Posted on 07/06/2022 1:19:26 AM PDT by Morgana
In his Netflix special "Sticks and Stones," Dave Chappelle claimed that the MeToo movement was causing a backlash against abortion rights. Less than three years later, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Was Chappelle right? David Wood discusses the issue.
Video is 30 minutes long
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
With all the talk about “reproductive coercion” there’s no effort to be consistent. If birthing person can kill the baby because it’s an unwanted inconvenience, why does the sperm donor have to financially support the baby if he doesn’t want it?
Oops. I slipped up and used a male pronoun there.
It’s what Dave said just after that, that most missed.
Yes the “Perhaps were are both wrong” perspective.
Sorry, “...we are both...”, too early to post for me i guess.
Once you go down that road, if it’s ok for a woman to kill a baby because she doesn’t want the burden, then it’s discriminatory to not allow the man the same option (”Your choice? Ok, you deal with your own choices and leave me out of it”)
And it next logically follows, that unrelated humans who are inconveniently needy can be disposed of by the same reasoning.
Under American law the financial support belongs to the child, not the parent. The end result is that neither parent can unilaterally get out of payment without a court order. I understand the argument but I side with the court on this. No matter what the argument is before hand once a kid exists both parents have a duty towards it.
What you stated does not change the fact. Your case would render the court/State hypocritical if they allow the woman to murder at will while forcing the man to pay up if that same woman decides not to murder at will.
Its discriminatory regardless of what actors are involved as well as rendering the child caught in the middle.
Not quite.
The support belongs to the state.
Which is something that people really do not understand about the child support system.
The money taken does not go to the child or the guardian of the child.
It goes to the state who takes their cut before deciding who to forward some of the money to. Sometimes they do not forward it at all but the money still has to be given to the state.
That is why they can put you in jail for not paying child support but can not place you in jail for not paying your credit card. One is a debt to the state with is a criminal debt and the other is a civil debt.
All he really said was that women got all the “choice” and men got none. He made a joke that if a mother who didn’t want a child could abort the baby, the father who didn’t want a child should be able to demand it be aborted too, and not pay 18 years of child support.
It might be a game changer that the only time the father is actually responsible is if he and the mother are married. Of course this would include people that are common law married as well. That seems pretty reasonable, actually if you’re going to make an abortion completely legal.
“It might be a game changer that the only time the father is actually responsible is if he and the mother are married.”
I’ve been saying this for years.
The set of incongruities needs to be resolved.
Genetic fatherhood begins at conception.
It makes zero sense to say that the man’s genetic fatherhood is irrelevant when he wants to protect his baby from being murdered between conception and birth and yet relevant when it comes to extracting 18 years of cash from him.
The obvious resolution is laws that ensure that the man can legally protect his baby between conception and birth.
A lot more women would get and stay married if getting married and staying married was the only way to access the man’s cash.
Yes, but the other side of that coin is that we must also get rid of “no fault” divorce laws. Both sides have to have skin in the game, and not be able to just cut and run from their obligations without a valid reason.
That doesn’t mean people who no longer get along have to live in the same house forever, it just means their marital obligations wouldn’t cease if they decide they don’t want to be together anymore, unless one of them can claim a valid breach of the marriage contract.
Please illustrate what that continuation of marital obligations would look like.
Sounds good to me.
Totally false.
The woman has the option after birth to drop the baby off at any fire station or hospital and walk away with no penalty or fuss. She can even later declare she "can't cope" and put the kid into foster care or up for adoption. This society has granted the woman many choices.
The man has just two: pay child support or go to jail.
Laws in some states, Texas among them, had child support being only extracted for children born in wedlock. This acted as an incentive for women to marry.
In 1973, the Supreme Court overturned that, with predictable consequences.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/409/535.html
GOMEZ v. PEREZ(1973)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.