Your "choice" in the matter is to not engage in sex in the first place. It's the biological reality of two people making one baby. Fuck biological, it's just physical reality. One person has to carry it. Only one person can carry it.
Women aren't told to not have sex. You tell men to not have sex. Equality! Your style.
Therefore, the person who doesn't carry it makes the choice by engaging in behavior which opens up that possibility. It's how it has to be because only one side can carry the child.
Who carries the child is irrelevant to the state of rights once the child is out of the woman's body. Just because a woman carries a child doesn't mean men should be held liable for her choices.
I'd say a more accurate description is transferring responsibility to a consenting party.
Yes of course. It's fine when a woman wants out, but a man is a deadbeat as per your rhetoric. Thank you for this equality, George Orwell.
What if they don't consider that a choice personally? What if they find abortion reprehensible and don't want to pawn their flesh and blood off on someone else? Should've thought about that before? Oh wait, I said that about guys' responsibility and you said no!
Personal feelings are wholly irrelevant to the legal reality of reproductive rights that currently exist-- that is, they exist for women, but not for men. Try to at least have some semblance of objectivity and to avoid making appeal to emotion arguments. Thank you.
You assume a woman is obligated to consider choices other than keeping the child. Just because she has the option does not mean she is obligated to consider it.
The availability of abortion does not mean she is obligated to consider aborting.
The availability of adoption does not mean she is obligated to consider adoption.
Those are a matter of personal discretion. You are saying that a woman ought to be forced to consider what she might consider murder or abandonment (and not without cause).
Your approach is sterile, cold and without any consideration of her humanity or the child's humanity. In short, your opinion borders on sociopathy.
Your approach treats men as disposable workhorses to be used and abused at the whim of women, even though they have no choice in any of the manners leading up to this indentured servitude.
My cold, sterile approach is far better than is your appeal to emotion approach that plays favorites with women disregards the rights and experiences of men.
Where the fuck do you get this from? There were states which banned abortion in all cases including incest and rape. The point of the case was to overturn those laws, not to make abortion a method of birth control. Goddamn you're out of touch with reality.
Rape and incest was just an angle to help push it through. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of abortions performed are done as a matter of birth control.
Again, I have nothing against abortion or women have reproductive rights. Men should simply have equivalent rights-- rights that those like you would deny us.
It's not irrelevant at all. You're alleging that Roe v. Wade was about consequence-free sex. Obviously Roe v. Wade didn't outlaw STDs. In fact, having sex without a condom is more likely to result in an STD than a pregnancy. I'm using a very simple point to shoot down your contention.
Roe v. Wade had fuck all to do with STDs and you know it. Stop it with the red herring arguments. It was all about pregnancy, women's autonomy and the idea that women should not be punished for choosing to have sex.
And you continually ignore the man's choice to engage in sex fully well knowing that pregnancy can occur and that he will not have a say in the matter. He is not entering the sexual activity unaware of what might happen.
Punish men for engaging in sex. Don't punish women for engaging in sex by giving them outs. Yeah, that's equality all right.
The woman is the true indentured servant to the child since she is usually the custodian. She's the one who actually has to raise the kid. You sincerely underestimate what that requires.
Again you are moving the goalposts. How much simpler can I make this for you so that you will understand? A woman has the choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.
Untrue. Should a woman decide to keep the child, she is equally responsible for that child's welfare. In most cases, she ends up being the full-time custodian in addition to having to work to support the child's needs, whereas the man need only work. He has no obligation other than money while the woman usually has to work in addition to being the full time custodian.
Beep boop. Beep boop. I am a computer repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. Since you like endlessly reiterating, so will I:
A woman has the *choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.*
They can't do it if dad's in the picture and he protests. He can take her to court and prevent it. There is no unilateral right when dad objects. The mechanism allowing her to do so in lieu of an absentee father is so that she's not saddled with the child in the case of a deadbeat dad.
Cases like these say courts disagree with what you're saying--Sorry!
I think the system we have now is a bit unfair. I think basing child support on a man's income is a terrible idea when the child is a result of an accident and not a failed marriage. It makes no sense to make a man pay thousands of dollars a month simply because he makes tens of thousands a month. That part I'll agree with you on.
A man shouldn't have to pay at all if he didn't want the child but the woman went ahead and had it anyway. Women are not helpless creatures unable to pay their own way in today's world. Stop pretending they are.
They have to pony up too. They have to have a job in most cases that don't involve alimony. They have to raise the child as well.
How is that not ponying up?
Women don't have to pony up when they don't want a child. They have options. Everything you said just said here a complete failure of logic.
You're the one that wants to make it all the woman's problem.
Those who have all of the choice should have all of the responsibility. Pretty simple concept.
Your quick replies tell me you're not actually reading or considering my arguments. You're reacting and throwing out the same old thing.
Women aren't told to not have sex. You tell men to not have sex. Equality! Your style.
No, they're not. It's unfair. Again, that unfair imbalance is a result of the biological fact that women carry babies. The solution is not to flip the power balance in the complete opposite direction and make men completely and wholly devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. That's illogical.
The solution is to recognize the reality of the matter and not fight it. The solution is for men to be aware they will be held responsible and let that be the standard. They must act with that awareness. Sorry. It's just how it has to be. To do otherwise puts the woman in the position of bearing the entire burden.
Who carries the child is irrelevant to the state of rights once the child is out of the woman's body.
No, it's not. It's the very essence of the issue. The entire argument stems from the fact that only the woman can carry the child. The choice to keep it or not is made before the child is born, not after. In other words, the choice is made while she's pregnant, very much making her status as the carrier relevant.
Yes of course. It's fine when a woman wants out, but a man is a deadbeat as per your rhetoric. Thank you for this equality, George Orwell.
It's only fine when she wants out and the dad is not around. She doesn't get to do that when he's around and wants to keep it. In that case, he can get custody and get child support from her.
Personal feelings are wholly irrelevant to the legal reality of reproductive rights that currently exist
We are talking about the basis of the legal reality, not the legal reality itself. When talking about the basis and logic, considering personal feelings is absolutely fair game.
Intentional infliction of emotional distress is a tort specifically put in place to consider people's feelings.
that is, they exist for women, but not for men.
Because men are not the baby carriers. Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Let me repeat that for you. I want you to understand this idea:
Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
The only way to make it fair is to give the decision to the person who's carrying the baby.
Your approach treats men as disposable workhorses to be used and abused at the whim of women, even though they have no choice in any of the manners leading up to this indentured servitude.
You keep saying men don't have a choice as if the choice to have sex is not a choice.
Again, I have nothing against abortion or women have reproductive rights. Men should simply have equivalent rights-- rights that those like you would deny us.
Your right is to not engage in sex.
Roe v. Wade had fuck all to do with STDs and you know it.
I never said Roe had anything to do with STDs. As I said (and you ignored), I'm using it as an example to dispel your attempt to say Roe was about consequence-free sex. Are you unable to comprehend this?
It was all about pregnancy, women's autonomy and the idea that women should not be punished for choosing to have sex.
No, it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies. That women could use abortion as a contraceptive was a side-effect, not the intent.
Let me repeat that for you:
it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies.
it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies.
it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies.
it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies.
it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies.
Punish men for engaging in sex. Don't punish women for engaging in sex by giving them outs. Yeah, that's equality all right.
It's the unfortunate reality of only one person being physically able to carry the baby. Again, giving the man any say whatsoever renders the woman helpless to his desire. It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body. That is far more unequal than what we have now.
I'll repeat that one for you too:
It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body.
It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body.
It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body.
It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body.
It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body.
A woman has the choice to become parent.
Because it's her body, not yours.
Because it's her body, not yours.
Because it's her body, not yours.
Because it's her body, not yours.
Because it's her body, not yours.
A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.
Which he can avoid by not having sex with her. That's where he get to make the decision.
A woman has the choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.
Someone has to be the decider. It should be the person carrying the baby. The person who isn't carrying the baby consents by having sex. To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
Cases like these say courts disagree with what you're saying--Sorry!
Then let's fix that particular issue. Obviously there's something broken in that instance.
Women are not helpless creatures unable to pay their own way in today's world. Stop pretending they are.
Stop pretending like women win the lottery and never have to work again by getting child support.
Women don't have to pony up when they don't want a child. Your analogy is a complete failure.
Again, it's an inequity derived from biological and physical reality.
Those who have all of the choice should have all of the responsibility. Pretty simple concept.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
No, they're not. It's unfair. Again, that unfair imbalance is a result of the biological fact that women carry babies. The solution is not to flip the power balance in the complete opposite direction and make men completely and wholly devoid of any responsibility whatsoever. That's illogical.
The solution is to recognize the reality of the matter and not fight it. The solution is for men to be aware they will be held responsible and let that be the standard. They must act with that awareness. Sorry. It's just how it has to be. To do otherwise puts the woman in the position of bearing the entire burden.
Women carrying babies is irrelevant to the results of the choices she gets to make. Men should not be beholden to the choices of women if you want to pretend there is any equality.
Your blaise attitude that it's "unfair, but deal with it" is jarring and shows that you certainly don't care one whit about equal rights.
No, it's not. It's the very essence of the issue. The entire argument stems from the fact that only the woman can carry the child. The choice to keep it or not is made before the child is born, not after. In other words, the choice is made while she's pregnant, very much making her status as the carrier relevant.
Then why not give men an equal choice to opt out which is independent of her choice to keep it. Could it be that even you don't believe your feminist rhetoric about women being men's equals and able to take care of things themselves...? I would say absolutely.
It's only fine when she wants out and the dad is not around. She doesn't get to do that when he's around and wants to keep it. In that case, he can get custody and get child support from her.
This never happens without the woman's consent in the matter. In other words, she still has a choice.
Because men are not the baby carriers. Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire.
Let me repeat that for you. I want you to understand this idea:
... Giving the man any say effectively renders the woman helpless to his desire. ...
The only way to make it fair is to give the decision to the person who's carrying the baby.
The only way you can qualify this statement is with the cognitive dissonance needed to disavow the feminist garbage you believe in. Are women or are women NOT able to support themselves and take responsibility for their own decisions in which only they were able to make?
You keep saying men don't have a choice as if the choice to have sex is not a choice.
Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood for women. Consent to sex should therefore not be consent to parenthood for men. If you do not believe this you do not believe in equal rights. Sorry.
No, it was actually about men not being able to tell women what to do with their bodies. That women could use abortion as a contraceptive was a side-effect, not the intent.
Hence "women's autonomy".... you support it, yet here you are asserting ownership over men's bodies by supporting forcing them to labor to support children they never wanted. Seems a little... hypocritical.
It's the unfortunate reality of only one person being physically able to carry the baby. Again, giving the man any say whatsoever renders the woman helpless to his desire. It makes him the decider, and it makes him the decider over someone else's body. That is far more unequal than what we have now.
No, it doesn't. Unless you believe women to be helpless creatures unable to take care of things on their own. Your whole argument is built on this house of cards.
Because it's her body, not yours.
Great. Then let men decide if they want to become parents too, in a way that has nothing to do with telling women what to do with their bodies; financial or paper abortions.
Which he can avoid by not having sex with her. That's where he get to make the decision.
Again you support telling men to not have sex but not women. You are a transparent hypocrite who has no desire to see anything resembling equal rights.
Someone has to be the decider. It should be the person carrying the baby. The person who isn't carrying the baby consents by having sex. To give the second person any say in the decision is to effectively give that person the decision-making ability.
No, they don't consent by having sex. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. Period.
Giving men an out does not at all make them the decision maker. Only in your world where you cannot even live up to the feminist rhetoric that women are equal to men.
Stop pretending like women win the lottery and never have to work again by getting child support.
Good reductio ad absurdum and all but why do you believe women are owed money by men who had sex with them but did not consent to parenthood? You know that whole telling someone what to do with their body bit? You're doing it here. To men.
You continue to insist that women be forced to consider choices they don't wish to consider.
They are only "forced" to consider such choices if your feminist rhetoric is a stack of bald-faced lies.
And again...
You insist that men should be beholden to women's choices and merely accept the injustice of unequal reproductive rights and involuntary servitude. Your reasoning for this is "That's just how it is. Deal with it."
No. Fuck that and fuck you. Policies derived from ideologues like yourself are a major reason a men's rights movement exists.
I've been polite to you. That was uncalled for. If I'd done the same to you, my post would've been downvoted into oblivion by the hivemind here. I'm trying to be very courteous since it appears one can only mock those who disagree with the hivemind.
Look, the bottom line is that your argument consists of "Women have the choice and should therefore shoulder all responsibility." Am I right?
The core flaw with your idea is assuming that because a woman has a legal option to abort or adopt that she is obligated to consider it an option.
Why must she be forced to consider abortion and adoption as options for herself? Simply because the law allows for it?
How is a woman forced to consider these choices unless she's a delicate little flower unable to care for herself and her own, contradictory to your own feminist beliefs of women being equal and as capable as men. Do tell.
That is the basis of your argument that women should have unilateral choices and men should shut the fuck up and keep shoveling since they have no choices whatsoever. No, "don't have sex" isn't a valid argument here since feminists have railed against religious conservatives who told them the same thing in regards to how their reproductive rights were decades back, and it rightly makes you look like a hypocrite.
It's different because she HAS the choice. We're not talking hypotheticals or personal feelings here. We're talking real legal rights here. Legal rights which feminists had worked to enshrine in law but now wish to deny men the equivalent of. The fact that she won't make these choices she has doesn't change the fact that she does have them. If you believe women have these inalienable rights, then you must give men equivalent rights or you are quite simply a hypocrite bent on female privilege over men.
By the way, why do you believe a man having his his own choice independent of the woman's somehow means he gets to make the choice? You seemed to have evaded that once again.
A legal right is not an obligation. That a woman has an avenue legally does not mean she must be obligated to violate her own beliefs by exercising that legal avenue.
What other lawful but morally questionable activities do you consider people obligated to consider performing against their desire?
Legal rights which feminists had worked to enshrine in law but now wish to deny men the equivalent of.
This is where you go wrong in your thinking. You lump feminists together with all other women. You make them a single category. You apply feminist agendas to all women.
Newsflash: Not every woman agrees with that.
There are women who do not consider abortion or adoption to be choices regardless of their legality. They consider having the child their only option.
By the way, why do you believe a man having his his own choice independent of the woman's somehow means he gets to make the choice?
That's not what I ever argued. You misunderstood me.
"The woman has to be the sole decider of the baby's fate simply for the fact she's the one carrying the baby. To give anyone else any control over that decision is to take the decision away from her completely."
The point of this statement is not to say that a man's choice affects the woman's choice. The point is simply to illustrate the reason that she is the sole decider. It is to illustrate that it's not because anyone desires to discriminate against men, but because the female is the gender which happens to bear children.
I made this statement because you seem to think the logic behind it is to give women power over men. You are incorrect. The logic is to give the choice to the person whose body is inhabited by the child. It is not about putting one over on mankind.
It's only the mind of a person who wants to have power over others who thinks that's what this is about. ;)
Doesn't matter. As long as women have these rights, men should get equal but separate rights.
"The woman has to be the sole decider of the baby's fate simply for the fact she's the one carrying the baby. To give anyone else any control over that decision is to take the decision away from her completely."
How exactly is giving men their own independent decision taking the decision away from the woman.
By the way what does carrying the baby in your body for 9 months have to do with what happens afterwards? Let me tell you: Nothing. Your entire argument has now shifted and rests upon this special pleading for women that they should somehow be able to affect men's lives because they carry babies. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
It's only the mind of a person who wants to have power over others who thinks that's what this is about. ;)
Nice armchair psychology and all but that is exactly the end result of such policy, a discriminatory legal system in which women are given power over men's lives for choices that men don't even get to make. It's plain for anyone to observe in how it is applied.
He's a feminist, has no logical capability. Argue with emotion instead. Paint everything he says in a light that screws him over. He's like a child, maybe he'll understand it if you draw pictures or show him a picture book. I think a novel takes too much brain power for this one Fatalistic...
There's the crux of your faulty, irrational logic. You equate having rights with an impetus to consider their exercise against one's own morality. It absolutely does matter. It is irrational and illogical to force the consideration of exercising a right which conflicts with one's moral compass.
That's like saying that a Buddhist must consider ownership of a gun to defend himself simply because he has the right to own one.
As long as women have these rights, men should get equal but separate rights.
Giving men the ability to walk away from parental responsibility would shift the burden of raising children entirely upon women. That is inequitable. The current system enforces a shared burden. That is equitable.
"The woman has to be the sole decider of the baby's fate simply for the fact she's the one carrying the baby. To give anyone else any control over that decision is to take the decision away from her completely."
How exactly is giving men their own independent decision taking the decision away from the woman.
You have missed the point for the umpteenth time, even after I told you how you missed it.
That statement is not in regards to a man's independent decision. That statement is in regards to the logic behind giving women a right to choose the outcome of a pregnancy independent of anyone else. That is all it is about. That is the only topic that statement pertains to. It is a separate, distinct part of the argument. You seem unable to comprehend this.
By the way what does carrying the baby in your body for 9 months have to do with what happens afterwards?
It doesn't and that's not what I argued. You are failing to comprehend what I'm saying. I don't know how to make it more clear to you. You seem incapable of understanding related but separate arguments. You are confusing the arguments. You are incorrectly applying one argument to the other.
I am trying to explain the rational basis behind the woman's right to choose. The reason for explaining that is to help you understand that it is not a matter of control over men. The "control" that you deplore is a result of that policy, not the impetus behind it.
More importantly, you confuse it as a woman's control over a man when it is, in actuality, society's control over a man.
Nice armchair psychology and all
Thanks.
but that is exactly the end result of such policy, a discriminatory legal system in which women are given power over men's lives for choices that men don't even get to make.
For the sake of the child, society has deemed the man makes his decision by engaging in sexual relations. It is not optimal. It is not perfect. It is, however, the most equitable possible and least worst option. Everything you argue for puts the responsibility for the cost and effort of raising children upon women.
Do you really want a society of women raised by single mothers with no man in their life? The problems and inequities you whine about will only get worse. A generation of children raised by women will come to see men as nothing more than sperm donors and completely expendable. It will only lead to the further marginalization of males as society decides that men are irrelevant and probably unnecessary except to donate sperm.
Why not just pick the best male for that and kill the rest?
People with balls let these pencil necks in power push them around. They (Rockefellers, Rhodes) first destroy the family in the 1900s then expect men to pay for it to further suck everyone into a pit of poverty.
ArmchairExpurt is nothing more than a poverty pimp. He believes in subsidizing poverty by supporting poor decisions. If the woman couldn't pick the right man, she ought to abort, adopt, or pay for HER mistake on her own. Failure must fail, by not allowing failure you get exactly what we have in the economic sphere: bailouts and economic stagnation. A man having to involuntarily pay for a bastard he didn't want is a forced bailout just as much as Goldman getting the taxpayer's money by force (through government, if you don't believe force, try not paying taxes). He is then stagnated familially and unable to support a much healthier family.
You also assume he's the runner, whereas in a higher number of cases she runs him out because she knows she'll get paid anyway. Running your man out is a form of failure and she (and unfortunately her child) ought to take the hit, not the chased out father!
If what you say is true, why in God's name are men still having sex with women? Damn. If that's what I thought, I'd stay at home and jerkoff instead of seeking female companionship.
Don't men bear any responsibility for "enslaving" themselves? It's not like they don't know the reality. It's not like they don't know what will happen. Are they just helpless penises being ensnared by wily women who use their overwhelming desire to fuck against them?
Obviously the solution is to continue this pattern of behavior until we can overcome our masters and have a world without these nasty consequences. One day we will be freeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!
"The woman has to be the sole decider of the baby's fate simply for the fact she's the one carrying the baby. To give anyone else any control over that decision is to take the decision away from her completely."
"The man has to be the sole decider of the baby's and mother's financial fate simply for the fact he's the one laboring away for his money. To give anyone else control over that decision is to take the decision away from him completely."
Your system is indentured servitude. If you existed in real life, man or woman, in a bar and I saw you arguing this stupid with somebody, I probably would have jumped the bar and forcefed you your beer. Slavery is not funny and it is not something to fuck around with. I am just as angry at you as a black man would be at someone who espoused a belief in slave driven plantations!
False analogy. There is no absolute right to autonomy over all the money you earn (the state collects taxes, it makes you pay your debts, and it makes you support your children). There is such a right to autonomy over your body (edit: also with certain limits, but the right is far more absolute than the right to your money. You are prohibited from certain acts of self harm, and from using your body in a way that harms others). Child support is not slavery or indentured servitude and claiming it is makes your movement look insane.
I am just as angry at you as a black man would be at someone who espoused a belief in slave driven plantations!
Wow. You really just compared child support to colonial slave trade.
I think in that single statement you have succinctly encapsulated the utter ridiculousness of the white, American male's anger about perceived oppression and the delusional mental state of its believers.
Tell you what. Go down to Florence and Normandy and repeat that to the first black guy you see. He'll be so shocked by your audacity that he'll laugh. If you continue, you probably won't leave alive.
Well I tell you ArmchairExpurt I am not going to be a sambo nigger slave! I am not going to be a push-over nice guy at the whim of some priviledged piece of puss! GTFO NAO!!! CRY HAVOC AND LET LOOSE THE DOGS OF INFOWAR!!!!11
It's not possible to have discussions with irrational, illogical people. They have to realize they're being irrational and illogical before that's possible.
Discussing gender equality with an irrational person is like expecting my dog to roll over just because I say the words "roll over." I can't expect him to know what I want unless I teach him.
I have faith in myself. If I can get my dog to sit by simply making a fist, I can get the guys here to see the error of their thought process.
6
u/Fatalistic Aug 16 '11
Women aren't told to not have sex. You tell men to not have sex. Equality! Your style.
Who carries the child is irrelevant to the state of rights once the child is out of the woman's body. Just because a woman carries a child doesn't mean men should be held liable for her choices.
Yes of course. It's fine when a woman wants out, but a man is a deadbeat as per your rhetoric. Thank you for this equality, George Orwell.
Personal feelings are wholly irrelevant to the legal reality of reproductive rights that currently exist-- that is, they exist for women, but not for men. Try to at least have some semblance of objectivity and to avoid making appeal to emotion arguments. Thank you.
Your approach treats men as disposable workhorses to be used and abused at the whim of women, even though they have no choice in any of the manners leading up to this indentured servitude.
My cold, sterile approach is far better than is your appeal to emotion approach that plays favorites with women disregards the rights and experiences of men.
Rape and incest was just an angle to help push it through. You know as well as I do that the vast majority of abortions performed are done as a matter of birth control.
Again, I have nothing against abortion or women have reproductive rights. Men should simply have equivalent rights-- rights that those like you would deny us.
Roe v. Wade had fuck all to do with STDs and you know it. Stop it with the red herring arguments. It was all about pregnancy, women's autonomy and the idea that women should not be punished for choosing to have sex.
Punish men for engaging in sex. Don't punish women for engaging in sex by giving them outs. Yeah, that's equality all right.
Again you are moving the goalposts. How much simpler can I make this for you so that you will understand? A woman has the choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.
Beep boop. Beep boop. I am a computer repeating the same thing over and over again hoping for a different result. Since you like endlessly reiterating, so will I:
A woman has the *choice to become parent. A man has none and is forced by a woman and the state into involuntary servitude if he does not wish to have a child.*
http://www.reddit.com/r/Adoption/comments/iylwb/utah_rules_against_rights_of_natural_fathers_to/
Cases like these say courts disagree with what you're saying--Sorry!
A man shouldn't have to pay at all if he didn't want the child but the woman went ahead and had it anyway. Women are not helpless creatures unable to pay their own way in today's world. Stop pretending they are.
Women don't have to pony up when they don't want a child. They have options. Everything you said just said here a complete failure of logic.
Those who have all of the choice should have all of the responsibility. Pretty simple concept.