If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
Abortion Double Standard
Posts
Total:
206
-->
@Bones
I don't think they're fully symmetrical. The major symmetry breaker I would posit is the fact that the baby is attached to the mother and reliant on her (therefore it sanctifies her bodily autonomy). The father never gives up his body to the baby when he chooses to impregnate a woman. When a father decides not to pay child support its not "his body" he has to give up but his material wealth. There's nothing within law saying you don't have certain material obligations to people (taxes). On another note, considering we seem to agree quite a lot on transgenderism, would you like to challenge my idea that transgenderism can be consistent if we consider transgender people a 3rd gender?
-->
@Bones
That's an odd comparison. No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive. If you wanted to make this somewhat comparable, you would have to argue that the father could refuse to pay child support in utero, which isn't a thing in the first place so it's not something that a father can refuse to do. I also agree with Ehyeh that it's not symmetrical in terms of the specifics of the burdens the child places on the mother versus the father. Child support is not equivalent to the physical burdens of pregnancy, nor is ending that child support functionally equivalent to an abortion.
-->
@Bones
The fetus is a part of the Woman before birth. It is not a part of the man.
There is definitely a double standard in play, on a number of fronts.
Does reversing abortion laws give all non-white Americans a better socio-economic demographic position?
Statistically, more non-whites are aborted than whites.
Reverse this trend and the shrinking white demographic dominance goes into overdrive.
White is demographically shooting itself in the foot.
White power, at this point in time, is being quite generous to non-whites.
One might see it all as a huge white restitution and reparations to all those non-whites we white predators stressed.
Are white Americans who are on the right, aware of what they are giving up, demographically speaking?
Should the non-white Americans be on the right wing side on this, just for the benefits of fast tracking their control?
Regards
DL
-->
@Intelligence_06
Think DNA genealogical trails and you might have a different view.
If a father has no claim to his potential child, that is a double standard.
Regards
DL
Notice when it comes to abortion they always say women can just kill her baby and not have to pay any consequences but if she has the baby the man has to pay child support. And their thing is well if a woman doesn't want to get pregnant she should be on birth control or shut her legs but no one ever says if a man doesn't want to be a father he should snip his f****** dick or not have sex. If men don't want to have to pay child support get a f****** vasectomy or don't f*** women. If women don't want to have babies they can use birth control or use abortion. These aren't too this different things abortion is a type of birth control whether people like to call it that or not. And there's nothing wrong with that abortion is legal if you want to have 10 have 10. I mean nobody says to a guy that has 10 children with 10 different women go get your dick snipped. The way things are when it comes to abortion and then and women is because men and women have a lot of to happen and then especially have gotten off easy when it comes to being fathers or comes to raising children because the baby don't come out of their f****** body.
-->
@Bones
that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
nobody should be able to compel another to serve them
-->
@whiteflame
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
-->
@Bones
If it is the case that women can willingly engage in sex and subsequently abort the fetus because "her body is her choice", does it then follow that a male can impregnate a female and subsequently not pay child support because "his body his choice"? It is entirely possible that a male, after impregnating a women, regrets the choice, just as how women commonly experience such regret, so would it follow (on the grounds of consistency) that men ought to al have the right to abandon the child and not pay child support?
In what way, exactly, does the payment of child support - or not - impose explicit restrictions on a man’s body?
@Poly
Well f****** stated Poly.
-->
@3RU7AL
Doubt that's accurate.
-->
@whiteflame
Doubt that's accurate.
look it up
-->
@3RU7AL
There’s a distinction between infanticide and murder in their criminal code. That doesn’t mean that infanticide is legal in Canada.
-->
@whiteflame
There’s a distinction between infanticide and murder in their criminal code. That doesn’t mean that infanticide is legal in Canada.
it means you have about 12 months before it becomes equal to murder
-->
@3RU7AL
Your point was that they could kill their infant child. There’s a difference between saying that that’s free and clear and saying that it isn’t considered equivalent to murder.
-->
@whiteflame
Your point was that they could kill their infant child. There’s a difference between saying that that’s free and clear and saying that it isn’t considered equivalent to murder.
i'm quite certain nobody said "free and clear"
but the penalty is shockingly low, especially compared to murder
- This comparison is tenable, one many pro-life individuals observe, but not one I would personally mention due to the strength of many other reductions. I don't get the sense that any of the objections I am reading make logical sense. For one:
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
- This is accepted as well as irrelevant. The case draws from the entailment of consenting to sexual intercourse vs consenting to a pregnancy. If pro choice individuals affirm that the establishment of consent to sex does not stipulate consent to carry a child to term, then Bones's comparison is perfectly reasonable as it takes place far after the point in which these people believe consent is no longer pertinent. It seems that if one can deny consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, one must also deny that consenting to such actions is consenting to financial obligations.
-->
@3RU7AL
Still pretty prohibitive. Would be interested to see a comparison of infant death rates with Canada.
-->
@3RU7AL
apparently, at least in canada, she has about 12 months to decide if she wants to kill it
What the actual f**k?
No:
Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46)“233 A female person commits infanticide when by a wilful act or omission she causes the death of her newly-born child, if at the time of the act or omission she is not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed.”
-->
@Ramshutu
@Ehyeh
When a father decides not to pay child support its not "his body" he has to give up but his material wealth.
In what way, exactly, does the payment of child support - or not - impose explicit restrictions on a man’s body?
When you force a man to pay child support, you are forcibly taking their wealth which is a result of their own labour. To say that the State can forcibly take your money to pay child support is synonymous to saying that the State can compel you to forced labour until your child support is payed off. The link here might not be clear, but as it is the case that child support comes from money, which comes from labour, and it is also the case that some assert that men must pay child support, it logically follows that labour is compelled i.e, slavery.
If it were the case that a man is compelled to pay child support because they have, at a prior date, chosen to impregnate a women, not only is this against the pro choice narrative that "a decision can be suspended at any time", it is the case that this standard ought to be applied to the mother.
-->
@whiteflame
No one is arguing that a mother can abandon her child after it is born into the world alive.
It would have to be justified why the geographical exisiting of the womb is morally significant.
-->
@Intelligence_06
Compelling a man to pay child support is forcibly taking away some of their labour (assuming that they have engaged in labour to acquire their wealth), which is essentially slavery.
-->
@Bones
Hello, DGodDebater. Do you hold the perspective that taxes should be voluntary?
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
If men don't want to have to pay child support get a f****** vasectomy or don't f*** women.
Would you apply this standard to women? That if you don't want an abortion, don't f****** have sex?
-->
@Ehyeh
Well, I know you are not asking me, but I would still state that taxes are stealing and should consequently be voluntary. I could very well be moved off this in the future, however, it seems to be reasonable as of now.
-->
@Ehyeh
I don't think much about economics, but I would say that when you enter society, you have enlisted into a social contract in which you pay a small portion of anything you earn in exchange for certain commodities. If you reject this social construct notion, one could still argue capatalistically - that if you don't wish to pay taxes, you have no rights in the country.
-->
@Bones
@Novice_II
Beautiful stuff guys, thank you, thank you! Truly giving me a lot to work with here.
Well, I know you are not asking me, but I would still state that taxes are stealing and should consequently be voluntary. I could very well be moved off this in the future, however, it seems to be reasonable as of now
Well, do you want to debate this Novice? i vehemently disagree but wont comment on it here. I cant imagine the amount of potholes we would have in the roads though under your system. Imagine having to pay every time you go on a road (as its privately built) lmao. We would all have to be getting about on monster trucks, mad max with no roads.
I don't think much about economics, but I would say that when you enter society, you have enlisted into a social contract in which you pay a small portion of anything you earn in exchange for certain commodities. If you reject this social construct notion, one could still argue capatalistically - that if you don't wish to pay taxes, you have no rights in the country.
If one has a social contract with the state to fund social programs (such as building roads, schools, and parks), then why does someone have a financial obligation to other people's kids, aiding them in getting a free school meal, for someone else's kids to be able to go to the dentist, hospital, and to have nice schools, but he doesn't have a moral obligation to his own son financially?
-->
@Ehyeh
I think it needs to be reminded that I arguing on the pro-life front here - that I do believe men should have to pay child support, but that I extend this responsibility to the mother. I would argue that just as how I have an obligation to fund social programs, so too does the mother have an obligation not to kill her child.
-->
@Bones
oooo, i see now bones. That makes sense, that makes sense. I was talking with whiteflame in PM's earlier this morning about this forum post. Its became clear to me the reason you hold such a hard stance against abortion is because you feel like bodily autonomy rights don't really matter (we were having a discussion on why people don't change their minds from debates). The state claims we do have financially obligations to others within our society (hence taxes). As an extension of this there's a really strong argument a father ought to pay child support. Historically speaking, the law seems to favour on the side of bodily autonomy rights (the right to own ones own body as their property).
-
That being said, There is much more contention and legal debate back and forth on if it's ok for someone to always own their own body as their own property. Generally speaking, if we're willing to supersede a woman's right to her own body as her property, then I see no reason (logically and consistently speaking) why the state couldn't start taking away all bodily autonomy rights if they can do it for a group of human stem cells. I get the sense that taking people's bodily autonomy away (at least in the case of most abortions) is very logically inconsistent in contrast to times where we would say someone's bodily possession rights should never be superseded. How can you draw a line on taking someone's bodily autonomy rights away and not have this philosophy take bodily autonomy rights away from someone else where you may say its unjustified (such as organ harvesting a torturer who mutilated someone or dangerous drivers who killed someone).
-
None of these legal and consistency problems exist when we simply ask the question (within the current framework) on if a dad should pay child support. Although i personally dont find a bodily autonomy argument alone to be justified enough so i understand if you don't find that fully convincing (i don't either). Although you posit the humanhood burden of proof, you also have a lot of burden of proof to show bodily autonomy consistency (you have to show there is no overlap with fully developed humans being allowed to be organ harvested due to your abortion stance). Personally i think any abortions past around 22 weeks ought to be illegal (maybe a bit sooner).