If you are pro-choice, do you think a man should have the choice not to pay alimony?

[LadyCaptain]

Missed this the first time



His premise is about the man not wanting to be a father and being forced to, at least legally/financially.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

That makes sense - I'll try to be more helpful to the OP:

If a man doesn't want to be a father - the most foolproof way is to not randomly blow his spermatozoa all over the universe.

 

[maquiscat]

Men are routinely forced to be fathers when they dont want to be because they dont have the same right to abort their child. Thats a fact. Careful, fact deniers meet my 0 tolerance rules.

You keep trying this, but you fail every time because he has the same right to choose to remove a ZEF from his body as she has to choose to remove a ZEF from her body.

That is a completely separate issue from the child support issue. You are falsely conflating the two.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

By your logic a man can marry a man when he grows a vagina.

That's a rather big leap. How to you figure that? Step me through that logic process, because I see nothing in what I wrote that would logically reach your conclusion. By what I put out a person with a penis has the same right to marry a person with a penis as much as a person with a vagina has a right to marry a person with a vagina.

I also noticed that you completely ignored all the questions asking you to back up your claims of what I said. I've little.choice but to guess that you can't.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

You think just because you're raped, you become pregnant?

You missed it completely. Not all rapes that occur between a man and a woman using PIV will result in pregnancy. But some will. Many have. It is irrelevant as to which gender does the raping, pregnancy is a possible result. When the woman is the one raping the man, she could become pregnant, thus making him a father against his will.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[AlphaOmega]

You keep trying this, but you fail every time because he has the same right to choose to remove a ZEF from his body as she has to choose to remove a ZEF from her body.

That is a completely separate issue from the child support issue. You are falsely conflating the two.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Sorry you can keep trying your failed argument, it wont work anymore on the tenth try as it did on your first. The right in question is the mans right to kill his own child. The location of the child is your argument not mine. A father should have every right to kill his child same as the mother. Please kick the field goal over your location of the goalposts again, the points wont count unless they goal posts are where they are supposed to be.

 

[AlphaOmega]

That's a rather big leap. How to you figure that? Step me through that logic process, because I see nothing in what I wrote that would logically reach your conclusion. By what I put out a person with a penis has the same right to marry a person with a penis as much as a person with a vagina has a right to marry a person with a vagina.

I also noticed that you completely ignored all the questions asking you to back up your claims of what I said. I've little.choice but to guess that you can't.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Its not my logic its yours! Hahahah thanks for that? Nothing like seeing someone confused by their own logic when put a mask on it. Priceless.

 

[LadyCaptain]

Sorry you can keep trying your failed argument, it wont work anymore on the tenth try as it did on your first. The right in question is the mans right to kill his own child. The location of the child is your argument not mine. A father should have every right to kill his child same as the mother. Please kick the field goal over your location of the goalposts again, the points wont count unless they goal posts are where they are supposed to be.

So - let me understand - your argument is different than the OP's. Your argument is not so much about not wanting to pay child support but wanting to force women to have abortions.

Am I reading your post correctly?

 

[AlphaOmega]

So - let me understand - your argument is different than the OP's. Your argument is not so much about not wanting to pay child support but wanting to force women to have abortions.

Am I reading your post correctly?

Yes. Are you against equal rights? We arent aborting women.

 

[maquiscat]

Ok - that makes sense. I guess I am so used to hearing the complaint about "killing the babies" that I sometimes conflate the two. I do think "killing her child" was used as an emotional term to try to elicit a specific response - but yes words have meanings so I concede the point and I'll keep it in mind in the future.

Part of my reason for being here is a desire to be a better debater and I find this post helpful.

Oh indeed the phrase is used mostly for the emotional impact. Doesn't make it any less true. If something is true, use it back at them, pointing out that they are attaching their own emotions subjectively to objective facts.

Hope to see you around more.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Men are routinely forced to be fathers when they dont want to be because they dont have the same right to abort their child. Thats a fact. Careful, fact deniers meet my 0 tolerance rules.

Do know why I missed that last line first time, but you are meeting your own 0 tolerance rules giving that you are denying facts, and presenting false "facts". Men absolutely have the same right to abort any child that is in their own body. That is the key. In their own body. If a woman gives up an egg and has it fertilized and placed in another woman for gestation (and this is not unheard of) then the egg donor, the mother of the ZEF, has no right to force the now pregnant woman to get an abortion if the mother changes her mind, nor to force the pregnant woman to carry to term, if the pregnant woman changes her mind. Your body, you decide what's in it or not. Anything else is a separate issue.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Disagree.

I happen to think that if the woman wants to keep the child and the man does not, he should have the option of relinquishing all rights and obligations to the child.

I should of qualified it by saying "many women"

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[AlphaOmega]

Do know why I missed that last line first time, but you are meeting your own 0 tolerance rules giving that you are denying facts, and presenting false "facts". Men absolutely have the same right to abort any child that is in their own body. That is the key. In their own body. If a woman gives up an egg and has it fertilized and placed in another woman for gestation (and this is not unheard of) then the egg donor, the mother of the ZEF, has no right to force the now pregnant woman to get an abortion if the mother changes her mind, nor to force the pregnant woman to carry to term, if the pregnant woman changes her mind. Your body, you decide what's in it or not. Anything else is a separate issue.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Again your goal post field goals dont count. The fetus is factually half his.

 

[maquiscat]

Sorry you can keep trying your failed argument, it wont work anymore on the tenth try as it did on your first.

Pot, kettle, achromatic?

The right in question is the mans right to kill his own child. The location of the child is your argument not mine. A father should have every right to kill his child same as the mother. Please kick the field goal over your location of the goalposts again, the points wont count unless they goal posts are where they are supposed to be.

The problem is that you are conflating two separate things. Once the offspring leaves the body, there is no right of either parent to terminate said off spring. And technically, said right does not exist prior to either in and of itself. It is the same principle of my right to swing my fist ends at your face, since that would violate your rights. The right of the offspring ends where it affects the bearer's body. An offspring in a woman's womb does not affect a man's body. You are running from an entirely false premise

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Its not my logic its yours! Hahahah thanks for that? Nothing like seeing someone confused by their own logic when put a mask on it. Priceless.

Incorrect. I provided where my logic went, which is nowhere near where yours went. Hence you deviated somewhere. I am simply asking you to show me how you came to a different conclusion than I did. After all if you can't show and support your own logic as I did, how can we understand any of your arguments?

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

BBM -

That would be a good idea if it were in contract form to be signed by both parties before conception. That way a woman can be aware that she's dealing with a very immature person and act accordingly.

That's a good point and I agree that 1 party has an obligation to tell the other party what their 8ntentions are with thier child but unfortunately men are not even entitled to knowing that they are going to become fathers if the woman chooses that they are not informed. With that in mind why do you think women should be entitled to information that currently the law does not provide for men?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

Again your goal post field goals dont count. The fetus is factually half his.

And her body fully hers. If there is a way to transfer the fetus to his body, or even an external artificial womb to continue gestation, with a procedure that is equally or less traumatic on her body than the abortion, for the situation of him wanting it and her not, then I would be all for his right to take over gestation of the ZEF. As for the reverse, he can no more force a procedure on her then she can one on him. All other issues, such as post birth child support are a different issue altogether.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[maquiscat]

That's a good point and I agree that 1 party has an obligation to tell the other party what their 8ntentions are with thier child but unfortunately men are not even entitled to knowing that they are going to become fathers if the woman chooses that they are not informed. With that in mind why do you think women should be entitled to information that currently the law does not provide for men?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

I'll let the Lady speak for herself, of course, but I am guessing that she is speaking in the context of the man being able to opt out of parental responsibilities on a legal legal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

 

[SDET]

guess you only support false premises you agree with. A man should have just as much right to abort their child as the female...and according to you sex is not supposed to enter our law, except when you need it to fit your argument. Which of your premises is false they both cant be true.

Correct, and that "just as much right" should be no right to abortion. On the issue of mandated child support, I have no problem with it, but with that money should come authority on how the child is raised plus incarceration for interference of visitation.

 

[AlphaOmega]

Pot, kettle, achromatic?



The problem is that you are conflating two separate things. Once the offspring leaves the body, there is no right of either parent to terminate said off spring. And technically, said right does not exist prior to either in and of itself. It is the same principle of my right to swing my fist ends at your face, since that would violate your rights. The right of the offspring ends where it affects the bearer's body. An offspring in a woman's womb does not affect a man's body. You are running from an entirely false premise

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Wrong the argument is over the right to kill the child. Nothing more. Both parents should be able to decide whether to kill or keep. The lovation is your argument and irrelevant. With that my 0 tolerance is in effect.

 

[LadyCaptain]

That's a good point and I agree that 1 party has an obligation to tell the other party what their 8ntentions are with thier child but unfortunately men are not even entitled to knowing that they are going to become fathers if the woman chooses that they are not informed. With that in mind why do you think women should be entitled to information that currently the law does not provide for men?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The information that women would be entitled to is whether the man in question would object to paying child support for any progeny that may be conceived. I think a man already knows if he's a deadbeat or not.

 

[trouble13]

I'll let the Lady speak for herself, of course, but I am guessing that she is speaking in the context of the man being able to opt out of parental responsibilities on a legal legal.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

That's how I understood her as well. I took it as she feels the woman should be notified of the mans intention.

I'm pointing out that women currently are not held to that obligation. A man can litterally find out he is a father years after the birth because the woman chose not to inform and then she can demand back support for that child after she has denied him and his child the opprotunity to know one another.

Society likes to lecture men on their obligations but largely give women a free pass in terms of their reciprocal responsibilities. Men who pay mommy support are not even entitled to know how their support payments are being used let alone if their money is being spent on their child.

The underlying theme in the OP is asking the question of what we consider fair. Imo men are treated very unfairly when it comes to parental rights. I find it enlightening when women point out the unfairness when its suggested that men being legally powered to be as inconsiderate as they are empowered to be, that they are fast to raise objections. Yet when men point similar objections about the current system their complaints are often met with the sentimate that men knew the risks before they opted to have sex and if they dont like them they should not have sex.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[OldFatGuy]

This is something I'll never understanding around current laws, in the US at least. If a mother doesn't want to become a parent she doesn't have to. She can kill a child and walk away with a clean slate.

Flip it around and it's a completely different story. If a man doesn't want to become a parent, tough luck. The woman can decide to keep the baby and the man is legally forced to pay alimony. That's a direct contradiction to pro-"choice". You're only letting the woman have a choice while completely ignoring the choice of a man.

It's also a violation of the "my body, my choice" argument. Forcing a man to pay alimony is dictating what he can and can't do with this body. That alimony would come from the effort of his labour. His hands flipping burgers. He'd likely have to take up more hours at work in order to be able to afford the alimony payments and maintain the same standard of living for himself. That's a violation of his bodily autonomy, is it not?

It's hard to deny that women get the better end of the deal when it comes to sex and parent planning. It really makes it impossible to swallow the whole "male privilege" myth.

What are your thoughts?

This display of an illogical attempt to equate alimony (which is misused) with abortion shows the ignorance of right to lifers. Alimony is financial support for a spouse by the spouse who provided the greater family income, and is not solely relegated from male to female. It has nothing to do with child support, another payment dictated by the court settlement or marital dissolution agreement outside of a court. Your argument assumes the father of the child or children, took no positive part in the decision for birth. Ridiculous. He always had the option of saying no, and could have used birth control or abstained from sex. Nor does a marital dissolution dictate the only scenario for child support. He would be responsible for out of wedlock child support (if only on a moral basis), and within a marital arrangement for child support if the bread winning parent. If the mother were the bread winning parent she would be responsible for the child support.

This entire presentation is irrelevant to the so called "male privilege myth." Moreover, throughout most of history men have played a dominant role between male/female personal and societal relationships and that is the basis of male privilege, not anything else as you claim. No matter how manipulative the women in your life have been.

Frankly, this is two stupid arguments. Swallow, you might not choke. You dip the stick, you pay the costs.

 

[sangha]

Your previous logic was all I needed to demonstrate. Thanks.

I have yet to see you demonstrate any logic in your posts

 

[sangha]

So let me start with I did notice that words were missing from what I intended to write. It should read:

"I take from your statement that a man does not have to become a parent against his choice by making the choice not to have sex to start with."

Your initial statement was that he is not forced to become a parent against his choice.

Sent from my Z982 using Tapatalk

Correct, but to be clear, a man is not forced to become a parent against his choice. When a man has sex with a woman, he is making a choice, and there are consequences to his choices.

 

[OldFatGuy]

The OP does not even understand the difference between alimony and child support. All he knows is that he is a white male who is unfairly treated. No matter what situation he faces in life. It's part of the Palin/Trump movement. Failed people looking to blame others. Palin and now Trump justify that failure, it's never their fault, they are "victims." It's like giving them absolution for failed lives.

Trump pays support for all his children that he knows of. It is just as wrong to assign political labels to these type of arguments as to whine about child support and alimony.

On a personal basis, I am morally opposed to abortion with the exceptions of maintaining a mother's life or the elimination of non-vital fetus. However, I respect that decision for an abortion is not mine, and I have no right to impose my opinion for any potential mother. The conceptual position about abortion is not a strictly yes or no issue. There are many mitigating factors, including the position of a potential father to take full responsibility for the child subsequent to birth. And for gay men, the choice of fatherhood by adoption or surrogacy exemplifies that possibility.