re: Abortion/child support double standard

This is a fact.

quote:

---

Pan back for a sec and consider what the OP is saying. He’s arguing that women can “opt out” of pregnancy via abortion, a selfish, morally reprehensible decision. So men should have an equally morally reprehensible opt out option and be able to peace out on the kid and leave it to someone else (often you and I as taxpayers). All in the name of “fairness”.

---

Honestly, this is a better argument for you to make. I am glad you went into detail and I do agree with everything except the last sentence and it seems like the rest of your arguements center around the idea of fairness and the lack of it.

My issue, today's society, in this topic alone, is an answer to a perceived unfair situation of the past. Basically, it was a pendulum swing to right the scales of perceived unfairness towards women by making it unfair towards men. Now, consider that men did this to themselves. Women did not. Everything women perceive that they have today were not won by them, but instead given to them by men. They have no means of forceful recourse if these things were not generally agreed upon by men. Sooner or later the pendulum will swing again when men have had their fill.

Your argument of "life isn't fair" holds no water. It may truly not be fair because women are the only group who cannot forcefully make a change in any way. Luckily men try to play fair. We see many things these days where men attempted to make things fair. Now, you are admonishing men, on this site, for their views of what is and what is not fair. Well, if you want to stick with the unfairness of today, instead of working to make it more fair, do not be surprised when it becomes truly unfair for women again. That happening is assured.

No. Things should be made more equal by criminalizing the murder of babies in the womb.

quote:

---

Condoms are cheap.

---

Think you’re missing the OP’s point by a good mile. Parenting is supposed to be a 50/50 endeavor between both the father and the mother. OP was pointing out the glaringly despairing way the US courts treat males. In the US males have zero judicial recourse to prevent the mother’s of their children from having an abortion, while simultaneously always holding the fathers financially responsible for the child.

The entire premise of OPs scenario is that it isn’t judicially fair for men when it comes to unborn children.

Forget moralities or even what’s best for the society as a whole. This hypothetical situation is a glaring anthesis of one of the foundations of common law; procedural fairness.

One’s religious or morality beliefs shouldn’t obscure nor override procedural fairness in judiciary applications. But this pillar of common law is constantly overridden or ignored for what’s best for the society. I’m sympathetic to the OPs premise. But believe the current application of this family law definitely benefits the society holistically since a fair gender / parent application of custodial law will f up shite even more than it is now.