YOU CONTRADICT YOURSELF. Any existing legal exception proves the two **ARE** related! And your calling that law a "vestigial function" is once again worthless blather, unsupported by any evidence whatsoever.

I have not contradicted myself in anyway. My argument is that it is a vestigial function of family law to order child support on the basis of biology, because no proof exists to link the two. Using the law as justification for itself is a circular argument. That why you have failed to prove anything beyond the existence of law. I believe I even referred to the law which should leave no illusion that I am not aware of it's existence. I am not sure why you continue to bring up evidence without drawing conclusions other than "worthless blather," which by the way is immature, unreasonable and poorly received.

THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION TO CRIME FORENSICS. Biology, DNA matching, has made many a criminal pay. And biology controls fingerprints, which also has made many a criminal pay. All such cases are about biology identifying someone responsible. And when a man stupidly becomes responsible for a child, the Law is there to make sure he pays for his stupidity!

Reproduction is not a crime. In the same way that child support is not covered under the 13th amendment, crime forensics have nothing to do with abortion or child support. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[trouble13]

TELL THAT TO THE WOMEN STANDING IN LINE.
!

I read the article and honestly found her to be the one who is being sexist. I assume you agree with her or you would not of linked it.

The article has little to do with biology. She says women pee more often than men which I would like too evidence of that if its true because that's really not been my observation.

Now I'm not an expert on bathrooms and maybe a plumber can tell us if it's true that women typically have less fixtures to use. I can tell you I go places that have identical bathrooms and when it's crowded the women's line is usually longer than the men's line. It's not about biology though. They do not pee slower. They take more time in the bathroom for a variety of other reasons. I do however agree that men have an advantage over them when it comes to peeing. I have no idea how that's relevant in a debate about child support, lol.

It does however lead me to an interesting question. I'm guessing you think more fixtures should be added to women's rooms to make wait times equal. What should be done for men to make their rights equal for abortions?




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FutureIncoming]

What should be done for men to make their rights equal for abortions?

This is one possibility.

 

[trouble13]

This is one possibility.

So your not into having a serious discussion?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[FutureIncoming]

So your not into having a serious discussion?

THAT WAS SERIOUS. For men to have a right to abort, equal to women, they need to be as pregnant as women. Simple!