• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Involuntary Servitude part 8: Child Support

Bodhisattva said:
So you don't support equal rights regarding opt out rights but you do support suicide... nice. Really nice.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Rinzai said:
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.
Click to expand...

This doesn't address why men should not be treated equally and get a post conception opt out of parenting like women get.
 
Rinzai said:
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.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your detailed thesis on strict scrutiny doctrine and how it applies here
 
Bodhisattva said:
So you don't support equal rights regarding opt out rights but you do support suicide... nice. Really nice.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Rinzai said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's a belief in being entitled to sex without consequences.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...
Financially they are EXACTLY equal. Perfectly equal and in the eyes of the court they can be treated as equal. That is a simple fact
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure thing.

One parent deciding to not be a parent after conception is equal to the other parent deciding to not be a parent after conception.

The law is unequal.
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Bodhisattva said:
One parent deciding to not be a parent after conception is equal to the other parent deciding to not be a parent after conception.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

Both parents could have a financial choice. It is a FACT that some women choose abortion ONLY because of financial reasons
 
vegas giants said:
The 14th amendment
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

The argument is financial opt out... so... Straw Man... Red Herring... Wrong... Feeble... take your pick.

Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is Lursa's two-step attempt to not admit to being wrong...

...and the 14th Amendment demands equality, hence non-discrimination laws.
 
Lursa said:
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.
Click to expand...

What would you like to know about the 14th amendment and how it relates to this case even after the strict scrutiny doctrine applies?
 
vegas giants said:
Both parents could have a financial choice. It is a FACT that some women choose abortion ONLY because of financial reasons
Click to expand...

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.
 
year2late said:
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.
Click to expand...

No reason is required to be given when getting an abortion. To say that finances are not a big part of it is just silly. A woman is making a financial decision every time. A man should also get to make that decision post conception
 
Bodhisattva said:
This doesn't address why men should not be treated equally and get a post conception opt out of parenting like women get.
Click to expand...
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".
 
Rinzai said:
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".
Click to expand...

That has no bearing on a post conception financial opt out for men
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Equal is not 'financial.' That's in your head.

What you mean is...you dont want to pay. Fine...that's understandable. If you didnt want a kid, why would you want to pay for one?

But it has zero to do with fair or just or equal. It has to do with choices. And if you choose to take a risk, you dont get to choose not to accept the consequences later.

I'm not wrong. What you want isnt equal and it's not ethical. It lays someone's direct choices on people entirely not responsible for those choices. If you didnt want that consequence...why did you take the risk?
 
vegas giants said:
What would you like to know about the 14th amendment and how it relates to this case even after the strict scrutiny doctrine applies?
Click to expand...

That sentence doesnt quite make sense but demonstrate how the 14th amendment justifies men opting out of parenthood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom