- Joined
- Jul 6, 2017
- Messages
- 122,485
- Reaction score
- 19,848
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Their argument gets sillier and sillier. LOL
So you don't support equal rights regarding opt out rights but you do support suicide... nice. Really nice.
Their argument gets sillier and sillier. LOL
Nope, all men might be "created equal" but they don't all act equally - men who want to give up on life and demand other men pay for their irresponsibility aren't going to get much sympathy, for that matter I doubt most women care about the plight of stereotypical "SJWs" warriors either - it's just rabble rousing designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The MRA schtick is just a "radical feminism" for entitled manchildren who thinks the world owes them a handout just for the virtue of existing.So you don't support equal rights regarding opt out rights but you do support suicide... nice. Really nice.
Nope, all men might be "created equal" but they don't all act equally - men who want to give up on life and demand other men pay for their irresponsibility aren't going to get much sympathy, for that matter I doubt most women care about the plight of stereotypical "SJWs" warriors either - it's just rabble rousing designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The MRA schtick is just a "radical feminism" for entitled manchildren who thinks the world owes them a handout just for the virtue of existing.
Nope, all men might be "created equal" but they don't all act equally - men who want to give up on life and demand other men pay for their irresponsibility aren't going to get much sympathy, for that matter I doubt most women care about the plight of stereotypical "SJWs" warriors either - it's just rabble rousing designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The MRA schtick is just a "radical feminism" for entitled manchildren who thinks the world owes them a handout just for the virtue of existing.
So you don't support equal rights regarding opt out rights but you do support suicide... nice. Really nice.
Nope, all men might be "created equal" but they don't all act equally - men who want to give up on life and demand other men pay for their irresponsibility aren't going to get much sympathy, for that matter I doubt most women care about the plight of stereotypical "SJWs" warriors either - it's just rabble rousing designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator. The MRA schtick is just a "radical feminism" for entitled manchildren who thinks the world owes them a handout just for the virtue of existing.
Financially they are EXACTLY equal. Perfectly equal and in the eyes of the court they can be treated as equal. That is a simple factI do. If men get pregnant...they should have all the same, equal rights as a woman in the same position.
What else could ever make that equal? It has to be 2 people in the same situation. A woman is pregnant. A man is not. If the man is pregnant, it should apply to him *equally*.
As much as you want to deny it, currently the situations are not equal, deny the biological component all you want...it doesn't make it irrelevant.
A pregnant woman deciding not to become a mother and a non-pregnant man deciding not to be come a father are *not the same or equal*. There is no reason to pretend they should be treated equally. And you have not shown any reasons why the law should treat them the same when it only entails letting a man out of paying for a risk he knowingly accepted.
So go ahead...tell me specifically what I dont understand or ignore. Be very specific.
It's a belief in being entitled to sex without consequences.
I do. If men get pregnant...they should have all the same, equal rights as a woman in the same position.
What else could ever make that equal? It has to be 2 people in the same situation. A woman is pregnant. A man is not. If the man is pregnant, it should apply to him *equally*.
As much as you want to deny it, currently the situations are not equal, deny the biological component all you want...it doesn't make it irrelevant.
A pregnant woman deciding not to become a mother and a non-pregnant man deciding not to be come a father are *not the same or equal*. There is no reason to pretend they should be treated equally. And you have not shown any reasons why the law should treat them the same when it only entails letting a man out of paying for a risk he knowingly accepted.
So go ahead...tell me specifically what I dont understand or ignore. Be very specific.
Sure thing.
One parent deciding to not be a parent after conception is equal to thAnd what e other parent deciding to not be a parent after conception.
The law is unequal.
One parent deciding to not be a parent after conception is equal to the other parent deciding to not be a parent after conception.
And what justification exists for the law to be changed?
The law's priority isnt to make it equal. There's nowhere that says that.
And to do so means men avoid paying for something they directly and knowingly created...so it's financially 'not equal' for the taxpayers.
So since 'arbitrary equality' has no value...what justification would the legal system have to allow men to opt out?
This isnt true, btw. One parent has physical choice. The other a financial choice. Those are not remotely equal. And you've been told that a million times but you "choose" to claim that the biological aspect is irrelevant. It's not. By definition: abortion and paying $$ are not remotely equal. They are not the same and they are not equal. Paying $ wont kill you, for one example.
Saying they are doesnt make them equal.
Saying speeding and paying a fine for speeding are equal doesnt make it true.
A (ridiculous) law allowing blind people to fly planes so they are equal to sighted people doesnt make that 'equality' of any value at all. It would actually harm society. And so no such law would be created.
The 14th amendment
This isnt true, btw. One parent has physical choice. The other a financial choice. Those are not remotely equal. And you've been told that a million times but you "choose" to claim that the biological aspect is irrelevant. It's not. By definition: abortion and paying $$ are not remotely equal. They are not the same and they are not equal. Paying $ wont kill you, for one example.
Saying they are doesnt make them equal.
Saying speeding and paying a fine for speeding are equal doesnt make it true.
A (ridiculous) law allowing blind people to fly planes so they are equal to sighted people doesnt make that 'equality' of any value at all. It would actually harm society. And so no such law would be created.
And what justification exists for the law to be changed?
The law's priority isnt to make it equal. There's nowhere that says that.
And to do so means men avoid paying for something they directly and knowingly created...so it's financially 'not equal' for the taxpayers.
So since 'arbitrary equality' has no value...what justification would the legal system have to allow men to opt out?
Someday "maybe" you'll learn that baiting one-liners dont get responses that take you seriously.
If you have any substance to discuss, post it.
Otherwise, people that just bait and retreat are taken as empty, desperate, needy attention-seekers not capable of cogent discussion.
Both parents could have a financial choice. It is a FACT that some women choose abortion ONLY because of financial reasons
Can you see where frequently a financial consideration may actually be a health care consideration?
Working poor woman. No health care insurance. Too rich for Medicaid. Pregnancy happens. If she remains pregnant, she could probably qualify for emergency Medicaid. That would likely send her to an overburdened clinic that is not close to her home. Because of the inconvenience traveling to an overburdened clinic she will likely need to miss days from work to make appts . Then if she has complications she needs to take more time off which she cannot afford - leaving her at risk for loss of home or utilities or phone. Ending a pregnancy for financial reasons is frequently about needing to assure health,safety and security.
Thinking that most women make a decision to abort for purely financial reasons is silly narrative. What may present as financial is a multilayered concern over health, safety, and security.
Yes, a woman may answer "financial reasons" when asked......they are likely not only thinking about money to raise a child. They are thinking about potential loss of income and how that well affect their safety and security even BEFORE a child is born. It only compounds once a baby arrives on the scene.
Men can't physically become pregnant - so your argument is basically that you wish you had been born a woman and that nature was unfair to you by making you born as the "less privileged sex".This doesn't address why men should not be treated equally and get a post conception opt out of parenting like women get.
Men can't physically become pregnant - so your argument is basically that you wish you had been born a woman and that nature was unfair to you by making you born as the "less privileged sex".
Men can't physically become pregnant -
so your argument is basically that you wish you had been born a woman
and that nature was unfair to you by making you born as the "less privileged sex".
Men can't physically become pregnant
That has no bearing on a post conception financial opt out for men
The argument is financial opt out... so... Straw Man... Red Herring... Wrong... Feeble... take your pick.
This is Lursa's two-step attempt to not admit to being wrong...
...and the 14th Amendment demands equality, hence non-discrimination laws.
What would you like to know about the 14th amendment and how it relates to this case even after the strict scrutiny doctrine applies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?