- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
You continue to make it a battle between the man and woman while ignoring the child.
LOL. Child support began in this country before women had the right to vote. The legal precedent and the laws that codified the principles were developed and passed by men, real men, not a bunch of wimps who want to run out on their responsibilities.
What did? When you backed off of your previous point?
The effect is direct and severe. Your argument that everything effects everything is nonsense and not at all relevant. We are not talking about some indirect action that might cause a long chain of events that would inevitably lead to something bad happening to the child. We are talking about a direct causal relationship that has a very severe impact. Before child support developed as a legal precedent in this country nearly all divorced women and their children ended up in poverty.
You said it had no effect. He said no one made such an argument. In what context could that even possibly be correct?
And you sound like some scumbag little wimp who has abandoned his children. I don't think you want to turn this argument into ad homs. It's not going to go well for you.
There is nothing in my argument that is naive at all. You don't write laws based on unlikely and highly unrealistic scenarios. If the man could somehow prove that he was tricked then he might have some legal grounds, but the burden of proving that would be on him.
This is not a valid argument. It is just more ad hom. Please show where my arguments indicate a lack of intellect, other than yours. All you have done is attack those that disagree and claim that some phantom argument you made disproves their points. You are the one turning the argument around. You continue to make it a battle between the man and woman while ignoring the child.
nope this is made up, nobody is doing this, its a bold face lie and an appeal to emotion.
If a man could absolve all responsibility with a simple gesture of saying "I don't want the baby - abort now", could he technically go on to impregnate one woman a week, and not have to pay for a single kid? Maybe two women a week? Three? Would the law impose some sort of limit?
I'll tell you what the woman's incentive is; I don't want a baby growing inside of me for 9 months if I don't want one.
Sperm is cheap, eggs are not.
actually "I" said that and that is NOTHING like you are saying LMAO
so . . . NOPE
TRYING top make a person pay child support doesn't stop them from abandoning them if they choose, it happens EVERY DAY
so you are still wrong, nobody said what you are arguing and what you are arguing has nothing to do with child support
Okay then. Why are you claiming no one said this when you acknowledge that you said it?
Child support stops them from abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. Apparently, you are arguing that because they are still free to abandon their emotional responsibility that it has no effect. That is a very stupid argument which completely fails to understand the purpose of civil actions.
Eggs are cheap... that is why they get flushed.
Not at all. Eggs are finite to a female. They run out eventually. Only one potential pregnancy a month. Only one baby at a time (obviously w/exception of twins, ect). Only one baby every 9 months bearing her DNA.
Men on the other hand (healthy men) have unlimited sperm producing capabilities from puberty till death, any time of day. A single male could impregnate hundreds of women each month theoretically, and create thousands of babies bearing his DNA each year potentially.
Sperm is much cheaper. More supply = less price.
Okay then. Why are you claiming no one said this when you acknowledge that you said it?
Child support stops them from abandoning their fiduciary responsibility. Apparently, you are arguing that because they are still free to abandon their emotional responsibility that it has no effect. That is a very stupid argument which completely fails to understand the purpose of civil actions.
If that is your argument, then that is fine. I would argue they are equally valuable if anything. No reproduction without both. Eggs are cheap though non-the-less... and having a limited number over a limited time frame really doesn't mean much. I don't want to argue semantics though... not that big of a deal.
Can a woman not have an abortion in your world, or something?
Actually it goes back 300-400 years. I am talking about Child Support as a legal construct within the parameters of the modern setting particularly post RvW. You can cast aspersions all you like, it only affirms that you don't understand the debate.
What happened before child support is irrelevant.
What impact the relationship has due to abandonment is irrelevant.
All this affirms is that, again, you don't understand the point of the actual argument.
Within the context of child support being entirely dependent on her choice to not utilize birth control.
You don't want it to turn into an ad hom battle yet you throw out an ad hom? So you throw out insult (fight) and then hide behind a pathetic statement that you don't want to fight? What kind of sissy are you? :lol:
I am a single father of two beautiful daughters that I have 50% custody of.
I pay FAR more child support than the court mandated when assessing my salary because I wanted to help my crazy abusive ex-wife have the best opportunity to give our children the best when they are with her.
I did not have her salary assesed at all, she pays me nothing in return.
On top of child support to her, I pay for all school fees, all doctor visits, all surgery's, all sports teams fees, their martial arts, dance, guitar lessons, etc. I paid to have her car fixed. I paid her moving fees when she recently moved. I take days off of work to care for the girls when they are sick since I am on salary so that she does not lose her hourly wages.
Anything else, Bonobo? :lol:
I don't want laws based off of unlikely scenarios. I want laws that hold her responsible for her choice and not the other way around.
If she has an abortion there is no child. She has a choice. When she chooses the child over birth control against his wishes, he is held accountable. This is sexist and ridiculous. If she does not want to support the child on her own, she can use birth control.
Really now, this is not that hard to understand. It is fair and equitable to both the man and the woman. All that matters is that the child is supported. Who supports the child is irrelevant. That is why you abandon scenario is irrelevant as well and you argument that the child is affective is equally irrelevant. That is, unless you argue that no child should be given up for adoption? IF that is not the case, as I have already stated... Irrelevant.
This is not a battle between a man and a woman. This is about making the woman responsible for her actions (ie Choice).
I am not the only one that thinks so either...
The point is that a single male has the ability to create thousands of children a year, vs a woman, who has the ability to create ~1.25 children a year.
What happens when you remove all accountability on the part of the male?
Females always will have a built-in accountability via invasive abortion or the pregnancy in general, baby at the end.
Men have no built-in accountability and you are arguing that they should be able to reproduce at will with no consequence (in a world without child support laws)?
because what you are CLAIMING was said and what was actually said are two entirely differnt things, they arent even close to the same thing at all.
I said "In reality the child isnt effected by forced "child support" so that debate is pointless"
then you said "If a parent abandons their child it will effect the child. There is no disputing that."
these arent even close to the same in any reality what so ever, its an appeal to emotion and a random point to try and sell your argument. LOL
now you are trying to change what you said and put in "qualifiers" like fiduciary to try and make it accurate since it was so off to begin with it doesnt work lol
my statement still stands and yours is still false.
TRYING to make somebody pay child support that doesnt want to be a parent has no impact on abandoning" the child, to think otherwise is silly.
You say the argument fails because of civil actions I laugh at that because moms and dads ignore that stuff every day in large numbers.
Like I said I deal in REALITY not fantasy land.
My statement stands and yours fails and is also meaningless to the argument. Maybe try adding more qualifiers to it or change it up some more to see if you can offer something logical, accurate and reality based then.
No, you said...
'legal construct designed by women and the feminist friendly courts"
You are wrong. Child support was a legal construct that was developed before women had the right to vote. Roe v Wade has no relevance to it at all.
Sorry, it is not. It establishes that there is a causal relationship that is damaging to the child.
Huh? Is this all you got?
All you are doing is asserting that I am wrong and failing to offer any argument as to why or how. Your point is worthless and without merit for the reasons I have outlined.
That choice was made by both.
I responded to your ad hom with an ad hom. Dummy, I did not say that I did not want to turn this into ad homs. I said YOU don't want it to turn into ad homs. You are in the position of being painted as the pusillanimous little twerp that abandoned his child(ren).
So what you want me to believe is that you are a responsible father who simply has chosen to be a champion for a bunch of deadbeat irresponsible jerks? Okay, does not make much sense, but whatever... you are still flat wrong.
I don't need to use the ad homs to make my point. Your only argument in rebuttal is your claim that I am naive, which is not an argument at all.
Your point in this little tangent was that the laws should seriously consider that the woman had punched holes in the condom or tricked the man in some way. There is no reason for that assumption without solid proof, as it is not the common way in which pregnancies occur.
1. He does not get to choose abortion as the pregnancy has no effect on his body or health.
2. His choices in the matter have already occurred and he is responsible for them.
Not hard to understand? This is not even coherent. The child is affective??? I don't know wtf ur talking about.
The state is amenable to allowing someone else to assume the father's responsibility. That has nothing to do with any argument you made. You are arguing that the man should be allowed to deny his responsibilities.
You just want the woman to be held solely responsible for the benefit of the father, regardless of its impact on the child. In other words, it's a battle between the man and the woman that ignores the child.
You are in a very small minority and most of your cohorts are POS who want to rationalize the abandonment of their responsibilities.
Can a woman not have an abortion in your world, or something?
I already dealt with this. Abortion has nothing to do with child support.
I am talking about what I just stated... the now. I should have said supported instead of created. Big deal... that isn't even relevant.
The laws that were created before were also created before abortion was determined to be a legal and valid form of birth control.
If there is an abortion then there is no child to damage. Why you can't grasp this is beyond me...
That is all I need for that aspect...
I have repeatedly stated to you why you are wrong. I have not just, "asserted that (you) are wrong". :roll:
No. She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. It ultimately is her choice and her choice alone. All you are doing is making excuses for selfishness and trying to hold others accountable.
I will take you on in an ad hom battle fest if you like... just start one in the basement, mate. :lol:
I am a father and have posted their pictures here and had discussions with many about them and I have met one member of this forum in person who has seen them and another who I will be meeting upor return to the USA in December. If you are in the LA area let me know and my daughters and I can meet you for lunch.
I am not championing dead beats... I am challenging a sexist and flawed law much like others have done in history. I am basing it off logic, not emotion.
True enough...
I am saying, in this thread that I created (no idea where you got the idea that I am on a tangent), that those instances were the ones that got me thinking about this issue that I just sorta realized about a month or two ago.
1. Agreed
2. Nope. Biology and law need not be intertwined.
jeez... a typo since I was typing fast, am tired and have minor Dyslexia. Affected
The rest was extremely coherent. If there is no baby there is nothing to be responsible for. That is why this is all about her choice... debate that. The rest is irrelevant.
IF THERE IS NOT CHILD THEN THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE CHILD!!!!!!
You realize that Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy and one that did not help Separate But Equal stay law nor keep the woman from attaining the vote. It will also eventually see that gays are allowed to marry. Anything else?
Correct. That is not the point though... the point is that her choice to abort or not has everything to do with child support.
I bet that an unintended consequence would be that woman would be even:
MORE careful with whom they slept with, and;
MORE careful with the birth control if that last sentence was the new reality, and;
MORE careful about waiting to sleep with a man that they were in a relationship with or cared for...
Really, it would be better than it is now for stable relationships and potential families...
So now you simply assert that a point that was originally yours is irrelevant without argument because I corrected your ignorance? Your ad hom was not relevant or even remotely accurate.
Again, your point is not accurate. Abortion was used and legal in some areas before the legal precedents of child support began to develop. Try again.
Relevance? I don't support forcing anyone to pay child support for an aborted child. We are talking about a born child.
Your incoherent claims of irrelevance proves your point valid?
Nope.
Most people don't think of abortion as a form of birth control. But okay, if that is what you mean, again, her choice in that matter does not affect the father's responsibility for his part in reproduction which he chose.
You have been engaging in ad hom throughout. Again., this tangent started when the entire substance of your response was that I was naive.
I have taken you at your word. I don't care whether you are a good father. It has no bearing on the fact that your argument is wrong. I was simply pointing out that you were in no position to engage in ad homs.
You are basing it solely on emotion. You want to make the woman appear to be a villain which is why you bring up nonsense about tricking the man.
This is tangential to your main argument. You did not argue that if a woman had tricked the man into impregnating her... You added that after the fact and created a tangent within your main argument. But anyway.
The man has taken part in the reproductive process and he is responsible for the result.
The entire quote was incoherent.
Who is being held responsible when there is no baby?
And no child support.
Do you? You are a funny guy but no one is laughing with you. You are the one that made the appeal to popularity, Einstein. You said, "I am not the only one that thinks so either...", which is an appeal to popularity. I simply pointed out that your position was not that popular. I never said nor implied that you were wrong because your psoition was unpopular. I have given my reasons for why you are wrong and you have failed to respond in any substantive way.
It does not. Child support is based on the child's needs not on who most wanted or did not want the child.
There is no reason why the state should empower the man to force the woman to choose between abortion and his abandonment of the child.
Again, his choice in the reproductive process has already ended and he does not get to walk away from it after the fact.
Abortions can lead to medical complications and the choice should be left solely to the woman since it is her health that is impacted.
Again, if a man wants an abortion he can have one done on himself.
It won't end the real pregnancy though, since that does not occur inside the man's body which is why he does not get any say in a real abortion.
You can continue to whine about how it's really just a conspiracy by the evil feminist to make men inferior but that has no connection to reality.
Are you pro-choice?
So - due to the fact that men have no risk involved for having sex - you think that the problem would be solved by the fact that women would subsequently take on additional responsibility for making good sexual choices?
Does this put the male/female accountability split at about 0/100? (if you think I'm wrong about this, I'd like to know why)
Under your scenario, as a male, I really don't see any reason I should use any form of protection as a preventative towards pregnancy.
Your scenario is like two insurance companies going in on a deal together, but just one of the insurance companies is forced to take ALL of the risk for what might happen as a result of the deal. How is that fair?
What additional responsibilities does the woman take on? Saying no or yes to sex? Doesn't she, or both of them for that matter, already do this?
It makes the act of sex at 50/50 barring something illegal like rape. It makes her decision to abort or not 100%, just like it is now. No change either way.
Didn't I just add that men that are found to not use protection and go around and impregnate women could be found guilty and given a consequence?
How is it fair? That is how it is now. The woman takes all the risks and the man has to pay for her choices. How is that fair?
True, you did mention the excessive child provision.
Accountability is they key. Under your scenario where men can sign away a child simply by asking a lady to abort, they effectively have no risk/accountability with having sex.
Does accountability/risk on the male side even exist under your scenario? I can't see it, but maybe I'm missing something. If you think so, what is it?
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?