Legal theorizing thread.
Moral hazard is an economic concept where one party is allowed to make decisions while another party bares the risks of those decisions. In the case of abortion, it is clear that a male bares all the risks while the female gets to make all the decisions.
If a man and woman have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant, the man has no say in whether that woman may have an abortion or not. This is current law. If the man wanted to take the care of the child on his own and the woman aborts, he is deprived of that right. If the man wants the woman to abort the child and she elects not to do so, he is stuck with having to pay for child support.
The 14th Amendment allows for equal protection under the law. The Supreme Court has held that sex is a protected class under the 14th Amendment. In the case of abortion, the male clearly does not get equal treatment of the law.
If a man wants to keep the child, but the woman aborts anyways, the man should arguably receive damages for the loss of enjoyment with a child he helped in creating. It was his blood child. The woman still has her constitutional right to abort, but the sex that conceived the child should have been considered an implied agreement that the father would have to be paid if he wished to keep his child while the mother did not.
This would obviously be different in the case of rape. Voluntary unprotected sex, however, should clearly be seen as an implied agreement. Contraceptives are easily acquired.
The only argument against this is that it "punishes" a girl for not carrying a child. That brings me to my next point.
Alternatively, if the father wants the mother to abort the child, he should be allowed to get an injunction against her to do so. In this situation, the mother is not forced to carry, but instead, she is forced to abort the child. The father has an interest in having the child aborted because if the woman decides to have the child, he is stuck paying child support.
>>57243198
I should've used a catchy picture. :/
>>57243198
No man you're right its just that pol is too busy not discussing policy to fix america and is instead jerking off to other retarded issues. Next time use a picture of a giant black dick fucking a white woman and posters from all over the globe will appear.
I think woman alone holds the decision since it's about woman's body. Payment of damages is a stupid concept, because our general ethic rules can't put a price on human life. Pricing would be especially difficult because not all women are equally wealthy either.
>inb4 man has to pay for the woman if she decides to keep the baby and he doesn't have a chance to say no
You gotta remember that child support is directed to the child, you aren't sponsoring the woman. It's about the child and what's best for him. By sticking your dick inside a woman you agree that there's always the risk and as an adult man you will have to live with the possible consequenses. If you are not okay with it, just simply do not put your dick inside a woman's vag and you won't end up to a situation like that.
>>57245751
We put prices on humans all the time in American courts.
Wrongful death actions pay out money to the family for the lost income and enjoyment of the family member. It's quantifiable and a jury helps decide it.
>>57245893
Here that amount is defined by "mental suffering" if the person's relatives and the possible income lost for them. It's not necessarily a price tag for someone's life desu.
So how would the jury in America define the prince of the embryo then? Would it be based on the mother's wealth, meaning what she can pay or how much the father cried and needed therapy to get over the abortion?
Honestly I think it would be super corny to ask for financial refund for something which wasn't even there yet, which has no name, no shape, no nothing. And as a man you lost absolutely nothing concrete. You are not even obliged to pay for the abortion. Getting an abortion isn't that easy process, as a process itself but mentally or physically either. It's not like you only take a pill and boom it's gone. It's always more or less painful and definitely not a nice happening. That shall be the woman's "punishment," not having to pay for the man who lost nothing. Absolutely nothing.
>>57243198
One day we'll have artificial wombs. If she wants to kill her child a and he doesn't, then she can transfer the child to an artificial womb and pay the father child support.
You think feminists would like that?
>>57246196
>Honestly I think it would be super corny to ask for financial refund for something which wasn't even there yet
That's the concept of expectation damages. Some service or thing was expected to be performed or created and the value of that service and thing plus hardship of not having it is paid in damages to the person who breaches the contract.
And any action in civil law puts a judgment on an individual, if the person can't pay - the person can't pay. The plaintiff goes without money. It'd be pointless suing a poor mother.
And the argument is that the man lost something: his blood child that he wished to keep. Biologically the man had no option to carry the child instead of the woman. Instead, he gets his child terminated without being able to stop the mother from doing so.
Abortion shouldn't be legal at all.
Problem solved.
>>57246478
No. At that point, feminists would argue that child support is "archaic" and that people who wish to keep the child should raise it on their own.
I wouldn't be surprised if that idea comes out of feminism soon since women are becoming more educated and getting higher paying jobs than men. They may wish to not pay child support if the father is determined to keep a child she doesn't want.
>>57246196
Shit Sweden you really are what the memes said.
>>57246583
Agreed, but for now we'll have to wait on Kennedy, Breyer, or Ginsburg to retire or die and get replaced with a conservative. Then a case will have to arise that reaches the Supreme Court.
>>57246621
Women already are deadbeats when it comes to paying child support. It's politically incorrect to mention this and the courts don't give a shit.
>The father has an interest in having the child aborted because if the woman decides to have the child, he is stuck paying child support.
I know a woman who is in legal trouble for not paying child support.
In the state where I live whichever parent actually has guardianship of the child is the one who receives child support.
>>57246760
>In the state where I live whichever parent actually has guardianship of the child is the one who receives child support.
That's the rule nearly everywhere. Seeing as women usually take guardianship, they disproportionately receive child support.
>>57246536
>That's the concept of expectation damages. Some service or thing was expected to be performed or created and the value of that service and thing plus hardship of not having it is paid in damages to the person who breaches the contract
I don't think this is how to talk about human lives. It's not a purchaising process and it definitely doesn't have similar rules and laws as that kind of process. You are talking about it like it was some material loss for the man and therefore he'd deserve refund from the woman.
Honestly, what a dick move from the father it would be to demand money. Thinki about it,
>be a woman, get pregnant
>for some reason don't want or can't keep it
>suffer from all the side effects of those pregnancy hormones
>run from one doctor to another and finally get to the actual process of getting rid of the unwanted tumor inside you
>you might be hours in pain and bleed for a ong while, even for a week or so
>it takes a while that your body and hormone levels are fully recovered.
>potentially suffer from bad conscience even if you knew you did the right thing.
And then pay for the man who only came inside the woman? Yeah well doesn't sound fair nor reasonable.
And even if the man got payed, would it really make any changes? "Well I lost the chance of being a father but hey I bought myself a new xbox so it's better than nothing."
As long as it's the woman who carries and givers birth to the baby and suffers all the pains and damages, she has the right to make the decision. It may not be equal but it's reasonable and logical cause woman actually holds the bigger risk too. As a man the only obliged contribution is financial only. Having a child has no effect on your body or life and you don't have to see it and you definitely don't have to push it out of your body throw your genitals. Money is nothing really, time and health are more valuable.
>>57246666
And you Muricans really are selfish manchilden as everybody knows.
>>57245751
>>57246196
>>57247022
Hello Elsa
Men should receive payment of damages if a woman chooses to use his seed without his permission.
>>57247097
Elsa is a girl's name in Sweden. I'm pretty positive that I'm not one.
Let's start with this from the premise that, for reasons of enforceability, we can't just ban non-medically-necessary abortions. Honestly, I hope all the liberal Supreme Court justices die of heart attacks the day a conservative Republican is elected President, so that we can get rid of abortion-on-demand, but let's just say that if it happened the bans wouldn't work any better than Prohibition did against alcohol, and we'd have to re-legalize it to avoid wasting money the way we're wasting money on the war on drugs. If that's the case, then a father who wants to be a father to the (consensually conceived) child should legally be able to file suit against the mother to prevent the abortion, at which time the mother can either keep the child inside her or (with court assistance and funds) attempt to find a surrogate if she wants to get out of the pregnancy entirely.
On the other hand, I don't want the father being able to force the child to die even when she wants it to live. That would give him ultimate power over the child's life or death, and that's not good either. However, he should be able to file with the court before the birth to not have to pay child support for the next eighteen years, giving up all paternal rights while also completely cutting off the stream of money out of his bank account into hers. There are considerations where the court can reject his suit, especially if he's got enough money to pay and she doesn't, but having that option there for men who are working low-paying or insecure jobs would help out a class of men that really aren't paid enough attention to by our gynocentric society.
Overall, I would want us to get into the position where if either parent wanted to keep the child and in the father's case was willing to go to court for it, that the child would be allowed to live.
>>57247022
If they had unprotected consensual sex, however, it would appear to a reasonable person that both parties are agreeing to the risk of a pregnancy. It would be an implied agreement. If later, the woman decides she doesn't want the child while the man does, the man is getting robbed of a blood child that he desires to raise. The woman who had unprotected sex knew of the chance of pregnancy but has decided to breach the agreement.
Also, theoretically, if a man had sex with multiple women with the intentions of having a child and every single woman decided to have an abortion at the last minute, the man could do nothing to stop them. The man would never be able to have a blood child because every girl willing to have children with him breach the agreement.
I really don't understand the argument that since a woman's body suffers a lot under the pregnancy, that women can get an abortion whenever they want.
Maybe they should have considered that before having consensual unprotected sex a gorillion times with whatever retard passed by?
>>57247220
>attempt to find a surrogate if she wants to get out of the pregnancy entirely.
Go into detail on that concept. I'm not entirely sure how she'd do that.
>However, he should be able to file with the court before the birth to not have to pay child support for the next eighteen years, giving up all paternal rights while also completely cutting off the stream of money out of his bank account into hers.
This would be more difficult than even banning abortion outright. The idea of a man, who is able to pay (even if he is working a low wage job), but opts out of having parental rights just to not pay for a child would cause a lot of outrage. It would allow most men to pump and dump.
Further, think of how bad hypergamy would be at that point. If wealthier men were required to pay over their lower income brothers, no woman would have a child with anyone other than a wealthy individual.
>On the other hand, I don't want the father being able to force the child to die even when she wants it to live.
Agreed. However, as it's set up now, there isn't real equal protection under the law for both men and women. One of the ways to ensure that would give the men equal right to terminate the child. I dislike that route because I disagree with abortion and find it to be a barbaric practice.
>men
>receiving anything ever
nice /b/ tier bait op
>>57247220
Why the heck would you even want to ban abortion? It's not like it was the intelligent, stable woman in good relationships getting abortions. Do you want more black people, single parents, unwanted children for mother's who couldn't care less? I think having an abortion is a smaller sin than forcing the child to be born to more or less bad circumstances. That would take more resources from the government too. And if you think that people would just stop having sex outside stable relationships and life situations, well it's not going to happen cause after all we are horny animals and many people are just plain stupid, simple and irresponsible. Having a child changes everything, and a change for abortion is a life's save and start over option. Have a child at a wrong time in your life and your future can be pretty much doomed, cause you can't put the best effort on your education or work or other important aspects which has to be everyone's number one priorities.
>at which time the mother can either keep the child inside her or (with court assistance and funds) attempt to find a surrogate if she wants to get out of the pregnancy entirely.
I think many women would be willing to chose the option 2, if it was available. But since it's not she decides. No amount of money really fixes the physical damage a pregnancy causes to a woman and the woman also loses time cause you can't study/work full-time and with your best effort if you are heavily pregnant.
>he should be able to file with the court before the birth to not have to pay child support for the next eighteen years, giving up all paternal rights while also completely cutting off the stream of money out of his bank account into her
Everyone is obliged to support their own offspring financially. it's not goverment's job and it's an equal responsibility for both biological parents. stick your dick to a woman and be aware that the risk is there and you just accepted it.
>>57247076
I won't defend what my country does. We are a collection of dedicated idiots. But we have guns and the SJW butt hurt is pretty cool.
Our political wellbeing is a meme and I'll be damned if I live in a country where there are more moon worshippers than spics.
>>57247565
The Murican education doesn't really cover human biology, birth control or labor cause those are pretty haram and sinful topics in religious America. So no wonder they doesn't understand that side of the story. Changes are also that they live in their parent's basements and has absolutely zero real touch point on what it is like to be a parent and become pregnant. But knowing women who has gone through all that, it's not just that you get pregnant and 9 months later take a big shit and there's a new human being and life continues as always.
>>57247306
>the man is getting robbed of a blood child that he desires to raise
True, but woman's right to her own body outweighs that.
>>57247895
Under Roe, it's not a "right to her own body." If we had such a right in American law, using drugs could not be illegal.
Instead, she has a privacy right to getting an abortion. This is derived from Griswold v. Connecticut.
>>57243198
>she is forced to abort the child.
Jesus fucking christ
>>57245751
>By sticking your dick inside a woman you agree that there's always the risk and as an adult man you will have to live with the possible consequenses.
So only men have to deal with possible consequences? If man does not want kid he should be able to have her abort or not pay for child support, this would also reduce the number of single mothers thus also reducing crime. It is a win win for society.
>>57246583
That just raises the problem of more unwanted pregnancies, more orphans, and more niggers.
>>57247776
>killing people cause their lives don't match your expectations
>reducing human life to a cause and affect
>assuming none of these invalidate any imaginary "greater good" you believe that'd you be accomplishing
>>57247895
>Ask question on why women should be able to abort freely and not just be more responsible by not having consensual unprotected sex with everyone
>get a rant on how Americans are basement dwellers
Never change liberal.
It's funny how a man could just not have tapped that if he didn't want to pay child care later, but mentioning that women should have thought it through before having consensual unprotected sex is a Tabu with liberals.
If I know there's a chance of getting AIDS from having unprotected consensual sex, if I got it anyway it would be my own fault.
Now imagine that I could get rid of that problem by killing an unborn fetus.
That means I was both irresponsible and killed an innocent unborn baby to get rid of the consequence.
This is what liberals defend women doing. Absolute c u c ks, I bet you let your wife get fucked by other men too, as it suits her needs.
>>57248125
I'm not even arguing with you if you think woman has no consequenses if she gets pregnant, no matter if she decides to keep it or not.
>>57248003
Drugs are far from being illegal cause of the arm they do for the user alone
>>57243198
>Moral hazard
What other tort theory accepts this basis?
>>57248241
Business torts when it comes to most laws surrounding securities.
>>57248220
Does the man not share some responsibility in using contraceptive?
>>57248276
>Business torts when it comes to most laws surrounding securities.
Excuse me? You are honestly asserting that securities laws are based upon "moral hazards" rather than a bases in economic injury? I'd like a citation for this if that is a sincere assertion.
>>57248282
Of course he does, which is why he has to pay child support for 18 years with the option of never seeing his child based on what the mother feels.
Thus there's a consequence to every action, which should also include women.
>>57248310
Of course there are. Derivative suits by their very nature encompass the moral hazard of the corporation being run poorly risking a person's share of profits.
Other securities laws involve disclosure; however, the basis is to protect individuals who invest so that they don't bare all the risk when the corporation is ripping them off.
I could probably find many opinions describing this very concept.
>>57247148
You gave permission when you stuck your dick into her
>>57247895
>woman's right to her own body
The point at which it's just her body at risk ends when she consensually has the sex that leads to that child. She had the right to say yes or no when the dude asked "Can I fuck you without a condom?" She also had the right to change the outcome at any time before that: don't get into the guy's bed, take the Pill, get an IUD, get her tubes tied if she wants a permanent solution. As soon as there's a child developing inside her, there's more than just her rights on the line.
>>57247776
>I think having an abortion is a smaller sin than forcing the child to be born to more or less bad circumstances.
You seem to think that the quality of life is more important than the existence of life. I'm sitting here disagreeing, maybe it's just because I live in an America that idealizes the chance of someone rising out of poverty even if the system needs a lot of work (which I'm willing to put in: capitalism is this country's true religion, and I'm starting to see the heretics' point) before it gets to the point where that's more than just a tiny random chance. While I support the right of someone of conscious age to kill themselves if they feel they need to (in the same sense that I support a crucifix in a jar of urine: it has no value, but free society relies on not banning even retarded or offensive shit), I don't support death being imposed on them from outside. Not by the courts against a murderer, not by a cop against an unarmed man, and not by a woman against her child.
>>57248276
>Derivative suits
Okay. You've abandoned the securities law argument and now arguing a tangential derivatives suit which is the corporation suing itself because of poor management/leadership. Usually these cases end up going nowhere and costing the plaintiff the court costs including the corporations legal fees as the vast majority are sheltered by the business judgment rule.
>Other securities laws involve disclosure
Not based upon moral hazard but upon actual economic injury after the fact. As far as I am aware the only time one gets sued for failure to disclosure is in real estate transactions as that is the only industry that requires full disclosure. Every other industry realizes that it is the nature of business with two or more parties "at arms length" are going to suffer from misconceptions, misunderstandings and other innocuous confusions to require full disclosure.
>I could probably find many opinions describing this very concept.
I'll go take a shower while I wait. I expect you have a rudimentary grasp of the law at best requiring some explanation by others with actual education and experience in the law.
Oh, and I should also discuss another misconception you seem to suffer from.
>If the man wanted to take the care of the child on his own and the woman aborts, he is deprived of that right.
A parent has a right to raise a child of his but not an unborn fetus. His rights over the child starts after birth not before.
>>57248666
>As far as I am aware the only time one gets sued for failure to disclosure is in real estate transactions as that is the only industry that requires full disclosure.
Oh and agency issues with failure to disclose corp. opportunity. More "relevant" disclosure than "full" disclosure.
>>57248220
No, I just pointed the most likely reason why Americans have such one-sided views.
>It's funny how a man could just not have tapped that if he didn't want to pay child care later, but mentioning that women should have thought it through before having consensual unprotected sex is a Tabu with liberals
I think that men and women are equally obliged to pay child support aka raise their own kid by theirselves. I also think that women can make the decision whether to continue the pregnancy or not, simply because it's her body. Man has to pay child support, cause the child wasn't there to decide whether it was born and not and it shouldn't suffer for his parents decisions. The child's needs are most important, so both parents has to take part to the costs. Yes, can't doubt that men didn't have the shorter stick there but as said, adults are responsible for their own offspring and that shouldn't be something you can get away with.
There's however a 99% secure insurance that you don't have to pay for some random bitch's child's. Don't sleep with ones. Make it a principle to only sleep with women who you could imagine having a child with. Or don't have sex outside relationship. Or go get a vasectomy.
>>57248601
>there's more than just her rights on the line
Well that's just your personal opinion. I don't see it that way. And for you information, birthcontrol isn't 100% effective either. So it's not like the woman took a conscious, high risk by having completely unprotected sex. If she was stupid enough to do so, it's probably better that the kiddo is being aborted. Especially if he's father is a similar white trash scum having unprotected sex with random hoes.
>You seem to think that the quality of life is more important than the existence of life
I think the lack of material things in life is nothing compared to lack of love and care from your parents. which is very likely if the mother is literally forced to be a mom, did she really want it or not.
Its the women who raises the child Op. The man just spends 2 minutes before he busts his nut then walks away and bares no more responsibility. The guy can pay to transfer the fertilized egg into a surrogate if he wants the baby so bad
>>57248666
>>57248809
>Okay. You've abandoned the securities law argument and now arguing a tangential derivatives suit which is the corporation suing itself because of poor management/leadership. Usually these cases end up going nowhere and costing the plaintiff the court costs including the corporations legal fees as the vast majority are sheltered by the business judgment rule.
That was very irrelevant and wasn't a disagreement with my point. Whether derivative suits are effective or not doesn't change the fact that they exist. The rest of your post was just showing that you took Business Entities or Corporations and learned about the business judgment rule. Good for you.
>Not based upon moral hazard but upon actual economic injury after the fact. As far as I am aware the only time one gets sued for failure to disclosure is in real estate transactions as that is the only industry that requires full disclosure. Every other industry realizes that it is the nature of business with two or more parties "at arms length" are going to suffer from misconceptions, misunderstandings and other innocuous confusions to require full disclosure.
And that shows me that you haven't had or taken Securities yet. The entire formation of the SEC as a civil entity and the Securities Act of 1933 after the stock market crash after '29 was to address disclosure. It's the entire basis of the law. It's to protect investors BEFORE the suffer damages by allowing them to make intelligent informed decisions. I don't know why you're going into real estate transactions.
You sound like a unnecessarily pretentious dick, so you're either in law school or have a law degree. You're quite boorish and probably not particularly fun to discuss anything with.
>A parent has a right to raise a child of his but not an unborn fetus. His rights over the child starts after birth not before.
Do you know how Supreme Court decisions work? Surely if you've had first year Con Law.
>>57248835
>adults are responsible for their own offspring and that shouldn't be something you can get away with
It's completely obvious that you're a woman posting, as you're unable to understand basic logic.
You're saying men should be forced to pay child as they could have thought it through before having unprotected sex.
Yet women can get away with not being irresponsible for their offspring as they can just murder it.
Yes it's hard for a womans body being pregnant. They have every right to turn down and refuse unprotected sex. The moment they say yes, they are responsible for the outcome.
The outcome can be pregnancy, and it's no longer just their body at this point, it's also the body of an unborn baby.
>>57249349
>That was very irrelevant and wasn't a disagreement with my point
Wow. How novel. Instead of addressing what I posted you tried to marginalize it. Yes, it was a disagreement. First it pointed out how you changed positions from arguing about securities laws and then arguing about derivative law suits. I explained the difference between the two and noted how you functionally abandoned the securities law argument.
>Securities Act of 1933 after the stock market crash after '29 was to address disclosure.
Correct but why the law was created does not determine how it actually functions. Thus why we continue to have new laws that add to the securities act, such as with the relatively recent SarbOx. If Congress wasn't so reticent to put real bite to the SEC in regulating the big corporations you might have a point but at best all you can do is attack me rather than my argument.
>It's to protect investors BEFORE the suffer damages by allowing them to make intelligent informed decisions.
Tell me. How many times have securities laws prevented investors from suffering damages before they've signed a contract/committed to an obligation?
>You sound like a unnecessarily pretentious dick
Oh, the irony. At least I haven't been given the burden of proof and completely failed to even address it.
>Do you know how Supreme Court decisions work?
Wow. What a strong argument you've alluded to there. Got something of substance or am I going to feel let down by you failing to bluff?
>>57249672
You must be a law student. Likely not from a good school. Others wouldn't be so uptight and practicing attorneys would know better.
This your 2L year? Actually, I don't care because you're unpleasant to talk to, not because you're trying to argue with me, but because you're such a dick.
>>57245751
Your first premise refutes the second.
>Woman's body
>It's about the child
Also, by lending the vagina there are risks to assume too, so i don't get the second point.
>>57249761
>You must be a law student.
Thank you for proving to me that you've got nothing of substance by your continued attempt to attack my character rather than my arguments. This is especially pointed as you have been put on notice of making such bullshit attempts.
If you cannot support your arguments it would be smarter to just stop posting rather than trying to troll the one who questions them. All you do is make yourself look like a petulant child.
>>57249586
>Yet women can get away with not being irresponsible for their offspring as they can just murder it.
embryo is nothing but cells. it's not a murder, legally or ethically either. so your theory isn't valid.
When the baby is born, it's not a matter of what the father or mother wants or doesn't want, both are equally responsible because as said, the child isn't accountable for the circumstances which lead to the situation that he was born. Yes, sometimes it's not "fair" but once the baby is being born it's only about the child's wellbeing.
The only valid points are
>woman's right for her own body
>man does not have a right for her body
>both parents has to support the child and there should be no exception to that rule.
>the child shouldn't suffer from the situation what so ever.
>>57243198
Alternatively, if the father wants the mother to abort the child, he should be allowed to get an injunction against her to do so. In this situation, the mother is not forced to carry, but instead, she is forced to abort the child. The father has an interest in having the child aborted because if the woman decides to have the child, he is stuck paying child support.
This is totally against the ethical principle of Autonomy. This therefore is not allowed by the courts when they present a declaration of legality.
I sympathise with what you're saying, but it fails to take into account a) the woman's physical autonomy or b) the life of the child as distinct from mother or father
>>57249989
Listen, if you manage to get a job with an attorney this summer, drop the 'tude. They're not going to put up with that shit.
You could be very intelligent, but you need to work on your social skills. I'd love to discuss law with you if you had a modicum of respectfulness. Instead, you went full condescending with your first post.
That shit will not fly out there.
>>57245751
>You gotta remember that child support is directed to the child, you aren't sponsoring the woman.
If women have the right to abort without the man's consent, men should have the right to waive all claim to, and responsibility for, the child. It's the closest we can get to equality considering the inherent biological inequality.
>>57243198
You are absolutely right, I don´t think it is even a constitutional right since countries have different constitutions it is more like common sense. Men have zero saying in the matter and they become hostages of whatever the decision by the woman is. It is absolutely unacceptable that in this day and age, when there is so much talk about equality, just talking about this would be severely frowned upon and has a attack on women´s rights.
>>57250164
I say fuck the equality, child's quality of life is more important. way more important.
>>57250106
>I'd love to discuss law
Sure you do, pal. You've made it very clear to me that you have a poor understanding of the law and your attempts to continue to argue as if you are somehow superior without in any way supporting that assertion (just like every other assertion you made in this thread) only furthers that belief. You even made an argument about the Supreme Court and failed to follow up on what is usually a cut and dry argument.
All you've done in this thread is make poor logical leaps based upon poor grasp of the law and try to act your way out of being called to substantiate.
I am most curious. How do you expect anyone to take what you post seriously when you conduct yourself like this?
>>57250011
You and me are literally nothing but cells you fucking retard, what do you think we are made of, anti-matter?
A woman has the right over her own body and has every right to turn down unprotected sex.
Once she gets pregnant it's no longer her "own" body. Neither is it her mans body. It's the body of both her and her offspring.
Once a man and woman agree to unprotected sex, they are responsible for the consequences.
If you don't like the idea of getting pregnant then refuse sex without a condom you fucking slut.
This is why men have to pay for 18 years +
And thus also why women are responsible, and murdering your own children because you want to suck more cock should not be valid.
>>57243198
I agree with you, anon. But thanks to women suffrage, it will never happen. Not enough men would care about it to make it happen, while the white knight betas will collude with women to deny men any right over their unborn children.
Things will only change when we will have artificial wombs and wrest control from the less capable over the ability to perpetuate our species.
Women now are fucked. They aren't even able to select a suitable mate to help them rear children and organize a household.
>>57250106
>you went full condescending with your first post.
Oh. I forgot to get to this as well. My first post was a question. It seems you find anyone who questions what you say is condescending to you?
>>57250295
You're not winning yourself any favors here when I just gave you some of the best advice you'll get. The arrogant dick persona is not going to serve you well in your career.
You don't understand legislative intent. You were clearly wrong about disclosure. You go into irrelevant discussion of legal rules as an attempt to try to show you "know something," or it's just an attempt to throw it all against the wall and see what sticks rather than focus on the issue.
You fail to understand how the Supreme Court works. Do you have a due process parental right? Of course you do. However, if you've read many opinions, you'll know that the Supreme Court can justify itself in nearly any way it wishes. Can it directly overturn its own rulings? Of course it can. Look at Bowers v. Hardwick. Have courts held that abortion in the past could be made illegal at the the state level? Of course they have. In some jurisdictions is it double homicide if you kill a woman with a baby in her womb? Of course it is. Has the Supreme Court ever borrowed from different areas of law to justify creating a new precedent in a separate area of law? It does so all the time.
Did you read Obergefell?
However, I don't like discussing law with you because you don't warrant it being as disrespectful as you are.
>>57250706
>You don't understand legislative intent.
Which is why I agreed with you in regards to the legislative intent of the Securities Act?
>You're not winning yourself any favors here
Again. Oh the irony.
>Do you have a due process parental right? Of course you do.
Did I state to the otherwise? No. I stated that parental rights start _after_ not _before_ birth. Are you trying to argue around this point or did you merely fail to read it in the first place?
>Obergefell
What does same sex marriage right have to do with prenatal parental rights? As far as I can tell absolutely nothing. Unless you can name drop another case you seeming have a poor grasp of?
>>57250706
Wait a second. Are you trying to argue that because the Supreme Court, as final arbiter of the law, can overturn previous decisions of the Supreme Court as final arbiter of the law, thus your assertion is valid? Because you could be right you are not currently wrong and your assertion is valid even though it is currently invalid?
>>57250787
>>57250864
Enough with your trolling. I explained to you that your poor personality is not going to get me to discuss law with you.
I fully expect a some dickish response claiming it's because I can't counter your questions or some other nonsense. I'm not giving you another reply.
>>57251103
>Enough with your trolling. I explained to you that your poor personality
You are just fully of ironic posts. Perhaps the most amazing thing is how dense you are to your own hypocrisy of criticizing others for trolling but refusing to accept or adjust for your own. Are you an entitled little snowflake that should be treated better than you treat others?
I'll take that as a "Yes, I did present a weak argument and you fucking nailed me on it."
>>57250421
I never have unprotected sex. I'f make a woman pregnant, I'd care my responsibility the best I could, no matter what the relationship between me and the mother was. I'd tell her how I viewed the situation and I probably wouldn't suggest her to keep the baby if our relationship was very casual. But I wouldn't try to push her to make decisions, it's up to her and I'm just being fair by being honest and informing her that I'm not available for relationship eve if she kept the baby and that I'll take care of my part but I wouldn't prefer having a child outside a marriage.
I've never been in a situation like that and I don't think that I'll likely be either, cause I choose my women well and nevr go with the lowest slags, no matter how horny I was.
With great freedom comes great responsibility.
>>57251189
If I would make a woman pregnant*, dammit lurking with phone
>>57251189
>With great freedom comes great responsibility.
Only for men though, it's alright for women to murder their offspring because they wanted to be filled with cum.
>>57248003
>using drugs could not be illegal.
Using drugs is not illegal. Possession and distribution of drugs are illegal.
>>57247776
>but muh abortion kills niggers
If you made abortion the mans choice, niggers would be extinct in the west within 100 years
>>57248857
>just spends 2 minutes
And 18 years of garnished wages or prison
Allowing the government to force an abortion is a scary thing.
I'd support the male being able to clear himself from the situation. No child support, but a restraining order is applied between both parties until the child is 18.
>>57254327
>Allowing the government to force an abortion is a scary thing.
Isn't euthanasia prohibited?
>>57243198
It seems fairly obvious to me that the bulk of the issue is the existing laws that require fathers to surrender their assets to pay for children they did not consent to raising.
Consenting to have sex is not the same thing as consenting to the responsibility of rasing a child. This is why the men's rights movement is pushing for legal paternal surrender which would in theory be a law where men can sign away their rights as a father and legal guardian and at the same time surrender all responsibility.
It would have to be done during pregnancy giving the woman ample opportunity to terminate the pregnancy safely if she is unwilling or unable to raise the child herself.
The only other issue is that of females aborting children that men want to keep, I don't think men should be able to govern other peoples bodies, as part of a larger moral principle to do with non initiation of force.
Problems caused by laws and government rules and regulations are almost never solved with more rules, they're solved by removing bad rules such as child support.
>>57245751
You're completely wrong. Weman are selfish and that's why they think its about thier body. It's about the child and thier life. End of story.
Child support is given to the mother. Something like 60% of single mom's try to live on this with out working.
>>57245751
>You gotta remember that child support is directed to the child, you aren't sponsoring the woman. It's about the child and what's best for him. By sticking your dick inside a woman you agree that there's always the risk and as an adult man you will have to live with the possible consequenses.
No, most of the time there's no mandate that the child support is explicitly spent on the child, it goes into the bank of the mother and could be spent on shoes.
By sticking the dick inside a woman you don't agree on anything, agreements are voluntarily negotiated arrangements between individuals. The repercussion of sex is babies, not child support, child support is a state invention that isn't voluntary it's extracted with the threat of force.
It'd be like me saying I'm the boss, here's the rules, if you ever wear blue I'll punch you in the face, and then someone telling you "well it's your fault if you wear blue because the possible consequences is being punched in the face". You would obviously challenge the use of force against you as not a natural consequence of your actions but rather simply at the violent whims of others.
No one is denying the legal realities here, the law is what it is, so the advice to not stick your dick in women is good advice from a practical stand point. But when discussing improving the laws on a theoretical basis then it's perfectly valid to challenge the idiotic notion that child support is a natural consequence of sex, because it's not.
>>57246583
>>57248139
I read a book that linked, statistically, abortion to a reduction in crime rates. Book was 'Freakanomics'.
>>57243198
>vIf a man wants to keep the child, but the woman aborts anyways, the man should arguably receive damages for the loss of enjoyment with a child he helped in creating.
technicaly its not a child yet though.
>If the man wants the woman to abort the child and she elects not to do so, he is stuck with having to pay for child support.
I'd argue against this though, it does not seem fair.
>>57243198
Forced fatherhood - There should be an opt out agreement when a man does not want to be a father and the woman wants to keep the child. He should NOT be held legally responsible for a child he did not want. If he signs the agreement then he is no longer responsible for the child but also gives up any custody and parental rights for the child.
If the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't then the reproductive rights of the woman supersede the man's rights as she is responsible for carrying the child to birth.
If a man wants a child he needs to find a willing partner.
>>57243198
if u forced a woman to conceive get ready to have a fetal alcohol baby. because thats what your going to get
