Reproductive Rights | LeftWingMaleAdvocates

TheTinMenBlog · 2020-09-27T11:14:34+00:00

PreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid ViewPreviousNextBack to Grid...

[–]TheTinMenBlogleft-wing male advocate[S] 11 points12 points13 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]DMP1391 9 points10 points11 points 5 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]acj181st 8 points9 points10 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTinMenBlogleft-wing male advocate[S] 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]YooGeOh 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheTinMenBlogleft-wing male advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mollof2 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTinMenBlogleft-wing male advocate[S] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Mollof2 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]-WolfChop- 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]needletothebar3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]austin101123 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaptainPrestedgeleft-wing male advocate 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 years ago (77 children) | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago* (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]mewacketergi2left-wing male advocate 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -2 points-1 points0 points 5 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago* (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix 3 points4 points5 points 5 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gurthanix5 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01left-wing male advocate 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]csklr 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -3 points-2 points-1 points 5 years ago (52 children) | Copy Link

[–]csklr 4 points5 points6 points 5 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK -1 points0 points1 point 5 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]csklr 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]csklr 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]csklr 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]csklr3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]csklr4 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 2 points3 points4 points 5 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 1 point2 points3 points 5 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 5 points6 points7 points 5 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE 6 points7 points8 points 5 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

Perhaps you ought to be conceptualizing how we can create better laws that in effect protect men and allow men to opt out of parenthood just the same as women. Sometimes, a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work, particularly when you have two different groups with two different sets of circumstances.

A woman can opt out of parenthood at multiple points without any consent from her partner. Men cannot. No amount of gender-neutral language in existing laws seems to help, because taking laws that were meant to help women deal with their specific and particular issues, cannot be made to help men just by making the language gender-neutral.

Doesn't matter how gender-neutral your language is, if a law declares a 50% tax break for people with menstruations, the result is going to be as far from gender-neutral as you can get.

So again, perhaps you ought to focus on the consequences more than the language.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If you have, I haven't seen it. Not saying it's your fault or that you need to explain it to me, just stating that I haven't seen your defence if it was in this thread.

Also, the mother aborting with or without her partner's consent, as well as giving up the baby for adoption with or without the father's consent (or simply accusing him of being abusive to be able to give the baby up for adoption when he's out of the picture) paints a very different reality from the gender neutral languages.

If you want me to say so again, I am happy to, but I'm not going to pretend like abortion and paternal surrender are in any way similar because they are not.

I'm not asking you to pretend like they are similar, but I would be interested to hear your reasoning behind it, since I haven't read heard it. I haven't gone looking for it, not saying it'S invalid or anything, just that I don't know what your argument is, and I would like to hear it.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

In the most basic terms, abortion leaves no child that needs care and paternal surrender absolutely can and does leave a child that needs care. That's why they are not logically, morally, or ethically equivalent.

Fair enough, that is why they are not identical. They can be equivalent from the perspective that in both cases, the parents are discharged from their parental obligations.

For the record I'm absolutely pro-choice, I just find it odd that people are so vehemently in favour of abortion, which can be the ethically more dubious choice, and strongly in favour of women who give up their children for adoption, but so vehemently against men being able in any way shape or form to be absolved of their parental duties.

if a father is known, a woman cannot give up a child for adoption without the father's consent. If you want to talk about strengthening protections there for fathers (and asking the state to take a more active role in finding the father) then I am with you.

If this also leads to there being mandatory paternity tests, and allowing a man to be discharged from any kind of parental support if the child is not his, would you still agree?

I agree that women shouldn't give the child up for adoption against the father's wishes, but I'm willing to bet that mothers putting children up for adoption against the father's wishes happens far more often than the reverse.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm actually perfectly fine with mandatory paternity tests and it's my opinion that making them mandatory would reduce or eliminate any objections to them.

For the record I'm absolutely pro-choice, I just find it odd that people are so vehemently in favour of abortion, which can be the ethically more dubious choice, and strongly in favour of women who give up their children for adoption, but so vehemently against men being able in any way shape or form to be absolved of their parental duties.

The honest answer here is that abortion, adoption, and safe havens at their core are trying to do right by the child. Are they perfect and wonderful solutions? Of course not. But it's us as a society trying to produce positive outcomes for the child.

Conversely, there's no benefit to the child when there's withdrawal of parental support.

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Honestly if paternity tests were mandatory I get the feeling it would solve a LOT of problems right off the bat, because it establishes who is responsible without any possible ambiguity or misinterpretation.

The honest answer here is that abortion, adoption, and safe havens at their core are trying to do right by the child. Are they perfect and wonderful solutions? Of course not. But it's us as a society trying to produce positive outcomes for the child.

I agree, but it's possible to produce positive outcomes for the child that don't essentially let women be able to get rid of parental responsibilities scott-free if they want to while keeping men on the hook whether they want it or not. "Her body her choice" has somehow also become "his body, no choice".

Conversely, there's no benefit to the child when there's withdrawal of parental support.

I agree, and frankly the US needs to adopt sex education that is better than 3rd world countries, starting with free and accessible IUDs and birth control for everyone above the age of 16 on-demand. That should massively reduce the number of people who are unable to support a child and/or who do not want to take care of one. It's a huge societal problem, but the US seems to take structural societal problems and blame it all on individuals, without trying to address the actual issue in any way. A lot needs to change.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE6 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It is possible to care for the relevant children without placing undue burden on one side more than the other, and it is also unfair to allow someone to fall back on a safety net in case of bad decisions that relies on another to prop them up.

It's a huge mess of a situation and multiple things need to change for sure, but we need to make it so that if you want to raise kids, you better be damn sure about it, and can't feel entitled to receiving money to be able to raise a child you're not ready to take care of.

The short term solution is just to give people the money they need to raise children, but that comes at a long-term cost of perpetuating a problem.

It shouldn't mean that men can butt out consequence-free whenever, if it is your child you should either be a parent or be financially responsible for the child's upbringing, but women are still entitled to be parents far more than men, feel entitled to receiving money far more than paying it out, and feel entitled to having the choice at every point on whether to be a parent or not, where men are denied those choices in many circumstances.

I don't want to abolish fathers paying alimony, but it would be better for everyone if there was an equal split between who is the parent, who pays alimony, and an equal opportunity to relinquish their parental obligations. As it stands it's rather heavily and unfairly skewed.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Via Roe, the person who gestates the child was given a safe, legal route to end a pregnancy and you think it's unfair.

I never stated that, I have repeatedly attempted to state that the person who helped conceive that child *ie the man) has no route to end the progression towards being required to support a child. If she is pregnant, she can opt out with abortion or adoption. She can ghost the man and take the unborn child with her, and he has no say in it. She can give birth without him knowing and require that he pays her child support, and there is nothing he can do about it.

At any point she can abort the child or give up the child for adoption, whereas he has no choice and is on the hook for child support if the mother so decides. She can opt out at any time (which is fair and good), but he can't (which is unfair). He is on the hook if she so wants to, but he can't keep her on the hook if she doesn't want to. That is what is unfair.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Okay, I'm going to work through this.

If she is pregnant, she can opt out with abortion or adoption.

Abortion doesn't really matter in this context so I'll skip it.

Adoption is gender neutral. If you want to work on situations in which men are better-able to identify that they're the parent of a child, okay! Genetic registries are gonna be tricky, politically, but I am down.

She can ghost the man and take the unborn child with her, and he has no say in it.

This has been the case since time immemorial.

She can give birth without him knowing and require that he pays her child support, and there is nothing he can do about it.

This, too.

If we want to work on social systems to better-bind the man to this child, again, okay. We had one for a long time (marriage) and it did the job fairly well.

None of this is unfair. All of this is and always has been the basic conditions under which human existence operate.

Nothing is changed. Nothing is new! Nothing is "unfair".

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Abortion doesn't really matter in this context so I'll skip it.

I mean we are skipping one of the areas that hugely favours women, and gives men no similar option to bail post-conception if they don't want to be a father, but ok, we can agree that is one huge area of inequality where women have more options than men and move on.

Adoption is gender neutral. If you want to work on situations in which men are better-able to identify that they're the parent of a child, okay! Genetic registries are gonna be tricky, politically, but I am down.

I'm down for paternity tests being a requirement, and if the mother can't find the father she can still have the kid adopted so she'll be fine, or else bear 100% of the costs of raising a kid on her own.

Genetic registries are gonna be a shit-show though because insurance companies will use those as a basis for denying services to people who are at risk, and even if there are laws to protect against that kind of abuse I still think a genetic registry is a bad idea.

Also, adoption is gender neutral, but if the mother wants to get rid of her kid against the father's wishes she can ghost the father, give birth, not name a father, and give the baby up for adoption. If he wants to give the baby up for adoption against the mother's wishes, sucks to be him, he's forced to either be a father or forced to pay child support. Basically, she can get away with it scott-free regardless of what he wants, while he's on the hook either way if she doesn't agree. It 100% depends on the mother's decision, there's no way for the father to go against her wishes, while she can go against his wishes relatively easily and have him on the hook regardless of what he wants.

Gender-neutral language doesn't change the facts of reality.

This has been the case since time immemorial.

She can give birth without him knowing and require that he pays her child support, and there is nothing he can do about it. This, too.

So, it has been unfair and continues to be unfair despite gender-neutral laws, got it.

If we want to work on social systems to better-bind the man to this child, again, okay. We had one for a long time (marriage) and it did the job fairly well.

Making laws to better bind the man to the child would be making things even more unfair. Whether we bind the woman more strongly or bind the man less strongly I don't particularly care, so long as it'S equal, because at the moment legally the father is far more strongly bound and on the hook for the child than the mother.

None of this is unfair. All of this is and always has been the basic conditions under which human existence operate.

That doesn't make it fair. Just because rape is and always has been the basic condition under which human existence operates, doesn't make it fair or moral.

Nothing is changed. Nothing is new! Nothing is "unfair".

Your definition of fairness seems to have nothing to do with equal treatment and equal opportunities, and seems to have more to do with "the way things have been for a long time".

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean we are skipping one of the areas that hugely favours women, and gives men no similar option to bail post-conception if they don't want to be a father, but ok, we can agree that is one huge area of inequality where women have more options than men and move on.

No, we're skipping this because there's no way to give cis men the ability to carry children and therefore the ability to have the legal medical procedure called abortion.

Abortion is a right to a medical procedure.

if the mother wants to get rid of her kid against the father's wishes she can ghost the father, give birth, not name a father, and give the baby up for adoption.

this has always been the case. There's no way to stop this?

Is there a way to stop this?

Making laws to better bind the man to the child would be making things even more unfair.

How?

Look, you're not really talking about anything actionable here. Legal paternal surrender would not make anything "fairer". The only thing we can do is try to make sure that men have the same legal rights and obligations as women, which they generally do.

How would you prevent a pregnant woman from moving????

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, we're skipping this because there's no way to give cis men the ability to carry children and therefore the ability to have the legal medical procedure called abortion.

Yes but see it'S not about abortion, it's about having an escape from the burdens of parenthood. With abortion, women have a "Get out of jail free" card that is not available to men. They can bail on parenthood whenever and if ever they want. Men can't. This is the unfairness you seem to refuse to address.

Abortion is a right to a medical procedure.

I agree, and the result of that medical procedure is a "get out of parenthood free" card, which is an opportunity that women have and can and do abuse, while men are on the hook for parental support. I'm not advocating for removal of abortion rights, I'm advocating for the same kind of "get out of parenthood free" card for men as well to have equality.

There's no way to stop this? Is there a way to stop this?

No but there is a way to make it so that the father isn't automatically on the hook against his wishes. IF the mother wants to raise the child it's absolutely her choice, but I don't see why the state should force the man to raise a child he doesn't want or pay for a child he doesn't want.

It shouldn't be a super easy choice, maybe a one-time payment to the mother or a fine or something, but there should be an option to get out of parenthood for men that is equal to the options available to women.

Look, you're not really talking about anything actionable here. Legal paternal surrender would not make anything "fairer". The only thing we can do is try to make sure that men have the same legal rights and obligations as women, which they generally do.

Well, yes, it would make things fairer. Women are not obligated to take care of their children if they want to, they can abort, and they can give up for adoption without the father's consent. Fathers on the other hand, are on the hook and have no options.

So no, things are not fair, in practice men have less parental rights, and more parental obligations than women.

How would you prevent a pregnant woman from moving????

I wouldn't prevent her. She is free to move, and the father should be free to let her carry the pregnancy to term alone if she so chose. She isn't entitled to his presence and financial support just because his sperm fertilized her egg.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Like everyone else here, you're consistently ignoring the implications of your ideas and presenting them as "simple fairness".

I'm not ignoring any implications, if there are implications I'm not seeing feel free to bring them up and we'll talk about it.

Funny how often ideas presented as "simple fairness" works for equality for women, but when it's used for equality for men, suddenly that's not good enough anymore.

You understand why abortion is not the same as refusing to support your alive child. You want to believe there's a way to "fairly" square that circle but there isn't.

Well, there are ways for sure, the question is whether it's fair or not. Given your past use of "fair" seems to align more with "it's been done this way for centuries therefore it's fair", I'd like you to follow through on your logic there and explain it to me. Yes, I understand that abortion is not the same as refusing to support an alive child. I do see however that abortion is choosing not to go through with becoming a parent by stopping the pregnancy. Women have that option to choose not to become a parent. Men do not. If a woman names a man as the father, then he is automatically forced to become a father, whether he wants to or not, or must pay the mother to support the child he does not want.

If she does not want the child, there is no way for the man to force her to pay him money and no way for him to not become a parent against her wishes.

That is in fact an unfair situation.

Come back to me when you're willing to be honest about that.

I've been nothing but upfront and honest with you at ever step, explaining exactly what my reasoning was. Not once have I said that abortion is the same as refusing to support a live child. Those are words you put in my mouth. I said that abortion is a way to opt out of parenthood that is available to women, but not available to men. Very different.

Again, I absolutely support the right to abortion and do not wish to restrict it in any way. There are already too many people on the planet. I'm simply pointing out that a woman can trap a man and force him to be a father or force him to pay money to her if he doesn't want to tag along, but if she doesn't want to be a mother or tag along she has several options to get out of it scott-free.

Again, this is in fact an unfair situation.

Perhaps you don't like the solutions that are proposed, and that's totally fine, but you can't just pretend like it isn't unfair just because it's a gender-neutral language.

Nowhere in law does it state that black people should be put in jail, but you'd be insane to push the argument that therefore because of the language of the law, all is fair and there is no injustice in the US justice system at all. For some reason however you feel justified in ignoring reality and looking at semantics when it comes to men's issues.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not eliding the fact in any way, but this has been a discussion about parental rights, not the fate of the children. If you want to talk about that, that's fine, but it is a separate point.

This is true and obvious on the face of it.

Many people also say that it is true and obvious that the face of the earth is flat. Stating it doesn't make it so.

You seem to have also repeatedly avoided actually explaining your logic, despite multiple invitations to do exactly that, and me spelling out my own logic point by point.

While we don't seem to agree, I am glad we have been able to have a good discussion. I'm not sure we'll get anywhere with this, but I do want to say I wish you the best, and I hope you and your family are safe in these troubled times. We can disagree all we want, but it's important to also remember that we're all human, and we all bleed the same colour.

Stay safe, and best of luck!

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We absolutely cannot separate the rights of the alive child from any of this discussion.

Of course we can. Whether we should is a valid question, but to say we can't is asinine. Of course we can. Doctors having a discussion about heart surgeries are under no obligation to talk about diet or exercise if the discussion at hand doesn't warrant it. We can address different points in the same disussion but separately, we're under no obligation to package everything together in every discussion.

That's what I keep trying to say over and over - these are the exact same conversation. It is sophistry to pretend otherwise!

You keep saying it, but you also keep failing to explain your logic. Saying it doesn't make it so.

And again, look, I get it, the discussion is made a lot easier to pretend like these are two different things. They're just not.

Of course they are. They are related facts, but they are not the same identical thing. Abortion kills the fetus, but it's not the same as murdering babies. Funnily enough, pro-lifers make the same argument as you here, saying that it's the same thing, and we're just pretending that abortion isn't murdering babies, and that we can't separate the discussion of abortion from the discussion of murdering babies since they're the same thing.

Except when pressed on their logic, pro-lifer arguments fair. I'm pressing you on your logic, and you keep simply restating your points over and over again in different ways without ever actually explaining anything. Using different words to say the same thing is not making an argument, it's just repeating an assertion.

Policymakers understand that medium- and long-term implications of this policy would be catastrophic for the alive children that are inherently affected by this policy.

Cool, then we can have a discussion about this very separate fact, see if it can be mitigated in any way, and if in light of these additional and separate facts, if we should grant some kind of "opt out of parenthood option" for men in light of this.

That's why this "debate" only lives on in places like this, where sophistry is rewarded but an honest reckoning of the consequences of the policy are avoided. It is fundamentally unserious.

No, it is fundamentally unserious of you to bring up this argument as though you explained any of the consequences. You just assumed there were consequences, assumed everyone knew what those consequences were, assumed those consequences could not be avoided or mitigated, and repeatedly avoided bringing up arguments to that effect in any of the conversations.

You absolutely should talk about that because it makes a strong case against fathers being able to opt out of parenthood. It's your fault for not bringing it up, your fault for not talking about the consequences, and your fault for not making a coherent argument out of all of it. It's not my fault I can't see what's in your head and respond adequately.

I responded to all the arguments you actually brought up. If you want me to respond to the consequences to society at large if fathers can abandon their children, you'll have to bring up that argument, because I can't respond to arguments that haven't been made.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE2 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I've been logical with you too man, and if you don'T want to include all the necessary premises into your arguments and explicitly spell them out, you're not going to have much success changing people's minds.

I understand where you are coming from, but you are asking me to assume the consequences you are talking about and basically doing your work for you. If you want to be logical, you have to present the arguments with all the premises, you can't just state that it's obviously true on the face of it and leave it at that. That's an assertion, that's not a logical argument. You have to spell it out. That's your job if you want to convince me, just like I have to spell it out if I want to convince you.

I never said I wanted to live in a fantasy world where legal parental surrender is divorced from reality, and I find that especially ironic coming from you considering the earliest comments we had where you were so fixated on the gender-neutral language of the law and were refusing to look at the boots-on-the-ground reality of the unfair consequences of the laws.

I never asked you to join me in any fantasy world, I repeatedly asked you to spell out your arguments so we could have a look at them and discuss them. That you failed to do so is not on me.

Have a nice day.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK1 point 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]BCRE8TVE3 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CraptainToad0 points 5 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]a-man-from-earthleft-wing male advocate[M] 0 points1 point2 points 5 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Reproductive Rights
Author	TheTinMenBlog
Upvotes	157
Comments	92
Date	September 27, 2020 11:14 AM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/j0pf79/reproductive_rights/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/reproductive-rights.1194805 https://theredarchive.com/post/1194805

Comments