patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Sterilization is not necessary. Women can have long term implants, and men can have reversible vasectomy.

Why should a man's right to choose whether or not to consent be contingent upon accepting a vasectomy? That's like saying a woman's right not to be raped is contingent upon her not dressing slutty. It's not just wrong. It's offensive.

Consent, by definition, cannot be coerced.

If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy. Vasectomy is a far less dangerous, far less painful and bleeds far less than most forms of abortion. If the man can not take care of vasectomy, why should the woman be forced into having an abortion to alleviate the man from his paternal responsibility?

If you want to draw an analogy between rape == child support, then dressing slutty == making a lot of money and flout it. Nobody is saying rich men ought to offer up their sperms to be sperm-jacked. However if a man deposits sperm inside a woman, then he is consenting to making and raising baby by default.

Dan8267 says

Once the sperm is deposited inside a woman, it is up to her what she does with the "gift," including seeking child support if any child results.

And the logic that justifies that is?

The woman's uterus and fallopial tubes are her own property, and does not have to comply with a man's wish to abort.

Dan8267 says

You don't have the right to dump radioactive/chemical/biological waste on someone else' land, and then disclaim all responsibility associated with the consequences.

And if sperm were radioactive, chemical, or biological waste then your analogy might apply, but it is not. (Well, maybe your sperm.) Sex is not pollution.

If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.

Dan8267 says

Nor am I stating that the man should "disclaim all responsibility". It is reasonable that he pays for the abortion. It is not reasonable that he is forced into indentured servitude for twenty years because consent to have sex is not consent to be a parent. Not for a woman, and not for a man, and for the exact same reasons.

It is not reasonable for the woman to bear the physical and emotional pain of an abortion if the man is not willing to go through vasectomy, which is far less painful, far less dangerous, far less stressful, and bleed far less than most forms of abortion. If the man is willing and able to pay the girl enough to have an abortion, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent. Sex can be had numerous ways without depositing live sperms inside a woman. If the man is so negligent that he has not taken any precautions to avoid depositing what to him is biological waste (his sperm, not wanting child, dumped inside a woman), then it is of course the right of the uterus owner herself to decide what to do with the "gift" thus deposited, including seeking child support if any child results.

Dan8267 says

I can justify my principle.

1. Roe V. Wade

2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

3. The indentured servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.

4. Equality of the genders.

No, you are arguing like a feminist SJW type trying to ignore the biological differences between a man and a woman.

Here is the bottom line: if you don't want the child, pay the woman enough to get her to abort, compensating her for the physical trama and emotional pain that the abortion will cause her, all of which are much more severe than what a vasectomy would be.

Reality says

If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy.

So if a man and woman have consensual recreational fun, then neither is capable of controlling themselves. That's fucking retarded and no law should be based on such an asinine idea. If we followed the logical conclusion of your arbitrary judgement, then women should not have the right to an abortion. Perhaps you believe that, but if so, you fucking lost. Roe V. Wade is never, ever going to be overturned. Ever. Get over it. People are not obligated to endure punishment for having recreational sex. Period.

Reality says

The woman's uterus and fallopial tubes are her own property, and does not have to comply with a man's wish to abort.

Correct. And a man's bank account and income are his property.

Reality says

If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.

That is another asinine statement that no sane person would agree with.

Maybe your fucked up religious beliefs mandate that sex is only to be used for the purpose of reproduction, but that's not how our society works. And none of us are going to accept your sick puritan beliefs or your vile religious beliefs.

Reality says

The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent.

No, it's not. Consent, by definition, is a conscious deliberate choice. Consent comes from will not from action.

Reality says

Sex can be had numerous ways without depositing live sperms inside a woman.

Irrelevant.

Reality says

If the man is so negligent that he has not taken any precautions to avoid depositing what to him is biological waste (his sperm, not wanting child, dumped inside a woman), then it is of course the right of the uterus owner herself to decide what to do with the "gift" thus deposited, including seeking child support if any child results.

Just because you say "of course" doesn't make it so. There is no logical connection between the woman deciding to go through with the pregnancy and her having a right to seek or to get financial payments from the man for the next twenty years. There is no reason to believe that these two completely different things are related, especially in the way you assert. In fact, your assertion defies common sense.

In contrast, I have given damn good reasons why you are wrong.

1. Roe V. Wade

2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment

3. The indentured servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.

4. Equality of the genders.

Dan8267 says

I would even add that indentured servitude rewards women for making bad mating and parenting decisions and thus compromises the selection of good, willing fathers thereby greatly hurting future generations to absolve irresponsible women of their mating mistakes. Perhaps you can justify it in the short run if you ignore the harm you do to civil rights, but in the long run you are doing far more harm than good.

On the contrary:

1. The irresponsible men being allowed to shirk their responsibility would only lead to the women and children being more of a burden on taxpayers, i.e. productive members of the society, whose resources for raising their own better children would be stolen at the point of gun..

2. Young fertile women are attracted to assholes. If assholes are not made to pay, they'd be free to seduce and impregnate even more young fertile women, increasing their representation in the gene pool, at the expense of more responsible males forced by the government guns to pay taxes and support asshole spawns.

Dan8267 says

If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy.

So if a man and woman have consensual recreational fun, then neither is capable of controlling themselves. That's fucking retarded and no law should be based on such an asinine idea. If we followed the logical conclusion of your arbitrary judgement, then women should not have the right to an abortion. Perhaps you believe that, but if so, you fucking lost. Roe V. Wade is never, ever going to be overturned. Ever. Get over it. People are not obligated to endure punishment for having recreational sex. Period.

The issue is not who deserves what. The Roe V. Wade case clearly established that what the unborn deserved (a life) did not count! The new born child needs resources to be raised; the mother and the father are the first ones responsible for it, before the rest of us ought to be drafted into feeding that spawn. So long as we do not let desperate women starve to death along with their spawn, the biological fathers need to be drafted into raising the children before the rest of the us get drafted into paying taxes to support their spawns. It is their private problem, first and foremost, if you really want to borrow a page from Roe V. Wade on "presumed privacy."

Dan8267 says

If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.

That is another asinine statement that no sane person would agree with.

Maybe your fucked up religious beliefs mandate that sex is only to be used for the purpose of reproduction, but that's not how our society works. And none of us are going to accept your sick puritan beliefs or your vile religious beliefs.

I'm not religious. However, if the purpose is not reproduction, then the dangerously fertile sperm is of course biological waste. The practitioner ought to have taken care of disposal of the biological waste.

Dan8267 says

The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent.

No, it's not. Consent, by definition, is a conscious deliberate choice. Consent comes from will not from action.

Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.

Dan8267 says

YesYNot says

The guy is not paying because he had sex. He's paying because he got a girl pregnant. There are ways to have sex with minimal risk of getting a girl pregnant and hence minimal risk of any financial burden.

Minimizing risk does not eliminated it. If a woman giving birth to a child means the biological father must pay for that child's first 18 years or more given college, then that father must have every bit as much right and power under law to abort the pregnancy as the woman does as. In other words, if either the mother or the father wants to abort the pregancy and the other parent does not, the abortion must happen. Are you comfortable with that?

Nobody is entitled to zero risk of consequences from their actions. By shifting the financial burden from the men who knock women up to the rest of society, you are shifting the burden from those responsible (risk takers) to innocent bystanders. As far as the relative risks of men and women, women have a higher risk of getting an STD, a risk of death during an abortion, social risks, and the risk of actually taking care of a kid. Men have less control over the abortion decision, and have financial risk based on that decision. You can't legislate away every inequity. It's just not possible. If minimal risk is not good enough for you, start an insurance risk pool with like minded guys. Since the risk to guys is all financial, you have that option.

YesYNot says

Nobody is entitled to zero risk of consequences from their actions. By shifting the financial burden from the men who knock women up to the rest of society, you are shifting the burden from those responsible (risk takers) to innocent bystanders.

That's a really good argument against the welfare state and leftist taxation schemes. The welfare queens and kings gaming the system and those with lesser skills of keeping permanent sufficient employment shift the burden to innocent bystanders. There's nothing wrong with supporting poorer people, you just have to make them work for it like it used to be. No ifs and buts, pick up a fucking broom and clean up the city, San Francisco alone could use drones of cleanup crews, being such an architectural beautiful city yet such a dirty shithole. Lastly, if an alpha-spawn becomes successful they are likely to be much more effective and protective for society because modern men cannot protect and correct their countries anymore when acting like feminized PC pussies. It is a very possibility that the increased urge for women to mate with (stable and unstable) alpha-fucks is nature's self-correcting program to restore some of the patriarchy so badly needed.

Reality says

Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.

Lowering your taxes is not justification for practicing indentured servitude. If you want to make the case that tax payer dollars should not be used ever for the support of children, then fine, make that case. But that case has nothing to do with enslaving men and it does not address the point I have made a dozen times that consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent. Unless you address that point, this conversation can progress no further.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.

Lowering your taxes is not justification for practicing indentured servitude. If you want to make the case that tax payer dollars should not be used ever for the support of children, then fine, make that case. But that case has nothing to do with enslaving men and it does not address the point I have made a dozen times that consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent. Unless you address that point, this conversation can progress no further.

You have the option to drive, but if you run over someone, you are liable. Likewise, you have the option to have sex, but if you knock someone up, you are on the hook for supporting the offspring to the legal requirement (which actually is not much compared to your income if you make decent living), before other people are drafted into supporting your spawn. You are being a hypocritical pussy when you advocate taxation (indentured servitude if there ever is one) yet argue against being held responsible for your own spawn.

The average child support in this country is only around $430/mo, the median is less than $300/mo. What kind of losers are we really talking about that would "lose control over their life" due to that little payment? Indentured servitude? Holy shit, what then do you call $2000-5000/mo income tax? or $500/mo property tax? Perhaps men who can not set aside $300/mo should pre-emptively get vasectomy?

mell says

This reasoning only works in a patriarchy though which we currently clearly do not have. If the man is expected to pay he would have explicit control over who has the child (custody) and could also direct the woman's actions for the best of their family (no matter if they are married or not). If you are the provider, you are also the dictator.

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married. Giving the women custody and paying them sufficient child support to raise the children while the men still being involved to provide fatherly guidance and love is highly advantageous to all involved: the women and children are taken care of, and the competent men can have more time to make more children with decent genetic stock.

Likewise, if the man wants his cum dumpster to abort, all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls. As for those men who can not afford either, of course they ought to be drafted into paying for their own spawn before any of the rest of us is drafted into paying.

1. & 2. If you don't like the driving analogy, then how about running and knocking over someone?

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

4. Child support formulae are not based on 100%, but based on both parents sharing the responsibility. That's why joint and equal physical custody in the same town usually would result in ZERO child support payment. However, for most couples, the men are much more productive in employment, so it makes sense for one party to contribute more time while the other contribute more money. On average $430/mo, median less than $300/mo, that is not nearly enough to raise a child, but simply the difference in terms of time and effort between the two parents.

Reality says

all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls.

That's fine, but it would need to be codified (can be done with a couple of sentences), there's plenty of disagreement as well.

Reality says

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.

This is a personal anecdote though and a result of you two getting along which is always the best outcome. The reality of many battling ex-couples is very different where the woman is not that 'agreeable'. Again codifying this with simple words would go a long way.

Reality says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).

Reality says

You have the option to drive, but if you run over someone, you are liable. Likewise, you have the option to have sex, but if you knock someone up, you are on the hook for supporting the offspring to the legal requirement

Non Sequitur.

If you knock someone up, that person can take the morning after pill and end the pregnancy. If you run someone over there is no pill that will bring the person back to life. In order for your conclusion to logically follow the premise, a woman would have to have absolutely no choice but to bear the child and to raise him in order for there to be a moral, ethical, or legal duty for the man to support the child.

Reality says

before other people are drafted into supporting your spawn.

This is an argument against anti-poverty programs, not an argument in favor of indentured servitude. If avoiding taxes is so fucking important that it warrants indentured servitude, then first the law should prevent any woman you is not married and financially secure from having a child. I doubt there are too many people who would support that.

Reality says

You are being a hypocritical pussy when you advocate taxation (indentured servitude if there ever is one) yet argue against being held responsible for your own spawn.

Bullshit. Hypocrisy, by definition, requires a contradiction. There is no contradiction in my position. Just because you don't like my position doesn't make it hypocritical and you are a fool for making such a ridiculous argument.

Once more, you have failed to provide any counterargument to the central and most important issue of this thread, consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.

Reality says

Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.

I'm impressed that you have your current viewpoint with this past. It goes to show that not everybody that pays child support has to run around bitching about it like a crying baby would. I'm on board with most of your arguments on this thread.

mell says

3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.

How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).

I think you touched on the real answer: feelings vs. rationality. If women were entirely rationally calculating her risk of death in the stone age regarding pregnancy, none of us would be here. One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it. Any men taking the risk of dumping live sperm inside her has to cope with the consequences before any of us are required to pitch in. Unless we pass laws for infanticide when the father refuses or is incapable of paying support, we have to make the father pay, so that he is not off to knock up even more young fertile women, which are limiting resources in terms of human reproduction. "Ooops, Sorry!" is not good enough! You break it, you keep it! You knock her up, you pay for the spawn! Simple enough.

Reality says

One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.

Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)

mell says

One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.

Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)

Perhaps more importantly, the founding fathers had it right in restricting voting right to adult males meeting property ownership requirement.

Reality says

ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy

Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy

Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.

Nope, just scientific fact; aka Red Pill Reality. You apparently never dealt with pregnant women up close and personal. Like I said before, you argue like a feminist SJW type living in a petri dish.

PCGyver says

Ohhhh I get it so you're saying the man should have 100% choice. I see. That sure is equal

Fallacy of the excluded middle. It could be 50/50 or 70/30 or whatever

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Dan8267 says

He can avoid all of that by having a vasectomy, which is a lot easier to do and less painful/risky than either abortion or female sterilization.

That's bullshit. Abortion is safe, even safer than modern childbirth.

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Anyone notice that even Patrick has given up this discussion?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Abortion is mutilating the woman too.

Most forms of abortion involve more bleeding than vasectomy; so if vasectomy is called "mutilation" then abortion certainly is mutilation. Dan, when it comes to feeling vs. rational thinking regarding women vs. men, I'm inclined to classify you on the side of women thinking with feelings instead of rationality.

The biggest problem with feminism today is that it encourages women to compete with men and be at odds with men. This is not as Nature intended. Men and women are complimentary and natural allies. We need the other to be complete. When survival was a much more pressing issue, divorce was far more rare and only exercised for reasons related to survival (poor provider, prison, excessive violent behavior.) But today's modern world makes survival a given with social programs to ensure people don't starve or freeze if they are at least paying attention. So men and women don't need each other so desperately, and with choice comes strife.

I think a marriage is a situation that challenges two people to become less selfish and more caring toward another person. If that doesn't happen, or one person refuses to make this journey, then divorce should be exercised. Better to be poor than miserable.

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Not nearly as safe as vasectomy.

Whether or not a procedure is safe is not relevant to the fact that it's a human rights violation to force it upon another person, especially a medical procedure that has no medical purpose. Your argument is identical to requiring women to have a transvaginal sonogram before getting an abortion. It is morally abhorrent and illegal, and quite frankly despicable and disturbing.

Nope. Men choosing to have vasectomy undertake the procedure for a very clear medical purpose: avoiding depositing sperm in a woman while enjoying sex. You may want to try that, Dan, considering what a loser you are.

Dan8267 says

Bullshit. A man does not give up his rights simply for having consensual recreational sex. Your statement is as logical as saying that a person gives up his right to bear arms if he ever orders a happy meal from McDonald's.

He acquires a probabilistic responsibility when he deposits sperm in a fertile woman.

Hell, I could make a far better case that people who have children give up their rights to possess firearms because guns in the home are a danger to children. You want to go there?

Only in your deranged mind.

What I find interesting in this thread and as a general trend is that more and more men are stepping in to defend women and put them on a pedestal, so called white knighting (to refrain from the more negative mangina), while women's support for their men or men in general has dropped over generations to pretty much zero. Yet, more women are on anti-depressants than ever and even surveyed happiness is not looking good. Also suicide rates among men (white middle-class mostly) has been skyrocketing. Clearly an observable dichotomy here, there is a good case to be made that feminism, esp. 2nd and 3rd wave has made society far worse.

Reality says

Dan, considering what a loser you are.

Oh, you consider me a loser. You win Internet today.

PCGyver says

Actuall I did not say that. But what ever

Then write more clearly because it sure as hell reads like you did.

justme says

By the way, CDon, perhaps you could summarize that case (Gibbons v. Ogden) for the benefit of all readers? I probably, don't have time to read it today, and I am sure it might be a bit much for others, too.

Sure thing. Ogden was nominally about interstate commerce, but that (and the Art III Sec II cases) have by far the biggest Constitutional impacts on our modern lives. As much as Dan likes to pontificate on the well known "liberty interests" granted to us in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 13th & 14th amendments, in the 200 years post Ogden the Supreme Court clarifies how important Article I section VIII (and Article III Sec II) is to reign in those liberty interests (i.e. another exception to the rule). Let me give you an example:

The law generally makes it such that all citizens are equal and we do not have to assist others. Say you had a roomate, nice guy and all, but he was kind of a wreck. He had no stable job, late or couldnt pay rent, mooched your food, constantly calling you to let him in when he gets locked out, or take him somewhere because his car was broken. You of course are free to help him if you want, but the Constitution makes perfectly clear, you have NO OBLIGATION TO THIS FELLOW CITIZEN WHATSOEVER, and we (the collective) cant force you to personally support or take care of him.

By contrast, say one or both (doesnt matter) custodial or non-custodial parents decide to treat their 5 year old, exactly as they would a roomate... after all, they are fellow citizens with no duty right? So imagine then they seem him around the house or the neighborhood...

- Hey Junior, quit mooching that food and go get your own.
- Wow Junior, what happened to your arm there? That looks bad YOU better go get that checked out!
- Hey, we are headed out of town this week on vacation so you are on your own - have fun!
- Whats that, you need someone to help you? Some social worker to take care of you? Look, I dont have time for that now, go to the internet and figure it out. Oh, you cant read yet? Well, you better do that first.

You may think I'm exaggerating here but only slightly. The juvenile court termination of parental rights cases (styled like "In re. The Matter of S.K. a Minor") I saw in law school often showed no physical abuse, but shocking negligence and abject moral depravity on the part of parents who couldnt be bothered to do shit. One case of a 4 year old girl found snared in the neighbors barbed wire fence still haunts me. This all came to a head in the 90s when technology caught up so Congress instituted multistate laws and databases to track down the deadbeats.

In any event, what Ogden, and Article I section VIII makes clear is that unlike the true "roomate" situation where no citizen has a duty to another, the State can, and has indeed created special protections for the most helpless and vulnerable members of our citizenry that require that others DO INDEED SUPPORT THEM. Thus, the longstanding societal contract codified in I sec VIII (via Ogden, et. al) is that most of you (parents) do care about these fellow citizens (your children), so we give you the right to dominion and control over them (and yes the obligation support them) until their 18. After that, if it turns out they are a louse, or you otherwise dont give a shit, then we (the collective) will provide for them from age 18 til death (iow, they probably wont die in the streets).

Moreover, I/VIII and Ogden et. al make clear that if you (the parent) do not do the minimal amounts required, there is a small chance you will be put in prison, and in any event, rather than having us (the collective) pay for it, its you (the parent)s obligation up until that age of 18 whether you like it or not. And no, this is not something you can contract out of via check the box decisions on a marriage license or otherwise. Congress made this so per its plenary powers in contravention of our liberty interests. IOW the Constitution guarantees that Congress can and in fact does make separate groups "unequal" for whatever reason if there is found to be a "compelling state interest" Examples include child support, affirmative action programs, WIC or Section 8, certain farm subsidies, etc. If you dont like it, vote for people who will change it.

Now, there can obviously be some improvement in the law, and that especially applies to the inherent, systemic bias as it relates to primary custody (which is decidedly feminist). Also, there can be increased accountability to ensure that support payments from the non-custodial parent to the custodial actually go to the kids wellfare, and not just for new shoes or clothes or a car for mom. And the abortion/ carry to term dilemma is a separate liberty interest discussion which I will save for another day. But I what can tell you now is that for someone to whine via a political argument or otherwise, about how they are forced into involuntary servitude or lack of due process in violation of the 13th or 14th amendment, is absurd and a clear indication the person has no idea what they are talking about as it relates to the Constitution.

By the by - for the rest of you Clarrence Darrows out there who are going to figure all this out on Patnet, keep in mind the general rule in place now is the child support is something which almost always runs with the child, no matter where that child is located. Fact of the matter is, if I took in a child as a foster parent, I very well could claim and receive child support from both mom and dad. Same goes for a grandparent taking care of junior - same too for the State depending upon the specific facts and circumstances of mom & dad.

In cases where the parents are deabeats (often) it unfortunately costs more resources (i.e. state employees chasing them at $X per hour) vs recovery to make it worthwhile, but if one or both parents have resources, they can and often are successfully shaken down in various states. And here the laws are truly genderless (so as to survive the appropriate balance test required by Art I section VIII or Art III section II cases which for those who care is the real meat and potatoes of the Constitution in terms of affecting our lives and our society).

As I said before, the real systemic bias is in awarding primary custody and theres also the bias in the abortion (which is actually a separate discussion on limitations to our liberty interests and the ability of others to force you into any medical procedure). Anyway, im out so you all have fun with that!

Lastly - if you all want something fun to debate, we once discussed the case of where a dude ejaculated in a woman's mouth, and then when he wasn't looking used that semen to inseminate herself.

When this came to light, the child did in fact exist so of course he had to pay support because of the bright line rule I noted above. But if I recall correctly, he was able to maintain a civil cause of action against her for "larceny by trick" or something like that. Either way, for those who love endless debate, should he recover monetary damages for this? What say you?

CDon says

Lastly - if you all want something fun to debate, we once discussed the case of where a dude ejaculated in a woman's mouth, and then when he wasn't looking used that semen to inseminate herself.

When this came to light, the child did in fact exist so of course he had to pay support because of the bright line rule I noted above. But if I recall correctly, he was able to maintain a civil cause of action against her for "larceny by trick" or something like that. Either way, for those who love endless debate, should he recover monetary damages for this? What say you?

This was also alleged by former German Tennis Star Boris Becker when a Russian model claimed she had his kid and wanted money. He claimed if it was his she must have taken the sperm out of her mouth to impregnate herself if I recall correctly (don't quote me) - never followed up on how that case was settled. I'm sure though that happens more than we know.

resistance says

Roosh espouses traditional Muslim values about women? Please explain.

@resistance, you might want to see this video of Roosh explaining in his own words, starting at 2:00. He says his ideas come from being raised by his Muslim father and growing up with Muslim beliefs. He says he is "basically introducing traditional Islamic values...because these values are good...." He says all his views come from Islam, and he's been praying to Allah and Mohamed to keep him safe in Canada from Canadian "Islamophobia". He plays the race card on the grounds that he isn't white and so his opponents must check "their privilege." He has elsewhere been accused of threatening to kill people for criticizing Islam (as Islam says to do). Note also he has proposed legalizing rape on private property.

So true.