Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[laughing dog]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

That's probably why I never said it.
Tom

True, you never used those words. But you did write "The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it. " That describes murder unless you are saying abortion is a form of self-defense. Which would be a nuanced argument for abortion, not against it.

 

[TomC]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

That's probably why I never said it.
Tom

You wrote in post 112:

The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it.

Where, exactly, do you see the word "murder".

It's you who are muddled. Making claims about my opinions that just cannot be shown, but are emotionally evocative. I didn't use the word murder, but you did.
Tom

 

[Toni]

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

To be clear, your spoken position on Roe v Wade has been 'muddled' at best. To the point, it almost seems intentional.

Can you distinguish between "nuanced" and "muddled"?

I am intentionally nuanced.

The position that abortion is murder is not a nuanced position. It is a dogmatic absolute.

That's probably why I never said it.
Tom

You wrote in post 112:

The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it.

Where, exactly, do you see the word "murder".

It's you who are muddled. Making claims about my opinions that just cannot be shown, but are emotionally evocative. I didn't use the word murder, but you did.
Tom

See posts 122 and 119

 

[TomC]

True, you never used those words.

Can we stop right there for a moment?

Toni misrepresented me. She used an emotionally evocative term that I did not.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation when the people I'm conversing with ignore what I say and launch into emotionally evocative misrepresentation.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

True, you never used those words.

Can we stop right there for a moment?

Toni misrepresented me. She used an emotionally evocative term that I did not.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation when the people I'm conversing with ignore what I say and launch into emotionally evocative misrepresentation.
Tom

We were discussing what I wrote and what you wrote, not what anyone else wrote.

But you did write "The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it. " That describes murder unless you are saying abortion is a form of self-defense. Which would be a nuanced argument for abortion, not against it.

From what I can tell, the only person ignoring what you write is you.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

True, you never used those words.

Can we stop right there for a moment?

Toni misrepresented me. She used an emotionally evocative term that I did not.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation when the people I'm conversing with ignore what I say and launch into emotionally evocative misrepresentation.
Tom

It'd be easier if we did ignore what you said.

You have been using 'aggressive' language to describe abortion. And even now, you aren't doing anything to dispel any misconceptions on the parts of others. Just crying out more victimhood... hence "muddle".

"The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it."

"If the female parent chooses not to carry the fetus, the fetus is not a child. It's a clump of cells. Otherwise, abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human being."

"It's what feticide rights supporters say."

But I never said "moidah'd". That isn't nuance, that is sloppy and most likely intentional.

 

[Toni]

True, you never used those words.

Can we stop right there for a moment?

Toni misrepresented me. She used an emotionally evocative term that I did not.

It's really hard to carry on a conversation when the people I'm conversing with ignore what I say and launch into emotionally evocative misrepresentation.
Tom

You used an emotionally evocative term because you can’t win your argument from logic.

You’re trying to pin the use of emotionally evocative term in me when I simply used a different word for killing than you used.

Which you used as an emotionally evocative dodge.

It is really difficult to carry on an honest conversation with someone who isn’t equally interested in having an honest conversation.

 

[TomC]

But you did write "The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it. " That describes murder

Nope.
Murder is extra-legal, deliberate, killing of a human being.

Feticide is legal. It's not murder.
But a man cannot get custody of a child if the mother chooses feticide.
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

We were discussing what I wrote and what you wrote, not what anyone else wrote.

But you did write "The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it. " That describes murder unless you are saying abortion is a form of self-defense. Which would be a nuanced argument for abortion, not against it.

From what I can tell, the only person ignoring what you write is you.

Murder and self defense are not an exhaustive list of killings.

 

[laughing dog]

But you did write "The man cannot get custody of a child if the woman kills it. " That describes murder

Nope.
Murder is extra-legal, deliberate, killing of a human being.

Look at what you wrote - you used the term "child". A child is a human being. A fetus is not. An abortion is a deliberate act. And, in some states, it is extra-legal.

If a woman has an abortion, then there is no fetus. There never was a child, since the fetus was not a child. Hence your statement that a man cannot get custody of a child if the woman chooses feticide is false.

 

[TomC]

If a woman has an abortion, then there is no fetus.

Seriously?

Why would a woman have an abortion if there is no fetus?
Tom

 

[Bomb#20]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

The notion that if keeping the child is her choice then his liability should be limited to the cost of an abortion is based on the well-established legal principle that a tort victim has a duty to minimize his damage. For instance, if I cook on your stove and forget to turn the burner off, and you come in and see your stove on fire, and you have a fire extinguisher in your kitchen, but you decide you'd rather have a whole new house instead of a repaired kitchen, so you just walk away and let my blunder burn your house down, and then you sue me, the court will make me pay only what it would have cost to fix up your kitchen if you'd put the fire out -- the rest of the burned down house is on you. The "Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion?" argument is based on that analogy. The choice not to abort is like the choice not to put out the fire; the cost of an abortion is like the cost of kitchen repairs; the cost of 18 years of child support is like the cost of the whole house.

The reason the man is obligated to more than the cost of an abortion is because that whole analogy breaks down, because the woman isn't the tort victim. The child is the tort victim. If it wasn't you who walked in and saw the stove on fire and decided not to put the fire out, but your mother, then you haven't failed in your duty to minimize your damage. So when you sue me you'll get the full cost of your burned-down house.

 

[TomC]

A fetus is not.

If a fetus is not a child, then the father cannot have a child. A mother can have a child, but not the father.

Why should the mother be able to demand money from father, if the fetus is her's? So far, the explanation is "Men should know better." If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

But that somehow doesn't apply to women.
What's with that?
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

If a woman has an abortion, then there is no fetus.

Seriously?

Why would a woman have an abortion if there is no fetus?
Tom

FFS. In order to have an abortion, there must be a fetus to abort. But once one HAS an abortion, there is no fetus.

 

[TomC]

The reason the man is obligated to more than the cost of an abortion is because that whole analogy breaks down, because the woman isn't the tort victim. The child is the tort victim.

I understand your analogy.
But here's where it breaks down.

The child is entirely a result of the woman's choice. She can choose against creating a child if she wants to do so. It's not the father's child. It's entirely her child.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

A fetus is not.

If a fetus is not a child, then the father cannot have a child. A mother can have a child, but not the father.

Why should the mother be able to demand money from father, if the fetus is her's? So far, the explanation is "Men should know better." If you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

But that somehow doesn't apply to women.
What's with that?
Tom

Because Women ARE THE KITCHEN.

 

[Toni]

The reason the man is obligated to more than the cost of an abortion is because that whole analogy breaks down, because the woman isn't the tort victim. The child is the tort victim.

I understand your analogy.
But here's where it breaks down.

The child is entirely a result of the woman's choice. She can choose against creating a child if she wants to do so. It's not the father's child. It's entirely her child.
Tom

This is obviously false.

Women are compelled to continue pregnancies against their will every single day in the US.

Your argument seems to be that unless the man can dictate to the woman what she must do or cannot do with her body, he has zero responsibility towards the woman or any resulting child.

You are correct that a man can be financially responsible for a child he did not want to be born.

So can a woman.

 

[TomC]

Because Women ARE THE KITCHEN.

I consider women competent adults, capable of making their own Choices.

Both before and after sex. Not just THE KITCHEN.
Tom

 

[TomC]

Women are compelled to continue pregnancies against their will every single day in the US.

Yay for Bernie Sanders!

Your argument seems to be that unless the man can dictate to the woman what she must do or cannot do with her body, he has zero responsibility towards the woman or any resulting child.

That's not my argument at all.

Remember me? The prude who opposes irresponsible sex, regardless of gender?

My argument is that everyone who chooses potentially fertile sex is taking a risk. A big one. Men should be held accountable. Women should be held accountable.

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

 

[Toni]

Women are compelled to continue pregnancies against their will every single day in the US.

Yay for Bernie Sanders!

Your argument seems to be that unless the man can dictate to the woman what she must do or cannot do with her body, he has zero responsibility towards the woman or any resulting child.

That's not my argument at all.

Remember me? The prude who opposes irresponsible sex, regardless of gender?

My argument is that everyone who chooses potentially fertile sex is taking a risk. A big one. Men should be held accountable. Women should be held accountable.

The problem I'm having in this thread is the general feminist principle that only women's rights matter.
Tom

That’s not a feminist principle. Nor is it the principle that anyone here is arguing.

With respect to her body, the woman gets to make the final decision. This is only the case because her body bears the full brunt of any pregnancy, whether that pregnancy ends in miscarriage, abortion or a live birth.

If men got pregnant and their bodies bore the full brunt of a pregnancy, regardless of the outcome of that pregnancy, then they would have full rights to control over their body.

Somehow you are equating that with both parents’ rights and responsibilities after a child is born.

The CHILD has an absolute right to adequate support from both parents.