• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Child support in the era of abortion

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
nonlnear said:
I think he's saying this is fair and the notion of "equality" doesn't really have any business being imposed on an inherently asymmetric situation.
Click to expand...


Not really sure. What what I can tell, he is saying it is not fair nor equal, but that unfair and unequal is perfectly fine. That is stupid, but I think that is his position.
 
nonlnear said:
I think he's saying this is fair and the notion of "equality" doesn't really have any business being imposed on an inherently asymmetric situation.
Click to expand...

ignore list for the win... but I will reply to his quandary... Exactly what you said nonlnear.. Does there have to be fairness or equality? Neither my father nor his father nor his father before him ever led any of us to think there should be any semblance of fairness or equality when it comes to this. There used to be a shotgun on the other end of this deal... didn't have to worry about IF you were going to have to pay child support. You WERE the child support FFS.
 
LOL! What do you do when your world view is so fragile it cannot stand against the views of others? You use the ignore list! No need to be bothered by pesky things like logic and reality when you can ignore them! YAY for being close minded!
 
cybrsage said:
Yes, there does. Just because YOU say being treated like a lesser human is fine does not magically make is so.
Click to expand...

Equality is not a magic word.

As has been said ad nauseam, when YOU can bear the child then we can truly talk "equality".

If you have to bring up an extreme hypothetical where the woman is sabotaging birth control and the guy does not wear a cap and the woman is a psycho bent on male domination in order to prove that somehow the way things are set up is not fair to men, you have already lost any coherence.

The man is responsible for his actions. Period. Think of it in terms of a "black box" scenario. If he does something and something happens as a direct result of that action (pregnancy) he is responsible for the kid if that kid is born.

He can offer an OPINION, but that is it. Waah. Unfair.

You want to talk about something a bit more debatable, what about VD? What if one of the partners knows they have Herpes and does not tell the other (happened to a friend of my brothers). What happens when that is transmitted? Is there a criminal responsibility on the part of the liar? Or was that a 100% risk/choice on the part of the "victim"?

As far as I know, you will get a lot of sympathy for your plight, but you will get no legal action. Shouldn't the transmitter have to pay for your pain?
 
Ninjahedge said:
No, I do get it.

If he fucked it, he shares the responsibility.

"Waaaa, not fair" does not cut it in this case.
Click to expand...

Then you are also saying she has no choice but to be responsible as well, therefor you are anti-abortion. Correct?

Or are you saying she is allowed to duck her responsibility but he has to "suck it up"?
 
Ninjahedge said:
Equality is not a magic word.

As has been said ad nauseam, when YOU can bear the child then we can truly talk "equality".
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. When a black man can be white, then we will talk "equality". See what a stupid argument you have?

If you have to bring up an extreme hypothetical where the woman is sabotaging birth control and the guy does not wear a cap and the woman is a psycho bent on male domination in order to prove that somehow the way things are set up is not fair to men, you have already lost any coherence.
Click to expand...

I did not bring up such a thing, but I understand why you need to say I did since your position is untenable otherwise.

The man is responsible for his actions.
Click to expand...

But you say a woman does not have to be. Yet you claim this a logical position to hold for some illogical reason.

Period.
Click to expand...

Menstration is irrelevant.

Think of it in terms of a "black box" scenario. If he does something and something happens as a direct result of that action (pregnancy) he is responsible for the kid if that kid is born.
Click to expand...

Yet you say if she does something and something hapens as a direct result of that action (pregnancy) she does not have to be responsible for the kid - she can decide on a whim to duck her responsibility.

You have been saying the woman does not to accept any responsibility if she does not want it...while claiming repsonsibility is something which has to be taken due to actions performed. Which is it?
 
Last edited:
CitizenKain said:
They aren't leeching off men, men are upholding their responsibility to the child.
Click to expand...
Bullshit. She can disown the kid after birth. So much for "responsibilities."
Here is a very simple way to avoid having to make child support payments. Why, its even simple enough that someone like you can understand it.
Step One: Don't have sex with someone if you can't handle the consequences.
Its even less steps then your plan!
Click to expand...
Don't ride the cock carousel if you can't handle the consequences. Funny your little brain is incapable of applying the same argument to women.
Can't understand it yet? If the manchild doesn't want the kid and she doesn't want to give the kid up for adoption, then he has to help raise the child. This isn't feminist blinders, this is called rational thinking.
Click to expand...
It's rational thinking when the entitled princess has the ability to walk away from a kid after birth, but not him? Lay down the crack pipe.
 
Munky said:
So in other words you support giving the women all the advantages possible, and thus have no business discussing whats "fair"
Click to expand...

Nope.

Again you are contorting the issue and claiming you are on two feet while doing a headstand.

I would support giving the women all the RIGHTS they deserve on issues concerning their body, health and life.

Semantics are everything.
 
And Cybr, you can stop responding. I gave up on you weeks ago.

You are a serious woodchucker in that you find any flame on the boards and add your 2¢ to the fire.

If I am in the mood for a good headache one day I will read your parsed out response to one of my posts.
 
Ninjahedge said:
Nope.

Again you are contorting the issue and claiming you are on two feet while doing a headstand.
Click to expand...
Drop the verbal diarrhea.
I would support giving the women all the RIGHTS they deserve on issues concerning their body, health and life.
Click to expand...
Too bad your idea of "rights" is about as biased as can be. Only in your pathetic world does the right to disown a kid also come with a right to force someone else to pay for it.

Semantics are everything.
Click to expand...
Back up your nerd-logic slogan with some actual thought.
 
Munky said:
Drop the verbal diarrhea.
Click to expand...

Clever rejoinder for someone who talks sheise.

Too bad your idea of "rights" is about as biased as can be. Only in your pathetic world does the right to disown a kid also come with a right to force someone else to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Um, you are still so skewed. You almost sound like someone who has been burned on this.


Back up your nerd-logic slogan with some actual thought.
Click to expand...

Again with the insults. The louder the retort, the more beans from lunch.
 
Ninjahedge said:
Clever rejoinder for someone who talks sheise.



Um, you are still so skewed. You almost sound like someone who has been burned on this.




Again with the insults. The louder the retort, the more beans from lunch.
Click to expand...
Here's a hint... talking like a "big bang theory" nerd is only funny to you. Now run along and come back when you learn to construct a logical argument.
 
Ninjahedge said:
And Cybr, you can stop responding. I gave up on you weeks ago.

You are a serious woodchucker in that you find any flame on the boards and add your 2¢ to the fire.

If I am in the mood for a good headache one day I will read your parsed out response to one of my posts.
Click to expand...

Is this your long winded way of saying "you are right and I cannot intelligently argue against you"?
 
Munky said:
Bullshit. She can disown the kid after birth. So much for "responsibilities."

Don't ride the cock carousel if you can't handle the consequences. Funny your little brain is incapable of applying the same argument to women.

It's rational thinking when the entitled princess has the ability to walk away from a kid after birth, but not him? Lay down the crack pipe.
Click to expand...

Occasionally I forget that I'm arguing with a person who is dumb even for a rightwinger. At what in here do I say she avoids the consequences? She still has the same potential consequence, but hers involve different options. The good news is with the way republicans are going, you'll be able to toss women down flights of stairs to terminate a pregnancy the way god intended.
 
CitizenKain said:
Occasionally I forget that I'm arguing with a person who is dumb even for a rightwinger. At what in here do I say she avoids the consequences? She still has the same potential consequence, but hers involve different options. The good news is with the way republicans are going, you'll be able to toss women down flights of stairs to terminate a pregnancy the way god intended.
Click to expand...

Apparently I have to break it down to a point where a leftist can understand.

Walking away from a pregnancy for no other reason than "she doesn't want it" = avoiding consequences of cock hopping. Since you love to use the "keep it in his pants" argument like you have some kind of male fetish, I'll give you the female equivalent - "keep her legs closed."

Giving up the kid after birth for adoption is an even worse evasion of consequences, because now she can't use the "her body" excuse. She can disown the kid with impunity, against the father's will, and no one is going to throw her ass in jail for neglect or abuse, whereas the man can't do the same. And should she decide to keep it, suddenly the needs of the baby outweigh anything else. If you libotards had it your way, a man wouldn't even be able to get a vasectomy without the permission of a woman, which is why you're working so hard to close that inconvenient loophole.
 
Munky said:
If you libotards had it your way, a man wouldn't even be able to get a vasectomy without the permission of a woman, which is why you're working so hard to close that inconvenient loophole.
Click to expand...

Depending on the state, a man already needs to have the wife concent to allow him to get a vasectomy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top