Openminded, looking for intelligent arguments.

[year2late]

Why would i? They arnt any good after they pass a certain age.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

The condoms or he women?

 

[Henrin]

The condoms or he women?

He is clearly referring to women with his comment.

 

[year2late]

Why would i? They arnt any good after they pass a certain age.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Because once women reach fifty or so age hits them like a brick in the face.

It course varies though. Some women are old as **** looking by the time they hit thirty-seven.

Will the real Donald Trump, please stand up.....

 

[Henrin]

Will the real Donald Trump, please stand up.....

Facts are just facts, ma'am.

 

[trouble13]

Will the real Donald Trump, please stand up.....

Rosie, is that you?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[joG]

Those killings involved born persons.

Most civil societies allow abortions for rape, incest, threat to health of fetus/mother and risk to the woman's life.
About two- thirds of our nations allow elective abortions in the first trimester give or take a few weeks.

The United Nation has declared abortion a human right.

So what? That is obviously an arbitrary dividing line with significance only to the believers.

 

[minnie616]

So what? That is obviously an arbitrary dividing line with significance only to the believers.

A very well thought out and merciful dividing line that values the woman's born life more than the early unborn whose brain waves before about 26 weeks gestation are as flat and unorganized as those of a brain dead person.

 

[Removable Mind]

So what? That is obviously an arbitrary dividing line with significance only to the believers.

So, born women are somehow a lesser valued party than an embryo/early stage fetus because - "only to believers that speak on behalf of the yet to be born" because they are claiming that the yet to be born dividing line is more important - because, uhmmmm, for what reason is that again?

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

What's the simple legal point?

The thread started with "a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict". That means that the woman is not legally responsible for the life that she has created. Men on the other hand are legally bound to provide up to nearly two decades of support at the point of conception. It is a visible legal difference based purely on one's sex.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

You play this out like it is a game of "tag your it".

If a baby is born, there were two people responsible for it's creation. At that point it is about those two people supporting their child.

You simply realize that you are losing. You want to give one person a legal choice that you would deny to the next based purely on gender. It is hypocrisy at its worst. Just say I support rights given to women alone as unconstitutional as the concept is, and spare me the reasoning for it.

 

[Removable Mind]

The thread started with "a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict". That means that the woman is not legally responsible for the life that she has created. Men on the other hand are legally bound to provide up to nearly two decades of support at the point of conception. It is a visible legal difference based purely on one's sex.

Thanks for the reply. I can clearly see the inequalities in rights and laws that impact men in a profound way with regard to several issues related to reproduction.

Given what we know, I think that unless these inequalities are approached from a way that doesn't elicit a Supreme Court or Legislative response, then there is what appears to me a futility that's going to linger for sometime to come in the future.

Men's Rights Groups have virtually failed to break through the legal walls, if you will, to somehow equal the playing field.

I've seen some posters offer their 2 cents worth on a remedy, but if I respond to those in a way that points out a fallacy, or perhaps, just noting that they aren't connecting all of the dots, the complexities involved, then I'm accused of "appealing to authority". I don't subscribe to, nor do I believe that the inequities are the right thing, but yet, I personally don't see how to use the conventional instruments of law to somehow alleviate some significant liabilities that men do have to live with...without recourse.

 

[Henrin]

The thread started with "a proper respect for the right to human autonomy, especially over body, which should be one of the most essential and inalienable rights, requires that even if we grant personhood to a fetus we could not tell a woman she could not evict". That means that the woman is not legally responsible for the life that she has created. Men on the other hand are legally bound to provide up to nearly two decades of support at the point of conception. It is a visible legal difference based purely on one's sex.

They try to avoid that point by appealing to children. The problem is they flat out ignore that the man is being held responsible for having sex, while the woman is being held responsible for deciding to not have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. They say they women shouldn't have to avoid sex if they don't want to have a child, but they will claim all day that men should avoid sex if they don't want to pay child support. They say telling women to get fixed if they don't want children is wrong, but they will make that argument all day for men if they don't want to pay child support.

The courts many even recommend the man get himself fixed if he has a bunch of kids he owes child support for. Do you think the courts will recommend a woman get herself fixed if she gets a whole bunch of abortions? Nope.

 

[calamity]

They try to avoid that point by appealing to children. The problem is they flat out ignore that the man is being held responsible for having sex, while the woman is being held responsible for deciding to not have an abortion or give the child up for adoption. They say they women shouldn't have to avoid sex if they don't want to have a child, but they will claim all day that men should avoid sex if they don't want to pay child support. They say telling women to get fixed if they don't want children is wrong, but they will make that argument all day for men if they don't want to pay child support.

The courts many even recommend the man get himself fixed if he has a bunch of kids he owes child support for. Do you think the courts will recommend a woman get herself fixed if she gets a whole bunch of abortions? Nope.

The solution to avoid child support is to convince the woman to not name you as the father. Lots of guys are pulling that one off. All it takes is having some game.


...or maybe just not having any money and being a dick.

 

[joG]

A very well thought out and merciful dividing line that values the woman's born life more than the early unborn whose brain waves before about 26 weeks gestation are as flat and unorganized as those of a brain dead person.

For those in who's interest it is such lines are always said to be well thought through and all that. People call that talking one's own book.

 

[year2late]

You simply realize that you are losing. You want to give one person a legal choice that you would deny to the next based purely on gender. It is hypocrisy at its worst. Just say I support rights given to women alone as unconstitutional as the concept is, and spare me the reasoning for it.

It is not about me losing or winning it is about mothers and fathers supporting their children (with as little taxpayer help if possible). And if you want to speak of "winning" then it looks like the law agrees with my POV.

But like I said, some on this board treat sexual activity as "tag you are it". Just because a woman has one additional option does not mean the man is not required to support his child. They both are required to support their children.

Given that fact.....protect yourself accordingly. Condoms, abstinence, vasectomy, having sex with infertile women (just to be safe over 60 )

 

[year2late]

Thanks for the reply. I can clearly see the inequalities in rights and laws that impact men in a profound way with regard to several issues related to reproduction.

Given what we know, I think that unless these inequalities are approached from a way that doesn't elicit a Supreme Court or Legislative response, then there is what appears to me a futility that's going to linger for sometime to come in the future.

Men's Rights Groups have virtually failed to break through the legal walls, if you will, to somehow equal the playing field.

I've seen some posters offer their 2 cents worth on a remedy, but if I respond to those in a way that points out a fallacy, or perhaps, just noting that they aren't connecting all of the dots, the complexities involved, then I'm accused of "appealing to authority". I don't subscribe to, nor do I believe that the inequities are the right thing, but yet, I personally don't see how to use the conventional instruments of law to somehow alleviate some significant liabilities that men do have to live with...without recourse.

Interesting to me is that the person to really be considered first is the child that was born...not the mother or father. That child never asked to be created by the mother and father.

 

[minnie616]

A very well thought out and merciful dividing line that values the woman's born life more than the early unborn whose brain waves before about 26 weeks gestation are as flat and unorganized as those of a brain dead person.

For those in who's interest it is such lines are always said to be well thought through and all that. People call that talking one's own book.

No, I'm taking it from the book by neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga titled " The Ethical Brain ".

As leading neuroscientist Michael Gazzaniga, a member of President Bush’s Council on Bioethics, describes in his book The Ethical Brain, current neurology suggests that a fetus doesn’t possess enough neural structure to harbor consciousness until about 26 weeks, when it first seems to react to pain. Before that, the fetal neural structure is about as sophisticated as that of a sea slug and its EEG as flat and unorganized as that of someone brain-dead.

https://www.wired.com/2010/09/the-consciousness-meter-do-we-really-want-that/

 

[Removable Mind]

Interesting to me is that the person to really be considered first is the child that was born...not the mother or father. That child never asked to be created by the mother and father.

I agree with that. But, there are reproductive issues that will have to be addressed long before a birth.

 

[year2late]

I agree with that. But, there are reproductive issues that will have to be addressed long before a birth.

Before having sex.

 

[Henrin]

It is not about me losing or winning it is about mothers and fathers supporting their children (with as little taxpayer help if possible). And if you want to speak of "winning" then it looks like the law agrees with my POV.

But like I said, some on this board treat sexual activity as "tag you are it". Just because a woman has one additional option does not mean the man is not required to support his child. They both are required to support their children.

Given that fact.....protect yourself accordingly. Condoms, abstinence, vasectomy, having sex with infertile women (just to be safe over 60 )

Seriously, this double standard crap isn't flying. Just stop.

 

[year2late]

Seriously, this double standard crap isn't flying. Just stop.

Both have a choice not to engage in the activity that could lead to the birth of a child that would need support

Again, you are playing the "tag you are it"game. Just because a woman has the ability to make decisions on her own medical care,

I have said this before. If a man wants to "opt out" it should be before sex occurs. Have her sign a legal document that says he will not help her support a child she may have. Are you ok with that?

Now the government may ask for your help if she seeks social services....

 

[Henrin]

Both have a choice not to engage in the activity that could lead to the birth of a child that would need support

Again, you are playing the "tag you are it"game. Just because a woman has the ability to make decisions on her own medical care,

I have said this before. If a man wants to "opt out" it should be before sex occurs. Have her sign a legal document that says he will not help her support a child she may have. Are you ok with that?

Now the government may ask for your help if she seeks social services....

Don't bother with me with that trash. The whole avoid sex/use protection argument you reject for women, so I will not be swayed by you using it towards men.

And no, I will not accept some legal document opt-out trash either, sorry.

 

[year2late]

Don't bother with me with that trash. The whole avoid sex/use protection argument you reject for women, so I will not be swayed by you using it towards men.

And no, I will not accept some legal document opt-out trash either, sorry.

What makes you think that I do not think women protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy? I have repeatedly said...either party that does not wish to be pregnant or be responsible for a child should either abstain or use birth control. Clearly and emphatically I apply this to both parties.

And if you do not wish to be responsible for a child and do not want to be sterilized or use birth control...your options are pretty limited. But that is on you.You still may be required to support the children you helped create.

 

[Removable Mind]

Before having sex.

That's my preferential time frame. It'll always be. In my opinion that's the time frame that offers the best chance of implementing successful solutions to keeping men and women out of family court.

But, we can't pretend that that's the end of the playing field. Or the realities associated with human nature that seems to be linked to sexual behavior of women and men. Therein lies profound conflicts.

 

[year2late]

That's my preferential time frame. It'll always be. In my opinion that's the time frame that offers the best chance of implementing successful solutions to keeping men and women out of family court.

But, we can't pretend that that's the end of the playing field. Or the realities associated with human nature that seems to be linked to sexual behavior of women and men. Therein lies profound conflicts.

I wholeheartedly would like the child support structure to be improved....that along with custody arrangements. It is way too slanted against men.

But as a taxpayer....I want parents to support the children they create before our tax dollars need to kick in.