You really need to do your research.
Young men don't get ED? Really?
Nice retort haha. The amount of Viagra being sold does NOT match how many people actually suffer from ED. They market this stuff to men in their 50's, which again, is the normal age to be much less sexually active.
They are in jail for failure and refusal to pay. A completely different issue than what we are discussing.
And if you go to jail, it doesn't negate the fact that you still owe that money. So the jail is punishment for breaking the law, or refusing to comply with a court order.
That is a rather silly question since CARRYING a child and SUPPORTING a child are two completely different things.
You didn't answer the question.Have you ever seen an ED commercial? Those pills aren't marketed towards young men....
Women consent to parenthood when they have sex too. Unless they choose to have an abortion.It is a blatantly sexist double standard.
For all their bluster about how we anti-abortion folks "hate women," it is indisputable that any one who supports the notion that men consent to parenthood and its obligations when they have sex...
... whereas women only consent to parenthood when they give birth...
... is a misandrist. Period.
Different, and yet, forcing either to DO either still results in the same theme...slavery.
No it isn't. Turn off the drama queen.
Women consent to parenthood when they have sex too. Unless they choose to have an abortion.
How so?If the latter is acceptable, the former is not true.
In either case it's involuntary servitude.
Not really. No one is forcing you to work. Just forcing you to pay child support if you do.
How so?
If you have sex, you're effectively consenting to the possibility children will result, barring intervention by contraceptives or abortion.
I look at it this way:If you can just legally kill your kid then you're objectively not held to have consented to create offspring and you're not held to the standard of parental responsibility.
Semantics, and meaningless due to the complete lack of difference in real results.
Does a man not supporting his child violate the child's rights? If it doesn't, then how does you argument have standing? How can you claim that another human being is owed the support from an unwilling party? Isn't that argument counter to everything we know about human rights? Furthermore, if a woman carries a child to term because she wants a child, how is it right that she can force other parties to go along with her decision? Why should she not be responsible for her own decisions? The man made the choice to have sex and so did she, and both of them at that time decided if they consented to a child or not, so why does her consent override his? The man and the woman both have the same rights and this fact leads to both of them having control over their body and property. Neither one of them can declare that their decisions override the will of other party.
Absolutely. But you are wrong that it "carries no weight". It actually carries a lot of weight. Since the woman is the one who bears the responsibility of carrying the child, the ultimate decision making is hers. Once the child is born then you are correct, since she no longer carries the child, both parties have equal claim.
People have gone to jail for failure to pay child support*, yet we don't have "debtor prisons", at least officially and in name. Technically, they went to jail for contempt of court, but the contempt was failure to pay child support.It's not semantics unless you just don't care about the truth.
For example, you can't go to jail for refusing to take part in medical experiments. However, if you accept money to be in one and then back out and refuse to pay the money back, then you could go to jail for failure to pay them back.
You could say "he went to jail cause he didn't take part in a medical experiment!" But we both know that's not the real reason. It's dishonest.
reality which trumps both scenarios: women bear the children - men do not.
People have gone to jail for failure to pay child support*, yet we don't have "debtor prisons", at least officially and in name. Technically, they went to jail for contempt of court, but the contempt was failure to pay child support.
*- Not overly common, but not unheard of, either.
Why should he? He did the act - she can't do it without him (well, not counting using a fertility clinic) - and so he HAD to know what he was doing, and the possible consequences thereof.
He knew the possible consequences...and did it anyway. That's great irresponsibility on his part. A man does not, should not get any 'right' to something that was the direct result of HIS irresponsibility.
How any conservative or libertarian could argue otherwise is beyond me. Ah, but I forget - for conservatives and libertarians, their cherished principles are only for those times when it's convenient to abide by those principles...but when those principles force uncomfortable choices, well, ha-RUMPH, that means that the principles go out the window!
Generally, yes. That, and a belligerent defiant attitude doesn't help, either.Going to jail for child support is generally a case where its been a long time coming and nothing else has worked to get him to pay his share for the child.
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?