re: Why do Republicans ignore Divorce and Male Reproductive Rights for Men

quote:

---

Why do Republicans ignore Divorce and Male Reproductive Rights for Men

---

We don't.....oh yeah men have no reproductive rights

There are no reproductive Rights. Made up narrative.

quote:

---

Divorce law is fairly even handed

---

quote:

---

if properly applied

---

Oh the "if" properly applied, which it isn't......ever

quote:

---

Why do you think republicans defend this action? This is the case because the Left has classified this a "it my body" issue. Republicans (majority? or at least platform wise) are against abortion all together. and not sure what point on this you are attacking. good luck getting a woman to have an abortion if she wants to keep it and the man does not. but the only way to prevent a woman from having one and the man wanting to keep it is if abortion was illigal. 

---

I agree with ending Abortion. This isn't about abortion, it's about choice. If you ban abortion, both parties are forced to take responsibility. That's fine.

quote:

---

1. If a woman gets pregnant, she has the option of abortion or birth.

---

Because of liberal judges in Roe; not GOP.
I would agree that if one parent has the option of baby murder, a fair law would grant the other parent the same. A pro-life GOPer would equally protect the baby from both parents desire to murder it.

quote:

---

2. Alimony is a dated concept.

---

Yes and no.

The purpose of marriage is to raise children by a man and woman. Each utilizes their best talents. The man provides and protects the family from the outer world, and the female produces the nurturing environment of the home. This has been proven the optimal process for the continuation of the species. If the man agrees to this relationship, the child support and alimony are just until the children are independent. Then the children should support the financial shortfall of their mother out of love and gratitude.

Now if man and woman reject this relationship and both choose the outside role than neither need nor deserves alimony, but both must provide child support.

If they reverse roles, then the woman owes the man both support and alimony just like the traditional model.

quote:

---

3. Judges should not have the power to annul a legally binding Prenuptial Agreement.

---

Agree, unless trickery invalidated it or one party destroys the contract.

But still do not see the Republican connection.

The only politics concerning paternity fraud I am aware of is the absurd left wing liberal Ca democrats ruling that you, as a husband or boyfriend are responsible for the support of a child and that child's mother even if another male impregnated her. So anyone whom you have held out to be your significant other can breed at will and drop the responsibility on you. That's reality in Ca. Even if you have a live in or steady and you are white and the bouncing baby boy is clearly Asian and the DNA supports that, you are still stuck with the lifelong tab. A case of a state pinning the tail on the most handy donkey or in that case the most handy honkey.

quote:

---

liberal Ca democrats ruling that you, as a husband or boyfriend are responsible for the support of a child and that child's mother even if another male impregnated her.

---

Link?

In most states with which I am familiar, marriage or (in some cases) a dating relationship will give rise to a legal PRESUMPTION of paternity, but that presumption is entirelt REBUTTABLE.

In most cases, there is a time limit on rebuttal ... such that the husband/boyfriend cannot lay behind the log for years to keep getting laid and then deny paternity when the relationship ends.

If you don't want a kid... birth control and even condoms aren't 100% effective. But the combination of the two is over 99% effective. So if a dude is that worried about the possibility of reproduction, he should take literally every precaution.

Or just abstain, as difficult as that is.