US men fight child support laws.

[FallingPianos]

To me, that idea is pure feminism at its worst. It's ideas like the bolded above that limits our ability to be equal. Not so unkin to racism.

our biology limits our ability to be equal. I see no reason why the law should not aknowledge that, when the inequality universal.

the problem is when the law acts on generalities, but the there is nothing general about the fact that women get pregnant and men dont.

 

[Carl]

our biology limits our ability to be equal.

Do you believe our biology might be justification for women earning less than men in the marketplace?

there is nothing general about the fact that women get pregnant and men dont.

Women can't get pregnant in the absence of men. Do you believe that the absence of testicles in women is a lesser consideration than the absence of wombs in men?

 

[FallingPianos]

Do you believe our biology might be justification for women earning less than men in the marketplace?

where biology is directly related, i.e. practically never, yes.

 

[FallingPianos]

Women can't get pregnant in the absence of men. Do you believe that the absence of testicles in women is a lesser consideration than the absence of wombs in men?

(sorry, I missed this when posting my first reply)

I'm not sure what you're asking. can you clarify?

lesser consideration in what?

 

[Carl]

(sorry, I missed this when posting my first reply)

I'm not sure what you're asking. can you clarify?

While it is true that women have wombs, a situation which no person male or female had any hand in, it still requires a man to obtain pregancy. In light of that fact, you contend that the presence of a womb grants a woman greater legal protections than the presence of testicles grants men?

Based on your commentary so far, it would appear you believe that testicles condemn men to the role of financier only. With the exception of signatory in the abdication and transfer of financial responsibility to another man. Whereas a womb grants extensive legal prerogative.

where biology is directly related, i.e. practically never, yes.

So as regards military, police, firefighters, dockworkers, mechanics, etc. you agree?

 

[Schweddy]

(sorry, I missed this when posting my first reply)

I'm not sure what you're asking. can you clarify?

lesser consideration in what?

I believe he is asking if testicles or ovaries are more superior.

Would it be more correct to say men lack ovaries or women lack testicles?

 

[FallingPianos]

While it is true that women have wombs, a situation which no person male or female had any hand in, it still requires a man to obtain pregancy. In light of that fact, you contend that the presence of a womb grants a woman greater legal protections than the presence of testicles grants men?

no I dont.

but child support is the childs right, not the mothers. when fathers take custody of the child, women pay child support to.

if the paternity of the father is known, his consent is required before the mother can give up a child for adoption. if he wants to keep the child and the mother doesnt, she will be required to pay child support.

its not required if the fathers paternity is unknown, but it seems to me that if the father left, that in itself is infromally giving consent to adoption.

 

[FallingPianos]

So as regards military, police, firefighters, dockworkers, mechanics, etc. you agree?

without getting nit-picky about exactly how much a womans biology limits her in those particular fields, the general answer is yes.

 

[Carl]

but child support is the childs right, not the mothers. when fathers take custody of the child, women pay child support to.

Whose right is abortion? The mother or the father, or both?

 

[FallingPianos]

Whose right is abortion? The mother or the father, or both?

if its done early, its the mothers because she is the one carrying the the fetus. at that point, its just another form of birth control, though 100% effective. a woman has the sole authority over whether or not she uses birth control, just like a man has the sole authority over whether or not he gets a vasectomy.

perhaps the man should base his decision to have sex with a woman on how effective the birth control she's willing to use is, but once the child is born its too late. both parents are responsible for it.

if its not an early abortion, than niether parent has the right to it.

 

[Carl]

if its done early, its the mothers because she is the one carrying the the fetus.

At what point is it the father's?

 

[FallingPianos]

At what point is it the father's?

at no point.

 

[Carl]

at no point.

So the womb trumps the testicles, and the father is merely the life-support system for a wallet?

 

[FallingPianos]

So the womb trumps the testicles

women have a greater right to an abortion, yes.

and the father is merely the life-support system for a wallet?

fortunatly, most fathers are much more than that. but this thread is about fathers who do not want to take on any further role. the government can force a father to fork up some dough to help pay for the expensises of having a child, but the government cant force him to love the child, and trying would be a bad thing for all parties involved.

 

[Carl]

women have a greater right to an abortion, yes.

Near as I can tell, only women have a right to abortion at all, thank God. We don't need both genders tempted into abject amorality.

but this thread is about fathers who do not want to take on any further role.

Perhaps. But the lawsuit that this thread is founded upon seeks to illuminate the illogic and ludicrousness of the right to abortion itself. I hope in some way I've helped to shed some light on that to you.

 

[FallingPianos]

Perhaps. But the lawsuit that this thread is founded upon seeks to illuminate the illogic and ludicrousness of the right to abortion itself. I hope in some way I've helped to shed some light on that to you.

lol, my stance is the same. I never said the situation doesnt suck. in fact, I think I might have directly said it does. I just see no alternative.

not paying child support violates the childs rights.

giving the father the authority to force the woman to have an abortion violates the womans, if not also the fetus's rights.

 

[Carl]

I just see no alternative.

Overturning Roe V Wade and returning the matter to the States doesn't strike you as an alternative?

 

[FallingPianos]

Overturning Roe V Wade and returning the matter to the States doesn't strike you as an alterntive?

sure it does. outlawing abortion entirely would put men and women on equal playing ground.

but the lawsuit was trying to find a way to compensate for the fact that women can get abortions, rather then eliminate the fact, which is why I said I see no alternative.

 

[Carl]

but the lawsuit was trying to find a way to compensate for the fact that women can get abortions, rather then eliminate the fact, which is why I said I see no alternative.

Ah, I see. You just didn't get the joke.

Well, I think in all candor we can concede that this action is aimed at pointing up the logical and moral inconsistency of the Roe v Wade decision. I'm not clear that the proposition, on its face, has any merits.

It's the illogic of construing abortion as a "womens rights" issue, when in fact it's a "person's rights" issue. An issue of the rights of very young Americans.

The fundamental problem is that mothers should not have the right to kill the unborn in the first instance, and that granting such a right in the name of privacy so contravenes logic that it creates an absurd legal playing field.

Both the mother and the father must be held accountable for the support of the infant they conceive. Killing the infant for convenience should not be an option at all.

 

[FallingPianos]

Ah, I see. You just didn't get the joke.

I still dont.

 

[Carl]

I still dont.

The lawsuit is a joke. The folks pursuing it have no intention of creating new laws or rights for men. If it were to prevail, I'm sure they'd be the most astonished parties of all. They are only trying to make a point, it's a protest against Roe v Wade. It's not a serious matter of law.

 

[FallingPianos]

The lawsuit is a joke. The folks pursuing it have no intention of creating new laws or rights for men. If it were to prevail, I'm sure they'd be the most astonished parties of all. They are only trying to make a point, it's a protest against Roe v Wade. It's not a serious matter of law.

well, they may be aware that they have virtually not chance of winning, but I dont see anything in the article, or on the national center for men's website that indicates its a political joke. I think they are trying to get a movement started, but are aware that they wont win yet.

 

[Carl]

I think they are trying to get a movement started, but are aware that they wont win yet.

Heh heh heh. Well, I for one find that difficult to believe. And I sincerely doubt that even a scant minority of Americans will take such a lawsuit seriously.

It seems plain to me the purpose of such a trivial action. Establishment of law or rights, in my opinion, is clearly not the goal here.

 

[FallingPianos]

Heh heh heh. Well, I for one find that difficult to believe. And I sincerely doubt that even a scant minority of Americans will take such a lawsuit seriously.

It seems plain to me the purpose of such a trivial action. Establishment of law or rights, in my opinion, is clearly not the goal here.

well, we'll see.

 

[Carl]

well, we'll see.

Assuredly.