directly advocating for women having financial control over men
So close but actually that would be society, or the legal system having financial control, not the woman. Per you. One might even say that when men engage in sex with women, they are accepting the risks and an implict contract of sorts, knowing they will pay later in child support if she has a kid. That you dislike the outcome of this contract is on you. Just like you sign an implict contract every time you eat at a restaurant that if you do damages to the restaurant, you’ll pay for them later. That’s society for ya.
And before you start getting too personal with your attacks, remember how I asked if you wanted the legal, official reasoning, or if you wanted my personal philosophical views? Please note they are different. The legal arguments are indeed based on decades of precedence. I’m sorry you were unaware of that and how the legal process works. But yes, 80 years of domestic violence cases have informed modern law. Just like how spousal rape was legal until we decided too many wives were getting raped, so we changed that in the 90s.
You claim you agree about bodily autonomy but then get bent out of shape when women exercise it. Then you change the conversation to one about personal choice and equate boundaries with controlling others and not being financially responsible for your actions. It’s pretty clear you don’t understand bodily autonomy.
It’s not a strawman to make an argument, which is what my argument is. I’m directly addressing your points, and you’re losing. You have been asking why men can be forced to pay child support, but why women can’t be forced to have an abortion, and how these things can be rational/consistent. I’ve explained. That it confuses you and upsets you is on you. I haven’t engaged in any bad faith arguments, even when you try to identify fallacies inaccurately. It’s not an emotional appeal to bring up case studies and precedence, that’s not what an appeal to emotion even is. It’s also not a strawman to have a position and argue it.
I don’t have any buzzwords, unless you think bodily autonomy is one I suppose. Even if i have these regurgitated arguments you’ve seen before - doesn’t that mean you should be adept at refuting them? But you’re floundering.
I am legitimately shocked that you can talk about the “natural consequences of sex” for men and refer to abortion as a woman’s inalienable right in the same sentence without collapsing from the exhaustion caused by the mental gymnastics required to make that argument coherent.
You mean you’re clutching your pearls that you’re losing. What are those mental gymnastics I’m doing exactly? I’ve explained to you, quite simply - it’s bodily autonomy. That’s the entire framework on which we justify this - where someone’s body starts and another’s ends. I get that you willfully want to ignore this because you’re in a rush to be a man baby victim, but you look pretty ignorant.
Oh and btw, personally I agree that the child support system is bad. Instead I think men should lose all parental rights to their children; and are all taxed proportionately instead of child support, to fund a robust social welfare system that supports mothers and children including for things like childcare and food. If a man wants to be part of his kid’s life, he’ll have to keep his kid and baby mama happy enough that they let them. How’s that for logical consistency?
So close but actually that would be society, or the legal system having financial control, not the woman. Per you. One might even say that when men engage in sex with women, they are accepting the risks and an implict contract of sorts, knowing they will pay later in child support if she has a kid. That you dislike the outcome of this contract is on you. Just like you sign an implict contract every time you eat at a restaurant that if you do damages to the restaurant, you’ll pay for them later. That’s society for ya.
And before you start getting too personal with your attacks, remember how I asked if you wanted the legal, official reasoning, or if you wanted my personal philosophical views? Please note they are different. The legal arguments are indeed based on decades of precedence. I’m sorry you were unaware of that and how the legal process works. But yes, 80 years of domestic violence cases have informed modern law. Just like how spousal rape was legal until we decided too many wives were getting raped, so we changed that in the 90s.
You claim you agree about bodily autonomy but then get bent out of shape when women exercise it. Then you change the conversation to one about personal choice and equate boundaries with controlling others and not being financially responsible for your actions. It’s pretty clear you don’t understand bodily autonomy.
It’s not a strawman to make an argument, which is what my argument is. I’m directly addressing your points, and you’re losing. You have been asking why men can be forced to pay child support, but why women can’t be forced to have an abortion, and how these things can be rational/consistent. I’ve explained. That it confuses you and upsets you is on you. I haven’t engaged in any bad faith arguments, even when you try to identify fallacies inaccurately. It’s not an emotional appeal to bring up case studies and precedence, that’s not what an appeal to emotion even is. It’s also not a strawman to have a position and argue it.
I don’t have any buzzwords, unless you think bodily autonomy is one I suppose. Even if i have these regurgitated arguments you’ve seen before - doesn’t that mean you should be adept at refuting them? But you’re floundering.
You mean you’re clutching your pearls that you’re losing. What are those mental gymnastics I’m doing exactly? I’ve explained to you, quite simply - it’s bodily autonomy. That’s the entire framework on which we justify this - where someone’s body starts and another’s ends. I get that you willfully want to ignore this because you’re in a rush to be a man baby victim, but you look pretty ignorant.
Oh and btw, personally I agree that the child support system is bad. Instead I think men should lose all parental rights to their children; and are all taxed proportionately instead of child support, to fund a robust social welfare system that supports mothers and children including for things like childcare and food. If a man wants to be part of his kid’s life, he’ll have to keep his kid and baby mama happy enough that they let them. How’s that for logical consistency?