If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   All the countries that have signed onto the women's rights treaty that Hillary Clinton is promoting, step right up. Uhhh, not so fast there USA   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 577
    More: Interesting, Hillary Rodham Clinton, United States, Catherine Ashton, UN resolutions, UN Convention, abortion law, United States rankings, treaty  
•       •       •

2232 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Sep 2011 at 7:20 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



577 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-09-21 04:35:22 PM

liam76: Philip Francis Queeg: I never said they only sat in warehouses. Read it again. I responded to your suggestion that "simply having landmines" wasn't a danger to the population. I asked you if there was a need to have sitting in warehouses, because "simply having landmines" means not deploying and using them.

So where did urgent come from?

Why did you claim we gain nothing from working with them? Even when I pointed out how having them could be useful you never retracted the "warehouse" claim, and said you disagree with everything I said. Which leads me to believe you still supported it.



Philip Francis Queeg: The US hasn't used landmines in 20+years- lie. We've never stopped using landmines, let alone 20+ years ago, as shown by the "random" (random now meaning official US statements of policy) links you were too dim to comprehend, or too dishonest to admit proved your pathetic claim wrong

The PDF was about the first gulf war (and quite long, too long for you to read after a quick GIS).

You link on US landmine policy says nothing about the last time they were used.

US has not used antipersonnel mines since 1991, nor produced them since 1997 (new window)

So who is being dishonest here?


You are. The US still has hundreds of thousands of mines in use in Korea. It doesn't mention the last time they were used because there is no last time.

From the Official US policy on the State department Website as linked:

#continue to develop non-persistent (self-destructing/self-deactivating) landmines that will not pose a humanitarian threat after use in battle;

# only employ persistent anti-vehicle mines outside of Korea between now and 2010, if needed, when authorized by the President;

# not use any persistent landmines -- neither anti-personnel nor anti-vehicle -- anywhere after 2010;

# begin the destruction within two years of those persistent landmines not needed for the protection of Korea;
 
2011-09-21 04:36:20 PM

lennavan: So if a woman, 10 weeks pregnant, knows the father will not financially support it and knows she cannot financially support it herself, gives birth anyways, its the fathers fault?

I wonder why that is.



Is that what I said? Here is a question for you:

Who is more responsible for the support of that child? The parents (unwilling or otherwise), or the taxpayers?
 
2011-09-21 04:37:26 PM

EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: EWreckedSean: Theaetetus: liam76: No it is crucial to the strawman you are trying to assign to me.

You are the one who has framed this whole argument in terms of payment only based on a child being born, to try and distract fromt he fact that this gives the mother more power in child payments.

I, and many others, have pointed out that this leaves a lot of power in the mothers hands as for several months they have sole power in deciding if anyone is going to have to make those payments.

No, she doesn't. That's like saying a bald person has sole power in determining what color to dye his hair. There is no hair.
The mother has absolutely no power to tell the father that they don't have to pay a child support obligation that they owe. She can tell him that he doesn't owe any child support obligation, because there's no child, but that's a different situation and a distinction which you refuse to recognize because it shreds apart your entire argument.

He's talking about abortion genius.

[pat pat] Yes, kiddo. Now, go play with your dolls.

Well you were headed to the too stupid to be worth talking to list sooner or later. I guess you can go there now.


Shouldn't you be somewhere ranting about how the 13th amendment means you don't have to support your kids?
 
2011-09-21 04:37:38 PM

Fart_Machine: DrPainMD: No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.

Jim Crow laws were put in place through support of the general population. The whole States Rights movement started because that nasty Fed wanted to remove the right of Segregation from those pesky southern states.


Exactly. Which is why freedom is always better than government control. The southern bus companies were hit hard financially when the bus strikes began, and lobbied for and end to government-mandated bus segregation. They couldn't desegregate their bus seating without violating the law. It's none of the general population's business how bus companies arrange their seating and the government has no business forcing the general population's wishes on the bus companies.
 
2011-09-21 04:38:27 PM

liam76: If he has to pay back the mother for prenatal care it doesn;t begin witht he moment of birth.


Which, as I said, i have no ethical commitment to, and is a legal obligation to the mother, not to the fetus in any event. Don't confuse that with his obligations to the child, they are not the same thing in terms of legal responsibilities.

EWreckedSean: You know Florida just had a complete overhaul of our child custody/support system just recently. I love how you think that because something s a law now, it is immutable and past discussing. Better still that you think it means the problems are only perceived problems by me, and the father's rights movement doesn't exist.


None of which changed the underlying fundamentals that we are discussing, only the details of implementation. You are comparing an overhaul of the system with tossing out the system entirely and creating a new and radically different one. That's disingenuous of you.

EWreckedSean: Worse is a measurement solely of your opinion. The matter is hardly settled.


If you side with the father, you either abrogate the woman's right to bodily autonomy, or you abrogate the child's right to support. Either of those outcomes is far worse for those individuals than the outcome of forcing the father to pay child support.

I am sorry, but if you really think that paying a monthly fee to support a child is worse than forcibly controlling a woman's body against her will to impose a somewhat risky medical procedure, or denying financial support to an innocent child then there really is no point in continuing this discussion, because at that point you have declared that your greed trumps their need.

EWreckedSean: There is that word worse again. And it is still opinion, and your opinion frankly doesn't define the discussion. You have made no case of why it is worse, just repeated this invented right to support argument that you then proved was not a right a line later.


Ok, you are now starting to be stupid. It should be obvious why adoption is not the same thing. In the case of adoption, other parents assume the responsibility of fulfilling the right of the child to support. The child still gets what it needs to have a chance. It is a transfer of responsibility, not a waiving of responsibility. It is not in any way equivalent to the father having the right to just blow off his obligation to the child. You are again creating a false equivalency.

I have demonstrated now several times why things are the way they are. You just don't want to accept it, because if you did, your argument dissolves instantly. Unfortunately for you, the courts that originally evaluated these points are well aware of that, and they are not so committed. They are able to tell that the harm to the mother by imposing an abortion or to the child by denying it support are indeed worse than the harm to the father by forcing him to pay support.

Force the mother to have an abortion, deny support to the child, or force the father to pay support. Those are your options. The realities of human biology means that sooner or later you are faced with a situation where you have to pick one of the above, all of which infringe on the rights of someone. The option to infringe on the father is the least bad of the three.

EWreckedSean: That is a fine strawman you've come up with there. You utterly failed to address the issue a made, which is that the ability of parents to voluntarily terminate their parental rights and responsibilities shows why parental support isn't a right at all. Tossing in a red herring about joint decision is meaningless. It's not a joint decision with the child, who would be the only one who could terminate parental support if it was a right.


Once and for all, adoption is not a termination of responsibility. It is a transfer of responsibility to other parties willing to accept it in full, either mediated by the state or with the state acting as the second party if no adoptive parents can be found, hence the term "Ward of the State".

It is not the same thing as letting the father walk because he doesn't feel like paying and leaving the mother holding the bag and the kid with a much reduced quality of life at the most vulnerable point.

EWreckedSean: I did research it, even sourced why you are wrong. I welcome you to actually defend your point if you'd like.


You cherry-picked a particular point from a link that did not otherwise support your position, and ignored all the rest of the material on the page, including references in support of my claim that go back 400 years and American jurisprudence that dates back to 1808. That is a contemptible level of intellectual dishonesty, and greatly lowered my opinion of you.

EWreckedSean: I didn't say abortion was, I said child birth is. Carrying a child to term can easily be considered a social obligation. As I said, since social obligation trumps person liberty in your view, you are basically making a pro-life argument.


I invite you again to demonstrate to me a job that you can't quit that requires invasive medical procedures. Your person does not include your wealth, no matter how much you want it to.

My argument was very different from your claim. Social limitations and requirements are trumped by physical limitations and requirements. You are conflating physical limitations, as in you can neither deny a woman an abortion nor require her to get one against her will, with personal liberty. They are not the same thing. Your job is social. Your wealth is social. Your desire to escape support of your child is social. They are all trumped by the woman's right to control her own body, and later by the child's need for material support.

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that as humans, all physical things we do have social dimensions. The converse is not true. Not all social things have a physical dimension. Conflating the two does not make it so.

EWreckedSean: The Poor Laws makes no provision for parental child support what so ever. And the link clearly states that English law had no such legal provision. So no, not remotely enough.


Strange how your link shows exactly the circumstances when the English did allow for child support, and how it has been an established and well-supported trend in American jurisprudence for the last 200 years or so, and yet that's not enough for you. It's almost as if you are an obvious partisan for which nothing would ever be enough, and who can thus be discounted as not worth considering, because their whole position devolves to the good old "Because I said so!" argument.

Too bad for you then. Suck it up and deal with it, Nancy. Your selfishness does not outweigh the needs of your child to have support.

Force the mother to have an abortion, deny support to the child, force the father to pay support. Pick one. No amount of fancing dancing on your part will change the fact that as things stand huma biology means you will be faced with this set of unpalatable choices.

The first and second are worse violations of personal rights than the latter, because invading the body of the mother or denying the child the material support it needs to have a shot at growing up are worse than your annoyance at having your pocketbook raided.
 
2011-09-21 04:41:27 PM

lennavan: It isn't all victimization, I love that you try to minimize it like that. The victimization is no doubt a negligible fraction compared to the perfect use conception rate. All contraception has a fail rate. A 21 year old male, who wants to have sex with his girlfriend but not have a child, what should he do? What if he wants to have kids in the future? Vasectomy is out. Looks like condoms are his only choice.


Condoms and the girl being on the pill would certainly make it very unlikely that they'd have a kid, it's really about how much risk the guy wants to take versus the reward of busting a nut with a skank he doesn't know enough about regarding her desires to have a child or not. The guy could always choose not to vaginal sex or choose not to have sex at all if he was very concerned about not having a kid.
 
2011-09-21 04:41:40 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

What freedom looks like to DrPainMD:

[photo of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites]

No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.

DrPainMD: Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: Good. At its core, the treaty is an anti-discrimination treaty. Every person has the basic human right to associate, or not, with any person he/she chooses. This treaty, like every anti-discrimination treaty or law, does not give rights, it takes them away.

What freedom looks like to DrPainMD:

[photo of separate drinking fountains for blacks and whites]

No, that's what government control looks like. That photo was brought to you by Jim Crow laws.

But government treaties against such laws limit our freedom?


The treaty goes way beyond forbidding Jim Crow laws. It forbids the basic human right of freedom of association.

This is pure freedom , right?

[thedarkprophet.files.wordpress.com image 390x365]


Again, that's what happens when the government decides who associates with whom and under what conditions. Are you schizophrenic; you seem to be both for and against government having that authority?
 
2011-09-21 04:45:49 PM

lennavan: KiltedBastich: The biological asymmetry of pregnancy and birth mean that no matter what you do, someone is on the hook - either the mother, the child, or the father, all of whom have equal rights in the eyes of the law. Of the possible outcomes, leaving the father on the hook is the one that causes the least infringement and the least harm. It sucks for the father, but the alternatives suck worse for the other parties.

Here, you discuss the asymmetry of biology as the argument. I get it and I agree. That's why I agree, the woman gets final say on severing the biology to the fetus. A fetus is the potential for life. Because of the asymmetry of biology, a woman should get the final say to sever that potential for life.

KiltedBastich: He can waive his legal rights to the fetus...

Here you discuss legal rights and move from fetus to child. A fetus has no rights and a father has no rights to the fetus to waive or not waive. Biologically, there is asymmetry for the reasons you outlined that I agree with. But with respect to legal responsibilities, there should be no asymmetry. There is no need for asymmetry. A woman can sever the potential for life and with it the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. A man should be able to sever the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. But because of the asymmetry he gets no say on the potential for life part.

KiltedBastich: It sucks for the father, but the alternatives suck worse for the other parties.

There are only two parties, the mother and the father. The father is severing the potential for rights and responsibilities to a potential child. He is causing no person harm. At best, you could argue he is causing the potential child harm. To which I would reply an abortion is causing a potential child harm.

You are arguing he is causing a potential child harm. Yet would you simultaneously argue pro-choice?

You do see how these two things are in direct logical conflict, right?


Once the fetus is born, it is a child. At that point denying the child support is harming the child. You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time. What is a valid argument before the fetus is born ceases to be a valid argument after the child is born and it has legal rights of its own.

You are conflating the legal status of the fetus with the legal status of the child. During the period before birth, the fetus has no rights independent of the mother, and the mother's right's trump the fathers.

After the birth, the child's right to support trumps that of the father to try and waive his rights to the child.

Either way, the father is on the hook.

Before birth, he could in theory force the mother to have an abortion, which is a violation of her right to bodily autonomy. The fetus has no rights, so is irrelevant to the question.

After birth, the child has a right to support that the mother and father have no ability to waive except by the joint transference of their parental authority to the state by giving up the child for adoption. Any contract between the mother and father to waive his rights to the child is moot and has no legal standing because it is the rights of the child that are paramount in the consideration of support.

Your legal bait-and-switch is not valid. It is meaningless before birth, and has no legal standing after birth.
 
2011-09-21 04:46:04 PM

DrPainMD: It's none of the general population's business how bus companies arrange their seating and the government has no business forcing the general population's wishes on the bus companies.


So if a bus company on it's own said that black people had to sit in back, you believe the general populace would have no business attempting to have that policy changed?

Are these people doing wrong, in your opinion? Are they fighting against freedom?

cdn1.newsone.com
 
2011-09-21 04:48:53 PM

DrPainMD:
This is pure freedom , right?

[thedarkprophet.files.wordpress.com image 390x365]

Again, that's what happens when the government decides who associates with whom and under what conditions. Are you schizophrenic; you seem to be both for and against government having that authority?


That picture has nothing to do with government control. That was a choice of the owners of the restaurant. Much of "Jim Crow" was the result of private business and individuals actions, not state law.
 
2011-09-21 04:49:45 PM

Headso: Condoms and the girl being on the pill


The man cannot control the woman. I am sure you agree to that. We are only talking about what the man can control. How can he decide to have sex but not a child? By your arguments and definition, that decision does not exist. I'm suggesting to you that situation is bad.

Headso: The guy could always choose not to vaginal sex or choose not to have sex at all if he was very concerned about not having a kid.


Which brings us to abstinence only education for men. The only way to not consent to having a child is to not have sex.

Also, I'm not actually making any real point with this other than for the lulz --> Link (new window)
 
2011-09-21 04:54:43 PM

KiltedBastich: At that point denying the child support is harming the child.


No it isn't. If a father severs his rights and responsibilities while it was still a fetus, when it hits the point of being a child, the biological father not providing child support is the same as not helping the child it is not the same as harming the child. He is taking nothing away. He severed the potential for his rights and responsibilities and so legally the child would be born with one parent with rights and responsibilities. The child was born with one parent supporting it and so moving forward, one parent supporting it is the status quo.

Compare to a child whose father did not rescind his rights and responsibilities while still a fetus. That child was born with two parents, the status quo. Subsequently, a father there denying child support would remove half of its support, thus harming it.

KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.


Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.
 
2011-09-21 04:56:03 PM

lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?


You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.
 
2011-09-21 04:57:28 PM

lennavan: Also, I'm not actually making any real point with this other than for the lulz --> Link (new window)


That is one of the most bizarre things I've ever heard. Which guy has to pay child support in that case? The one who she blew, or the one who stabbed her?
 
2011-09-21 04:58:42 PM

Headso: lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?

You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.


Yet you are saying a woman can have the best of both worlds. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
 
2011-09-21 05:01:08 PM
KiltedBastich:
None of which changed the underlying fundamentals that we are discussing, only the details of implementation. You are comparing an overhaul of the system with tossing out the system entirely and creating a new and radically different one. That's disingenuous of you.


Allowing a father opt out isn't throwing out the system altogether even remotely. It would have a minimal affect on a verysmall percentage of people.

If you side with the father, you either abrogate the woman's right to bodily autonomy, or you abrogate the child's right to support. Either of those outcomes is far worse for those individuals than the outcome of forcing the father to pay child support.

Again, worse is a matter of opinion. I find forcing somebody into a state of indentured servitude for 18 years against their will to be a far greater negative affect. And I recognize no right to support, and have shown repeatedly why it doesn't exist.

I am sorry, but if you really think that paying a monthly fee to support a child is worse than forcibly controlling a woman's body against her will to impose a somewhat risky medical procedure, or denying financial support to an innocent child then there really is no point in continuing this discussion, because at that point you have declared that your greed trumps their need.

I am 100% pro-choice, and have never suggested forcing anything on a woman, so it would be nice if you stopped making that strawman. Although I find it incredibly hypocritical that you would lecture me on greed, and then be perfectly ok with a woman's greed trumping a fetus's need because it isn't a legally separate entity yet. You are perfectly willing to kill a fetus for a woman's rights, but unwilling to let a man opt out because it might cost the baby it eventual turns into some economic hardship. Again, I am consistently pro-choice, you are only pro-female choice.

Ok, you are now starting to be stupid. It should be obvious why adoption is not the same thing. In the case of adoption, other parents assume the responsibility of fulfilling the right of the child to support. The child still gets what it needs to have a chance. It is a transfer of responsibility, not a waiving of responsibility. It is not in any way equivalent to the father having the right to just blow off his obligation to the child. You are again creating a false equivalency.

Other parents assume the responsibility when and if the child is adopted. Until then they are a ward of the state, with no parental support, in either a group home our bouncing between foster parents.

I have demonstrated now several times why things are the way they are. You just don't want to accept it, because if you did, your argument dissolves instantly. Unfortunately for you, the courts that originally evaluated these points are well aware of that, and they are not so committed. They are able to tell that the harm to the mother by imposing an abortion or to the child by denying it support are indeed worse than the harm to the father by forcing him to pay support.

Again with the imposing abortion strawman? Really. Fortunately for me, because there is no such right to parental support, the laws can change at any point and remove what is clearly a terrible double standard.

Force the mother to have an abortion, deny support to the child, or force the father to pay support. Those are your options. The realities of human biology means that sooner or later you are faced with a situation where you have to pick one of the above, all of which infringe on the rights of someone. The option to infringe on the father is the least bad of the three.

Those are the only options if a child being raised and provided for by a single parent isn't an option. It happens all the time.

Once and for all, adoption is not a termination of responsibility. It is a transfer of responsibility to other parties willing to accept it in full, either mediated by the state or with the state acting as the second party if no adoptive parents can be found, hence the term "Ward of the State".

That is exactly a termination. Those parents have no more obligation to the child. Therefore the child never had a right to support for them to begin with.

It is not the same thing as letting the father walk because he doesn't feel like paying and leaving the mother holding the bag and the kid with a much reduced quality of life at the most vulnerable point.

You guys really have a tough time arguing our actual points on this.

I invite you again to demonstrate to me a job that you can't quit that requires invasive medical procedures. Your person does not include your wealth, no matter how much you want it to.

My argument was very different from your claim. Social limitations and requirements are trumped by physical limitations and requirements. You are conflating physical limitations, as in you can neither deny a woman an abortion nor require her to get one against her will, with personal liberty. They are not the same thing. Your job is social. Your wealth is social. Your desire to escape support of your child is social. They are all trumped by the woman's right to control her own body, and later by the child's need for material support.

What you seem to be failing to grasp is that as humans, all physical things we do have social dimensions. The converse is not true. Not all social things have a physical dimension. Conflating the two does not make it so.


And again this strawman...

Strange how your link shows exactly the circumstances when the English did allow for child support, and how it has been an established and well-supported trend in American jurisprudence for the last 200 years or so, and yet that's not enough for you. It's almost as if you are an obvious partisan for which nothing would ever be enough, and who can thus be discounted as not worth considering, because their whole position devolves to the good old "Because I said so!" argument.

Only if you didn't read it. Again, right from the beginning of TFA:

The History
In the early nineteenth century,the courts in America that were dealing with the cases of divorce and marital breakdowns, found that the current laws don't provide for a support action. America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.


Too bad for you then. Suck it up and deal with it, Nancy. Your selfishness does not outweigh the needs of your child to have support.

Ok, so you're pro-life then?


Force the mother to have an abortion, deny support to the child, force the father to pay support. Pick one. No amount of fancing dancing on your part will change the fact that as things stand huma biology means you will be faced with this set of unpalatable choices.

Sorry, I don't have to play by your limited choices. Single parent support happens every farking day in this country, despite your belief it is impossible.


The first and second are worse violations of personal rights than the latter, because invading the body of the mother or denying the child the material support it needs to have a shot at growing up are worse than your annoyance at having your pocketbook raided.


Opinions are like assholes, everybody has them, a lot of them stick.
 
2011-09-21 05:01:38 PM

lennavan: Headso: lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?

You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.

Yet you are saying a woman can have the best of both worlds. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.


best of both worlds? carrying a kid for 9 months and then shooting it out of your junk is probably not as glamorous as you've been led to believe.
 
2011-09-21 05:04:04 PM

KiltedBastich: Once the fetus is born, it is a child. At that point denying the child support is harming the child. You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time. What is a valid argument before the fetus is born ceases to be a valid argument after the child is born and it has legal rights of its own.

You are conflating the legal status of the fetus with the legal status of the child. During the period before birth, the fetus has no rights independent of the mother, and the mother's right's trump the fathers.


God I love this argument. You can abort a fetus because it isn't a legally separate entity yet, and therefore even though you are killing it, you aren't doing it harm, because you have to have legal rights to be harmed. So killing it is fine, but once it is born, how dare you suggest giving it only one parent support.
 
2011-09-21 05:04:15 PM

lennavan: Headso: lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?

You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.

Yet you are saying a woman can have the best of both worlds. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.


I agree. If a woman is doesn't have to count her chickens until they hatch, a man should be allowed to make like a banana and split.
 
2011-09-21 05:04:36 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: It's none of the general population's business how bus companies arrange their seating and the government has no business forcing the general population's wishes on the bus companies.

So if a bus company on it's own said that black people had to sit in back, you believe the general populace would have no business attempting to have that policy changed?


Of course. It's none of their business. They are free to boycott the business if they don't like the policy (again, freedom of association), but they have no right to get the government involved.

Do YOU have the right to freedom of association, or does the government have the legitimate authority to force YOU to associate with others against your will?

And, if the government did force you to associate with others against your will, would you say that you are more free or less free?

Are these people doing wrong, in your opinion? Are they fighting against freedom?

[cdn1.newsone.com image 500x340]


Figure it out for yourself. And by that, I mean don't let 12 years of being taught double-think in public school interfere with your logical reasoning.
 
2011-09-21 05:05:46 PM

lennavan: KiltedBastich: At that point denying the child support is harming the child.

No it isn't. If a father severs his rights and responsibilities while it was still a fetus, when it hits the point of being a child, the biological father not providing child support is the same as not helping the child it is not the same as harming the child. He is taking nothing away. He severed the potential for his rights and responsibilities and so legally the child would be born with one parent with rights and responsibilities. The child was born with one parent supporting it and so moving forward, one parent supporting it is the status quo.

Compare to a child whose father did not rescind his rights and responsibilities while still a fetus. That child was born with two parents, the status quo. Subsequently, a father there denying child support would remove half of its support, thus harming it.


This is bullshiat, and you know it. Either the fetus has no rights and so there is nothing to rescind, or you are making a contract that applies to the child after birth, which has no legal standing because the rights of the child to support trump the father's right to try and evade support.

You cannot handwave away paternity as you are doing. It is an attempt at a legal bait and switch, to conflate and exploit the changing legal status of the fetus.

While the fetus is a fetus, it does not have legal rights separate from the mother, so there is nothing for the father to sign away.

Once the child is born, it has legal rights in its own right, and a contract between the mother and father that waives his legal support of the child has no standing because it is not legally permissible for either the mother or the father to deny support to the child.

You don't get to decide you aren't the father because you don't want to be. That child has rights, and you do not get to decide to ignore them just because you don't want to have to pay.

lennavan: KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.


Again, bullshiat. I am completely pro-choice. I am not in favor of letting a selfish father deny support to a child who needs it, nor am I in favor of him being able to force the mother to have an abortion.

Force the mother to have an abortion, deny support to the child that it needs, or force the father to pay up. Biology forces us to that choice. None of the options are good, but the father paying up is the least bad.
 
2011-09-21 05:06:31 PM

lennavan:
KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.


It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.
 
2011-09-21 05:08:29 PM

KiltedBastich: Again, bullshiat. I am completely pro-choice. I am not in favor of letting a selfish father deny support to a child who needs it, nor am I in favor of him being able to force the mother to have an abortion./i>

But you are ok with a greedy mother killing a fetus, because it doesn't have legal rights yet. All harm is ok as long as it hasn't exited the womb yet. You don't get the logical inconsistency of that even remotely?

 
2011-09-21 05:10:34 PM

DrPainMD: Philip Francis Queeg: DrPainMD: It's none of the general population's business how bus companies arrange their seating and the government has no business forcing the general population's wishes on the bus companies.

So if a bus company on it's own said that black people had to sit in back, you believe the general populace would have no business attempting to have that policy changed?

Of course. It's none of their business. They are free to boycott the business if they don't like the policy (again, freedom of association), but they have no right to get the government involved.

Do YOU have the right to freedom of association, or does the government have the legitimate authority to force YOU to associate with others against your will?

And, if the government did force you to associate with others against your will, would you say that you are more free or less free?

Are these people doing wrong, in your opinion? Are they fighting against freedom?

[cdn1.newsone.com image 500x340]

Figure it out for yourself. And by that, I mean don't let 12 years of being taught double-think in public school interfere with your logical reasoning.


Tell me which one of the freedom fighters in the back of this picture are you?

www.clas.ufl.edu
 
2011-09-21 05:10:46 PM

KiltedBastich:
Again, bullshiat. I am completely pro-choice. I am not in favor of letting a selfish father deny support to a child who needs it, nor am I in favor of him being able to force the mother to have an abortion.


Let me put it this way, you are ok with denying a child life for the mother's rights, but not denying it lifestyle for the father's.
 
2011-09-21 05:10:54 PM

Headso: lennavan: Headso: lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?

You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.

Yet you are saying a woman can have the best of both worlds. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

best of both worlds? carrying a kid for 9 months and then shooting it out of your junk is probably not as glamorous as you've been led to believe.


The best of both worlds being "have sex" and "still have a choice not to have a child." Having the choice to have a child is significantly more glamorous than being forced to have one, wouldn't you agree?

Now according to wikipedia, your appeal to emotion doesn't necessarily invalidate your argument, I have to search it for any other factual assertions or conclusions. Link (new window)

I searched it and found the following:

1) Childbirth is not glamorous.
2) Childbirth is less glamorous than I believe.
3) Children are shot out of your genitals.

I fail to see how any of that is relevant to whether or not someone should have a choice. Are you suggesting "childbirth is not glamorous and that is why abortion is legal?" Or are you just hitting the appeal to emotion button in a panic?
 
2011-09-21 05:15:30 PM

serial_crusher: lennavan: Headso: lennavan: How can he decide to have sex but not a child?

You are asking how a man can have his cake and eat it too? I would say if he makes his bed he has to lie in it.

Yet you are saying a woman can have the best of both worlds. I would say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I agree. If a woman is doesn't have to count her chickens until they hatch, a man should be allowed to make like a banana and split.


Exactly. I'm not asking to reinvent the wheel here. I just think a man should be allowed cross that bridge when he comes to it.
 
2011-09-21 05:19:20 PM

lennavan: The best of both worlds being "have sex" and "still have a choice not to have a child."


Her chance to choose extends beyond yours because it is kinda her body the fetus is developing in. You want the same rules to apply to the woman who actually has the child with the man who already signed on to have a baby via his sperm donation.
 
2011-09-21 05:19:29 PM

EWreckedSean: It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.



How many farking times has it been explained to you in this thread? The child only takes precedence ONCE IT IS BORN/VIABLE. Until then, it does not have rights.
 
2011-09-21 05:21:12 PM

EWreckedSean: lennavan:
KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.

It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.


Why? Both of you use incredibly specious reasoning and tons of logical fallacies, all the while accusing others of what you are doing.
 
2011-09-21 05:22:06 PM

lennavan: Exactly. I'm not asking to reinvent the wheel here. I just think a man should be allowed cross that bridge when he comes to inside of it.


FTFY
 
2011-09-21 05:23:47 PM

Headso: lennavan: The best of both worlds being "have sex" and "still have a choice not to have a child."

Her chance to choose extends beyond yours because it is kinda her body the fetus is developing in. You want the same rules to apply to the woman who actually has the child with the man who already signed on to have a baby via his sperm donation.


No I don't. I want the rules that can be consistent between the two to be consistent. There are two separate decisions to make.

1) Do I want this child to be born?
2) Do I want to have the rights/responsibilities with regard to this child?

I agree with you, physical location dictates the woman chooses #1.
I disagree with you, physical location is irrelevant with respect to #2.
 
2011-09-21 05:24:19 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: You are. The US still has hundreds of thousands of mines in use in Korea. It doesn't mention the last time they were used because there is no last time.


Yeah there is, I linked it. You are ignoring it, because you are dishonest.

Your link which talks about re-searching them and and the ROE for using them makes no mention of use since 91.


Theaetetus: If there's a child, both the mother and the father have to pay.
If there is no child, neither the mother nor the father have to pay.
Thus, before the child is born, neither the mother nor the father have any child support obligations. Accordingly, before the child is born, neither the mother nor the father can decide whether they have to fulfill some hypothetical obligation. It'd be the same as deciding what color to dye the hair you don't have.


That is where your argument falls apart.

If the child being born was some random act that the mother has no control over you would be correct.

Since that isn't the case and for several months after sex she gets to decide if she does or doesn't want the child born she does get to make a decision on child care.

KiltedBastich:
liam76: If he has to pay back the mother for prenatal care it doesn;t begin witht he moment of birth.

Which, as I said, i have no ethical commitment to, and is a legal obligation to the mother, not to the fetus in any event. Don't confuse that with his obligations to the child, they are not the same thing in terms of legal responsibilities.



In Maryland they are. I saw it in family court (got to serve as a divorce witness) that it was roled into child payments.

Theaetetus: If he defaults on his obligation to the mother, the mother can sue him.
If he defaults on his obligation to the child, the child can sue him.
The different plaintiffs are due to the different rights and different standing


See above.

And even in states where that isn't the case that still makes no distinction between "quasi-contractual obligation" and child support.
 
2011-09-21 05:24:21 PM

EWreckedSean: lennavan:
KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.

It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.


Except that an abortion, by definition, does not harm a child.
Your argument supports the conclusion that we should be opposed to infantcide. "If the issue is [that] harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be in favor of harming a child."
We aren't. Infantcide is, and should be, illegal.

But that has nothing to do with abortion, which does not involve children.
 
2011-09-21 05:24:33 PM

fuhfuhfuh: Why? Both of you use incredibly specious reasoning and tons of logical fallacies, all the while accusing others of what you are doing.


My favorite part of your post was the examples section you posted. It was amazingly thorough.
 
2011-09-21 05:27:02 PM

lennavan: I disagree with you, physical location is irrelevant with respect to #2.


this guy gets it:

KiltedBastich: Once the child is born, it has legal rights in its own right, and a contract between the mother and father that waives his legal support of the child has no standing because it is not legally permissible for either the mother or the father to deny support to the child.

 
2011-09-21 05:27:34 PM

Theaetetus: Except that an abortion, by definition, does not harm a child.


That seemed to be his point. He responded to someone who said you cannot take a single point in time. See this part of your post:

Theaetetus: KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.


Because if you are not allowed to restrict the discussion to one point, then you cannot say things such as:

Theaetetus: But that has nothing to do with abortion, which does not involve children.


So in disagreeing, it seems you actually agreed with him.
 
2011-09-21 05:28:37 PM

guestguy: EWreckedSean: It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.

How many farking times has it been explained to you in this thread? The child only takes precedence ONCE IT IS BORN/VIABLE. Until then, it does not have rights.


I love this line you guys have drawn, where it is perfectly acceptable to take a child's life until it is born, but then it is absolutely unacceptable to harm his lifestyle.
 
2011-09-21 05:29:26 PM

Headso: lennavan: I disagree with you, physical location is irrelevant with respect to #2.

this guy gets it:

KiltedBastich: Once the child is born, it has legal rights in its own right, and a contract between the mother and father that waives his legal support of the child has no standing because it is not legally permissible for either the mother or the father to deny support to the child.


That guy also thinks rights is a contract between mother and father and that's what I'm talking about. Are you really going to go that route?
 
2011-09-21 05:30:17 PM

EWreckedSean: guestguy: EWreckedSean: It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.

How many farking times has it been explained to you in this thread? The child only takes precedence ONCE IT IS BORN/VIABLE. Until then, it does not have rights.

I love this line you guys have drawn, where it is perfectly acceptable to take a child's life until it is born, but then it is absolutely unacceptable to harm his lifestyle.


I know. It's almost like we're consistently saying that a fetus has no rights. But, not understanding the concept, you'd never be able to recognize consistency.
 
2011-09-21 05:31:02 PM

fuhfuhfuh: EWreckedSean: lennavan:
KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Is this why you are pro-life, and against abortion? Again, your logical consistency here is lacking.

It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.

Why? Both of you use incredibly specious reasoning and tons of logical fallacies, all the while accusing others of what you are doing.


It's days like this, when people like you come along, that I am happy that fryers in fast food restaurants aren't too hard to operate, so you still have a chance at providing the world with some useful service.
 
2011-09-21 05:31:34 PM

lennavan: Headso: lennavan: I disagree with you, physical location is irrelevant with respect to #2.

this guy gets it:

KiltedBastich: Once the child is born, it has legal rights in its own right, and a contract between the mother and father that waives his legal support of the child has no standing because it is not legally permissible for either the mother or the father to deny support to the child.

That guy also thinks rights is a contract between mother and father and that's what I'm talking about. Are you really going to go that route?


The semantics of how you are trying to get out of your responsibilities doesn't change the overall point.
 
2011-09-21 05:34:56 PM

lennavan: Theaetetus: Except that an abortion, by definition, does not harm a child.

That seemed to be his point. He responded to someone who said you cannot take a single point in time. See this part of your post:

Theaetetus: KiltedBastich: You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time.

Because if you are not allowed to restrict the discussion to one point, then you cannot say things such as:

Theaetetus: But that has nothing to do with abortion, which does not involve children.

So in disagreeing, it seems you actually agreed with him.



Or, it could be that one sentence of Kilted's was taken out of context...here is the rest of the thought:

"Once the fetus is born, it is a child. At that point denying the child support is harming the child. You cannot restrict the discussion to one point in time, because the situation changes over time. What is a valid argument before the fetus is born ceases to be a valid argument after the child is born and it has legal rights of its own."
 
2011-09-21 05:37:04 PM

EWreckedSean: It's days like this, when people like you come along, that I am happy that fryers in fast food restaurants aren't too hard to operate, so you still have a chance at providing the world with some useful service.


Beautiful dig, and kind of invalidates your perceived intellectual superiority. Unlike your example of me using an ad hom, this is a shining example of what I am talking about. You use such fallacies like they are candy, and call things fallacies that aren't fallacies at all.

Here's an actual ad hom from me. You are a joke. Nothing you say can be taken as anything but a lie because all you do is twist words to make your points. You'd best run along now, kid... those pizzas aren't going to deliver themselves. (also note how much time you apparently have spent on Fark today posting vs. how much I have spent and compare who has an actual job and who apparently has ample time to piss away on a "not news" forum... oh and that was also an ad hom in case you were too stupid to realize it).
 
2011-09-21 05:39:41 PM

lennavan: fuhfuhfuh: Why? Both of you use incredibly specious reasoning and tons of logical fallacies, all the while accusing others of what you are doing.

My favorite part of your post was the examples section you posted. It was amazingly thorough.


OH MY GOD! You actually quoted the entirety of what I wrote and commented on said entirety! Too bad you apparently are unable to do that consistently, seeing as how most all of your arguments are based on out-of-context quotes. I guess more than a single sentence is too much for you to read and comment on.
 
2011-09-21 05:40:20 PM

guestguy: EWreckedSean: It is scaring me a bit that you are reach the same conclusion I am. If the issue is harming the child takes precedence over everybody else's rights, then you can't be pro-choice. Period.

How many farking times has it been explained to you in this thread? The child only takes precedence ONCE IT IS BORN/VIABLE. Until then, it does not have rights.


I asked earlier and didn't get an answer so I'll ask again....
If the child's not a child until it's born, how do you justify holding the father responsible? The "he made his decision when he had sex" argument doesn't work if the sex isn't what created the child. He had sex with her, then 9 months later she chose to have a baby. Might as well pick any arbitrary man to be financially responsible, not the one whose sperm she utilized in the making of said baby.
 
2011-09-21 05:40:46 PM

EWreckedSean: Allowing a father opt out isn't throwing out the system altogether even remotely. It would have a minimal affect on a verysmall percentage of people.


Then you are deeply ignorant of human nature. Allow it and it will happen far more than you suspect, because not only will the current deadbeat dads take advantage of it, those who were too lazy to seek to evade the system but would prefer not to pay will also do so once it becomes legally acceptable.

EWreckedSean: Again, worse is a matter of opinion. I find forcing somebody into a state of indentured servitude for 18 years against their will to be a far greater negative affect. And I recognize no right to support, and have shown repeatedly why it doesn't exist.


Which just goes to show you are a selfish bastard who puts your own wealth ahead of the well-being of your children. I am very glad that the courts have not heeded the crass greed of you and those like you on this point, your behaviour here makes you a discredit to the male gender.

EWreckedSean: I am 100% pro-choice, and have never suggested forcing anything on a woman, so it would be nice if you stopped making that strawman. Although I find it incredibly hypocritical that you would lecture me on greed, and then be perfectly ok with a woman's greed trumping a fetus's need because it isn't a legally separate entity yet. You are perfectly willing to kill a fetus for a woman's rights, but unwilling to let a man opt out because it might cost the baby it eventual turns into some economic hardship. Again, I am consistently pro-choice, you are only pro-female choice.


The moment that fetus is viable on its own, it gets rights. Not before. Otherwise every miscarriage becomes a potential crime, as does birth control that interferes with implantation (i.e. anything other than a barrier method). Down that road lies reproductive slavery. That is just as untenable as your ridiculously selfish position.

EWreckedSean: Other parents assume the responsibility when and if the child is adopted. Until then they are a ward of the state, with no parental support, in either a group home our bouncing between foster parents.


And I addressed that. It is still a transfer of parental responsibility to the state. The state often acts as an intermediary in cases where adoption doesn't happen immediately after birth. Your argument still fails on that ground.

EWreckedSean: Again with the imposing abortion strawman? Really. Fortunately for me, because there is no such right to parental support, the laws can change at any point and remove what is clearly a terrible double standard.


So can many other things you clearly seem to consider fundamentals, including the right to abortion, or the right to marriage. This is not an argument in your favor. This is just you throwing a tantrum about how much you dislike the status quo. Man up, Nancy.

The fact that you consider the imposition of abortion unconscionable is good, I happen to agree. That is not the point. The point is that it is one of the three possible resolutions of the problem you are presenting.

EWreckedSean: Those are the only options if a child being raised and provided for by a single parent isn't an option. It happens all the time.


Raised by a single parent is not the same thing as supported only by a single parent. The cases where the child is actually only supported by a single parent are cases where either one parent is dead or legally incapacitated, is a surrogate or sperm donor, or else where one parent is a deadbeat. None of those are the situation you are advocating for.

EWreckedSean: That is exactly a termination. Those parents have no more obligation to the child. Therefore the child never had a right to support for them to begin with.


Completely wrong. Until the adoption process is completed, the parents are still legally obligated to the child. It is a transferance of responsibility, not a termination. At all times someone is legally responsible for the support of the child. At no time does the child lose the right to support.

EWreckedSean: You guys really have a tough time arguing our actual points on this.


EWreckedSean: And again this strawman...


So were you actually going to attempt to make an argument, or just bluster some more about how you have the right to be a selfish douchebag and let your kid go hang if you feel like it?

EWreckedSean: Only if you didn't read it. Again, right from the beginning of TFA:

The History
In the early nineteenth century,the courts in America that were dealing with the cases of divorce and marital breakdowns, found that the current laws don't provide for a support action. America had inherited many English laws in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, and these laws found that the father had only a non-enforceable moral duty to support his children. In fact, English precedents actually forbid any third party from recovering the costs of support unless these costs had been pre-authorized by a contract with the child's father.


See there's that cherry picking again. You left out the parts that undermine your selfishness:

From TFA:
But England's laws did allow for a limited recovery of support costs in certain circumstances. The Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 authorized the local parishes to recover some of the funds that were spent in caring for a single mother and her children who were not provided for by the children's father.

This statute could only be prevailed upon when the mother and children were completely impoverished. In addition, the Elizabethan Poor Law allowed the town to recoup their relief costs. Any third parties or single mothers could not directly ask for reimbursed of support expenses.

Despite the absence of a child provision within English laws, the courts in American slowly began to tackle the notion that a father had a legal obligation to support his offspring. One of the earliest American support cases was Stanton vs. Willson. The Supreme Court of Connecticut decided this case in 1808. In this case, the Supreme Court of Connecticut allowed Eunice Stanton to recover support from her first husband on behalf of her deceased second husband, Joshua.

It is interesting to note in this case that two of Eunice's children had been awarded to her by a custody decree, and the third had fled from her ex-husband because of fears of abuse. The court clearly stated in this case that the children's father was legally bound "to protect, educate, and maintain their legitimate children." Similar cases in New York and New Jersey began to assert that a father could be held financially responsible for the welfare of his children.

This financial dependency theme recurred almost in every children support case decided by the courts of America during the nineteenth century, primarily because newly divorced American mothers in nineteenth-century were almost always forced to live in poverty.


I just love how you are perfectly willing to flout 200 years of solid American jurisprudence if it interferes with your greed. It's very telling about your priorities.

EWreckedSean: Ok, so you're pro-life then?

Note I said "child", not "fetus". The terms mean different things, you know. I am pro-choice. Once the child is born, it has rights. Prior to birth, the fetus does not have rights. If you think the fetus is viable when an abortion is required, by all means see if the premature child that results can be saved, because at that point, it has rights.

It's very easy to be consistent if you are careful with your terminology, you know. You should try it, your arguments would be less muddled. Of course, if you are trying to muddle things deliberately to disguise that your argument is weak and based on selfishness, well, that's another issue entirely.

EWreckedSean: Sorry, I don't have to play by your limited choices. Single parent support happens every farking day in this country, despite your belief it is impossible.

And it is correlated with worse outcomes for the children involved, especially in circumstances where it is real single parent families because the other parent is truly absent or dead, rather than just paying child support, because then you have poverty on top of the lack of parental attention.

We should not be taking kids away from single parents just because, but we should definitely be trying to help them as much as we can, because that is in the best interests of the children. What you suggest instead is to just cut them off and leave them out in the cold. Again, I find your callous selfishness very telling.

EWreckedSean: Opinions are like assholes, everybody has them, a lot of them stick.

I prefer, "Opinions are like shadows, everyone has one, and they carry no weight". It's notable that you have nothing but opinion when you say that paying support is worse than growing up without support from both parents. Here's a clue, the social workers and psychologists who work with those kids you are so eager to cut loose can tell you why you are so completely wrong, if you can get past your greed and selfishness long enough to pay attention.

EWreckedSean: God I love this argument. You can abort a fetus because it isn't a legally separate entity yet, and therefore even though you are killing it, you aren't doing it harm, because you have to have legal rights to be harmed. So killing it is fine, but once it is born, how dare you suggest giving it only one parent support.


Did I say it was a perfect solution? It isn't. But every other solution has worse consequences, as I have already explained, up to and including the criminalization of miscarriages and birth control. And given that you have already said you are pro-choice, what is your take on it, then? That fetuses do have rights, and we should just be free to do whatever we want to them because we can, because might (or in your case, wealth) makes right?

Then you are a monster as well as a selfish bastard. At least my pro-choice position is based on an ethical system.
 
2011-09-21 05:42:35 PM

EWreckedSean: I love this line you guys have drawn, where it is perfectly acceptable to take a child's life until it is born, but then it is absolutely unacceptable to harm his lifestyle.



You've said that you're pro-choice...so you understand why an abortion is not equivalent to murder, right? It's the same motherfarking principle at work here.
 
2011-09-21 05:42:59 PM
Hey, guys? We're being trolled by a pro-lifer, in spite of what he claims:

EWreckedSean: Do you support abortion? I've just curious if you think a child has a right to be supported for 18 years by it's father, but has no right to be supported for 9 months in a womb, resulting in it's death.

EWreckedSean: having a zero abortion policy is in the best interest of the children

EWreckedSean: The best interest of the children would be served by outlawing abortion altogether

EWreckedSean: By that measure wouldn't the least infringing be to outlaw abortion altogether, as it costs the unborn baby it's life?

EWreckedSean: Carrying a child to term can easily be considered a social obligation.


It also explains why he keeps claiming he's pro-choice, but then argues that every position is actually pro-life.
 
2011-09-21 05:46:54 PM

serial_crusher: If the child's not a child until it's born, how do you justify holding the father responsible?


Simple: you don't hold the father responsible until the child's born. If the child is never born, the father doesn't have to pay a dime in child support.

The "he made his decision when he had sex" argument doesn't work if the sex isn't what created the child.

Uh...

He had sex with her, then 9 months later she chose to have a baby. Might as well pick any arbitrary man to be financially responsible, not the one whose sperm she utilized in the making of said baby.

Why? Does "any arbitrary man" have the same fiduciary duty to said baby? Nope? Then it's him.
 
Displayed 50 of 577 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report