The Elephant in the Room

[soylentgreen]

No. What I have said is not eugenics.

If it works.

That is your invention.

It is if you are trying to create a class of people who are the only ones allowed to breed.

It will work all you need do is ignore the rights and freedom that people should have.

Who else are going to be able to breed if you demand the poor should not.

 

[Individual]

It's not a child until it's born. Before that, it's potential.

Yes, that's what we've been talking about, the male who fathered a born child having a share of responsibility to the child.

 

[Bodi]

It is if you are trying to create a class of people who are the only ones allowed to breed.

It will work all you need do is ignore the rights and freedom that people should have.

Who else are going to be able to breed if you demand the poor should not.

You are the only one talking about who is allowed to breed.

 

[Lursa]

You are the only one talking about who is allowed to breed.

Except for all the times you say that poor women are irresponsible and malicious if they decide to have their kids,...so we should all support coercing them into not reproducing by withholding child support from the child.

Right?

 

[BirdinHand]

You are the only one talking about who is allowed to breed.

Why do you lie?

Your words from JUST THIS THREAD.

Jesus, the attempted gaslighting is unreal.

Poor uneducated people

should not be having children

don't think poor people should have kids

they should be heavily encouraged to not have the kids

be compelled by law to abort a child that she can not support.

 

[Lursa]

Why do you lie?

Your words from JUST THIS THREAD.

Jesus, the attempted gaslighting is unreal.

LOL thanks. See my post 79 above it...you sourced it! What is someone thinking when they post so dishonestly?

 

[MrWonka]

Regarding equal rights between men and women becoming parents... the Elephant in the Room is that those that argue a man is bound by a woman's choice neatly ignore that a woman can and should have an abortion if she can not care for the child on her own.

False. These are two entirely separate choices. Both man and women are required to shoulder the financial burden that comes with a pregnancy. The fact that a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy impacts the man's situation, but the choices are otherwise irrelevant and not related.
Once a child is produced, if either parent wishes to keep it, a court will require the other parent to help financially support it.

It is no different than causing a car accident. You can and will be held financially responsible for the medical costs of anyone in the vehicle you hit. Even if they choose more expensive doctors, hospitals, and treatment plans than you want them to you're still on the hook for it.

The government can hold a person financially responsible for any financial problems they cause, but they cannot force labor upon you.

The whole reason for pro-choice is to make the best choice... not just the best choice for the woman. Although she is not bound by him anymore and forced to pay for a child he should not be bound to her and forced to pay for a child.

False. The whole reason for pro-choice, is that is morally wrong to force a person to endure extreme pain, sickness, potentially permanent bodily deformation, risk death, and endure labor against their will.

If pregnancy was completely painless, risk-free, and lasted only a single day 98% of the population would be pro-life. Financial issues alone should never be the primary reason for an abortion. That is precisely why a man must be obligated to financially support any child that results from his choices.
Abortion and Birth Control do have the beneficial side effect of helping women and families stay out of poverty, but that alone is not a primary driver of them.

 

[Bodi]

Why do you lie?

Your words from JUST THIS THREAD.

Jesus, the attempted gaslighting is unreal.

That is just what I think... there is nothing about who can breed or not though... you have not given anything to indicate that you understand the difference... so I have to default that you are incapable of understanding.

Why do you hate children though... you keep dodging that one.

You want kids to be born into poverty. Why?

You want kids to be born into gangs. Why?

You want kids to be born into drug life-styles. Why?

 

[Bodi]

False. These are two entirely separate choices. Both man and women are required to shoulder the financial burden that comes with a pregnancy. The fact that a woman can choose to terminate the pregnancy impacts the man's situation, but the choices are otherwise irrelevant and not related.
Once a child is produced, if either parent wishes to keep it, a court will require the other parent to help financially support it.

It is no different than causing a car accident. You can and will be held financially responsible for the medical costs of anyone in the vehicle you hit. Even if they choose more expensive doctors, hospitals, and treatment plans than you want them to you're still on the hook for it.

The government can hold a person financially responsible for any financial problems they cause, but they cannot force labor upon you.


False. The whole reason for pro-choice, is that is morally wrong to force a person to endure extreme pain, sickness, potentially permanent bodily deformation, risk death, and endure labor against their will.

If pregnancy was completely painless, risk-free, and lasted only a single day 98% of the population would be pro-life. Financial issues alone should never be the primary reason for an abortion. That is precisely why a man must be obligated to financially support any child that results from his choices.
Abortion and Birth Control do have the beneficial side effect of helping women and families stay out of poverty, but that alone is not a primary driver of them.

Nope. What I said is 100% accurate.

 

[Peacenik]

Regarding equal rights between men and women becoming parents... the Elephant in the Room is that those that argue a man is bound by a woman's choice neatly ignore that a woman can and should have an abortion if she can not care for the child on her own. All of a sudden this choice that she has becomes a certainty that she will have the child regardless or that if she does he is bound by her decision.

The whole reason for pro-choice is to make the best choice... not just the best choice for the woman. Although she is not bound by him anymore and forced to pay for a child he should not be bound to her and forced to pay for a child.

What if he died post-conception but pre-birth... the mother would have to make a choice. That is no different than if the man wants to walk away... she has to make a choice. This is expressly what most dishonest debaters regarding this issue avoid. She can force society should he die or be jobless... nobody bats an eye at her choice... brave proud mother! Right? Nobody cries about the burden on the taxpayers... because she exercised her choice.... but if there is a man there then all of a sudden he has to pay for her choice and if he does not the y'all are mad as hell... insulting him and such... but she is doing the same exact thing... brining a baby into a world that she can not support on her own.

Just an interesting way to look at it...

So if the man opts for abortion but she does not, and she goes ahead with the birth over his objections, then he is off the hook for support?

Seems reasonable. But then he would have no parental rights until the child reaches age 18.

 

[MrWonka]

Nope. What I said is 100% accurate.

Nope. Not even in the ballpark.

 

[Lursa]

That is just what I think... there is nothing about who can breed or not though... you have not given anything to indicate that you understand the difference... so I have to default that you are incapable of understanding.

Why do you hate children though... you keep dodging that one.

You want kids to be born into poverty. Why?

You want kids to be born into gangs. Why?

You want kids to be born into drug life-styles. Why?

This is why mine is actually a bit more accurate, I bolded it for you this time:

Except for all the times you say that poor women are irresponsible and malicious if they decide to have their kids,...so we should all support coercing them into not reproducing by withholding child support from the child.​

​

Right?​

Is it that you just want to keep trying to hide that coercion/manipulation? If so, you're still failing. You know you have to resort to manipulation because women's rights to bodily autonomy are never going to allow the eugenics you have been "suggesting" and allow others to demand women (esp. poor women) have abortions.

 

[BirdinHand]

Why do you hate children though

Seems as though you are the one with a dislike for children.

You're the one that wants them to go without financial support by allowing the man to "opt out".

And you're also the one that applauds eugenics, as evidenced by your post history.

So...don't try to turn the blame on me for doing nothing more than quoting YOU.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Regarding equal rights between men and women becoming parents... the Elephant in the Room is that those that argue a man is bound by a woman's choice neatly ignore that a woman can and should have an abortion if she can not care for the child on her own. All of a sudden this choice that she has becomes a certainty that she will have the child regardless or that if she does he is bound by her decision.

The whole reason for pro-choice is to make the best choice... not just the best choice for the woman. Although she is not bound by him anymore and forced to pay for a child he should not be bound to her and forced to pay for a child.

What if he died post-conception but pre-birth... the mother would have to make a choice. That is no different than if the man wants to walk away... she has to make a choice. This is expressly what most dishonest debaters regarding this issue avoid. She can force society should he die or be jobless... nobody bats an eye at her choice... brave proud mother! Right? Nobody cries about the burden on the taxpayers... because she exercised her choice.... but if there is a man there then all of a sudden he has to pay for her choice and if he does not the y'all are mad as hell... insulting him and such... but she is doing the same exact thing... brining a baby into a world that she can not support on her own.

Just an interesting way to look at it...

Pro-choice = freedom/liberty. Not the best subjective choice.

 

[MrWonka]

What if he died post-conception but pre-birth... the mother would have to make a choice. That is no different than if the man wants to walk away... she has to make a choice. This is expressly what most dishonest debaters regarding this issue avoid. She can force society should he die or be jobless... nobody bats an eye at her choice... brave proud mother! Right? Nobody cries about the burden on the taxpayers... because she exercised her choice.... but if there is a man there then all of a sudden he has to pay for her choice and if he does not the y'all are mad as hell... insulting him and such... but she is doing the same exact thing... brining a baby into a world that she can not support on her own.

Again, this is no different than if a poor person with no health insurance gets cancer. If the person is married the financial burden can be shifted to the spouse, but if not it is covered by society(although in a roundabout way in America). Either way, the woman isn't blocked from life-saving treatment just because they can't afford it.

 

[Lursa]

Again, this is no different than if a poor person with no health insurance gets cancer. If the person is married the financial burden can be shifted to the spouse, but if not it is covered by society(although in a roundabout way in America). Either way, the woman isn't blocked from life-saving treatment just because they can't afford it.

He's gone from demanding equality for men who he says are victimized by child support to trying to expand it to something that can be applied societally...eugenics. As he pretends to stand for equal rights...his posts head further and further southward in a moral sewer.

 

[MrWonka]

I am 100% pro-choice. But why do you encourage children being born into poverty, gangs, drug life... etc? Answer that.

Nobody does, and nobody is doing that. You're the one who seems to be advocating for that. By allowing men to choose whether they want to be financially responsible for a child they produce you would be the one increasing the number of children born into poverty.

 

[Bodi]

So if the man opts for abortion but she does not, and she goes ahead with the birth over his objections, then he is off the hook for support?

If he notified her that he wanted out very early in the pregnancy, then yes. At that point it is 100% her choice. She has all the power to do what is right.

Seems reasonable. But then he would have no parental rights until the child reaches age 18.

That is up to her... but yeah, he would completely opt out.

 

[Bodi]

Nope. Not even in the ballpark.

That is not much of an argument.

 

[Bodi]

Seems as though you are the one with a dislike for children.

You're the one that wants them to go without financial support by allowing the man to "opt out".

You and the mother hate the kid... wanting it to be brought into poverty. What in the hell is wrong with people?

And you're also the one that applauds eugenics, as evidenced by your post history.

Lies. That is all you have...

 

[MrWonka]

That is not much of an argument.

This was your response to my original argument.

Nope. What I said is 100% accurate.

If you don't have to make an argument, then neither do I.

 

[Bodi]

Pro-choice = freedom/liberty. Not the best subjective choice.

Meaning?

 

[Bodi]

This was your response to my original argument.

If you don't have to make an argument, then neither do I.

I had an argument. You did not address it... and it devolved from there.

Nobody does, and nobody is doing that.

Those advocating mothers having children born into poverty that they can not properly support are.

You're the one who seems to be advocating for that.

Amazing that you could come up with the conclusion that you have. I have literally said that exact opposite... every time.

By allowing men to choose whether they want to be financially responsible for a child they produce you would be the one increasing the number of children born into poverty.

No. The man is gone. The mother would be increasing that number... and being negligent to her child.

 

[MrWonka]

I had an argument. You did not address it... and it devolved from there.

Yes, I did. You did not address mine. Your initial reply to my first reply was dismissive. It gave me nothing further to address.

Those advocating mothers having children born into poverty that they can not properly support are.

No one is advocating such a thing. We are simply acknowledging the reality that it happens, and that you're proposed "solution" would lead to it happening even more.

Amazing that you could come up with the conclusion that you have. I have literally said that exact opposite... every time.

No, you haven't. You're advocating for a solution that makes the problem worse.

No. The man is gone. The mother would be increasing that number... and being negligent to her child.

The woman's choice is none of our goddamn business.

 

[Bodi]

No one is advocating such a thing. We are simply acknowledging the reality that it happens, and that you're proposed "solution" would lead to it happening even more.

Advocating for pro-choice with no parameters is advocating for children being born into poverty. Just pretty much a fact.

No, you haven't. You're advocating for a solution that makes the problem worse.

I am not advocating for any solution.

The woman's choice is none of our goddamn business.

Women having children that they can not afford is a lot of people's business. Hers. The mans. The family. The Courts. CYFS. Society.