I’m all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but this is just dumping more on the man, and making it even easier on the woman.
Single moms already get child support. Some (I’m assuming most) States have programs like free healthcare for children of single moms. And then there’s the huge tax credits every year, which most of them spend on things unrelated to their kid(s).
Women are children. Everyone knows it. They are never made responsible for their decisions and actions. They blame the nearest man, and since they are the majority of voters, so does the government.
We even had to create a parallel "justice" system called the family court to enshrine their Childhood into law.
As long as the child is biologically his, then yeah he should help support it and the woman he put it inside until she is no longer pregnant.
"(i)health insurance premiums while pregnant that are not paid by an employer or
107 government program; and
108 (ii) medical costs related to the pregnancy, incurred after the date of conception and
109 before the pregnancy ends"
So not only is there 2 safety nets before the father has to contribute anything, I don't think any reasonable person would agree that he shouldn't have to pay. He put 50% toward creating the child, he can put 50% toward it's care. Which includes the woman's medical costs while she's carrying. Although I would vote for this to be void if the woman is found to be endangering the baby herself by smoking/alcohol/energy drinks/drugs.
Does it have any protections for the man at all? For example, if a woman gets knocked up, and is angry with the guy, can she run up a huge bill during the pregnancy, basically bankrupting the guy right away, then get his ass thrown in jail when he can’t afford to make child support payments later?
So everyone who doesn't want kids should just be celibate?
Not everyone can have the level of...have to be careful what I say because Rule 16...the level of love for women that I do, which overrides base desires easily.
Rule 16 is literally genocide, enacted by Traitors who do not want His Radiant Eminence to inform the world about the evils of women.
He once told me that THEEEY would never make the mistake of putting him on television, because he would convince the world within five minutes that all women are pure evil. I thought that was a bit optimistic on his part, but OK.
I didn't say all women. I said I would convince them that women in general were. I still believe I could, with the same propaganda power they they have.
If you can't persuade me, who is in the top 5-10% of anti-feminism, then you sure as hell cannot persuade the average person. You'll sound even crazier than you do to us.
So, we have to fund women's existence, suffer their terrible ideas
Why not suffer THEEEEIR terrible ideas, we suffer yours.
because tradcucks can't say no to them.
'Tradcucks', unlike you, don't believe that there's a woman behind every bush trying to kill them. So stuff that is reasonable will be backed by them. With falling birthrates, you have to be a complete nincompoop to start screaming about pro-birth measures, but here we are.
Really? I can't think of the last time anything I pushed for happened. Meanwhile, every delusion they have is 5-10 years from reality at maximum. Even the Federal Reserve talked about managing the economy for "gender equality".
I can't think of the last time anything I pushed for happened.
Nor will it ever. You're incapable of even packaging your ideas as anything other than hate.
Meanwhile, every delusion they have is 5-10 years from reality at maximum.
So The Genocide is starting 5-10 years from now, eh?
Even the Federal Reserve talked about managing the economy for "gender equality".
I notice that you ignored the "racial equity" part, which certainly has more of the energy and hysteria behind it in your country. You're literally the dog sitting in the fire saying: "It's fine. It's WAHMEN who want me dead."
So are they, but they still win. Just need the pendulum to swing back.
They wrote about it 50 years ago, I could predict it would take another 50 or I could predict it would take 5. Either could be right, if you could predict exactly when, you'd be able to stop it, so why would they let that happen?
"Racial Equity" is a women's shell movement. Refer to the founders of White Privilege Theory and BLM itself then come back.
No, but it did have gullible idiots who trusted women.
kek the downvotes. If you want to hate women then hate women. You can't have it both ways. Just coom to porn if you need something to coom to, it's practically the same thing anyway if you're not in a relationship with them.
You are pretending that women do not intentionally trap men with babies. Or that the father has any say what so ever is the child is born or not. He has all of the responsibility but none of the authority. It's madness.
I don't know if this is an unpopular stance but I agree, people should be held responsible for their actions. Still, it's at odds with the female abortion stance of "my body, my choice". Pick one.
Bill does address abortion as a conditional waiver barring some exceptions:
144 biological father's consent, the biological father owes no duty under this section, unless:
145 (a) the abortion is necessary to avert the death of the mother; or
146 (b) the mother was pregnant as a result of:
147 (i) rape, as described in Section 76-5-402;
148 (ii) rape of a child, as described in Section 76-5-402.1; or
149 (iii) incest, as described in Subsection 76-5-406(2)(j) or Section 76-7-102.
The definition of rape in § 76-5-402, per casetext:
(1) A person commits rape when the actor has sexual intercourse with another person without the victim's consent.
Excluding cases where statutory rape is easily provable / not in doubt, that definition is and has been prone to abuse. Then again, skimming the titles of Chapter 5, maybe this is standard legalese since 'sexual assault kits' are mentioned in later sub-sections.
Edit: I'll add that child support laws are bullshit and need an overhaul for men's rights. My comments are strictly on the granular topic.
No, or I wouldn't have pointed out the contradiction in the 1st place.
I was trying to say that I agree ideologically with the responsibility stance. Of course, in practice, men get fucked over when it comes to reproductive consequences as explicitly noted, which is how it's unreasonable.
Not dissimilar to child care, but that's effectively a lifetime of being screwed over.
Leave it to the guy who doesn't contribute anything to society to attack those who are ensuring that there is... a next generation. Though honestly, with the likes of you and SJWs out there, maybe it's better if humanity dies out.
I never thought you'd be naive on this issue. The kid won't even need to be his. The mother will just have to say it's his. A quick internet search will bring up a lot of stories about men who were forced to pay child support for some other guy's kids.
There really are plenty of stories where men were forced to pay for some other guy's kids. They even got a paternity test that proved the kids weren't there's, but the courts don't give a fuck. Especially because the government takes a cut when it's paid through them. Just do a quick search on whatever your preferred search engine is, there's really no shortage of stories.
Something tells me that he (there's no such thing as 'they') was rather irresponsible. Funny how you think that all those black fathers who leave their kids to rot are just pure innocence.
You are aware that most people trust women not to lie, right? The only men who are going to be hurt by this are those who believe women are even slightly good people. This will produce more people like me, because most have to be burned before they realize fire is hot.
You think I'm fighting for myself but I'm already safe from their tactics. One, I don't hook up anymore. (Thanks C19 for helping me break that habit!) Two, I never, ever, ever trusted the woman to tell the truth at any point. Ever. Even when I was hooking up, I had zero trust, even in women I saw more than once.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time black women had decided to screw their community over for money - ask LBJ.
You are aware that most people trust women not to lie, right?
No, this is just a reflection of you taking what you see online as reflecting real life. Take 10 persons at random in wherever you live, and ask them if they think wahmen are incapable of lying, and obviously not. I have never encountered anyone who believes that, nor will you.
women are even slightly good people.
If you were smart enough to be a 'tradcuck', you'd know that women are not even slightly good people, and neither are men. Man has a fallen nature.
Two, I never, ever, ever trusted the woman to tell the truth at any point. Ever.
And neither do I.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time black women had decided to screw their community over for money - ask LBJ.
You know, I think a lot of these issues would go away if people stopped having sex before they were ready for the possibility of kids.
Is this proposed law bad? Sure, going off of the OP title. I hope it doesn't pass. Be that as it may, sooo many issues would go away if people stopped having sex with whoever. It's a big freaking deal with potentially big consequences and it only takes one time for someone to lie, or forget a pill, or not bother with a condom for both parties to need to make some awfully big decisions.
I’m all for people taking responsibility for their actions, but this is just dumping more on the man, and making it even easier on the woman.
Single moms already get child support. Some (I’m assuming most) States have programs like free healthcare for children of single moms. And then there’s the huge tax credits every year, which most of them spend on things unrelated to their kid(s).
Women are children. Everyone knows it. They are never made responsible for their decisions and actions. They blame the nearest man, and since they are the majority of voters, so does the government.
We even had to create a parallel "justice" system called the family court to enshrine their Childhood into law.
How many Mormons were involved in writng this bill?
I'm not familiar with Utah state politics, but they elected Romney to the US Senate just for that, so I'd guess quite a few.
I'm not gonna lie, I'm only here to watch Antonio and Impossibru argue.
Only half? WE DID IT BOYS /s
Has unprotected sex
Oh no! The consequences of my actions!
As long as the child is biologically his, then yeah he should help support it and the woman he put it inside until she is no longer pregnant.
"(i)health insurance premiums while pregnant that are not paid by an employer or 107 government program; and 108 (ii) medical costs related to the pregnancy, incurred after the date of conception and 109 before the pregnancy ends"
So not only is there 2 safety nets before the father has to contribute anything, I don't think any reasonable person would agree that he shouldn't have to pay. He put 50% toward creating the child, he can put 50% toward it's care. Which includes the woman's medical costs while she's carrying. Although I would vote for this to be void if the woman is found to be endangering the baby herself by smoking/alcohol/energy drinks/drugs.
I agree with this.
If you're having dicey random sex with throwaway partners, you're already doing it wrong. And only you are responsible for your actions.
Does it have any protections for the man at all? For example, if a woman gets knocked up, and is angry with the guy, can she run up a huge bill during the pregnancy, basically bankrupting the guy right away, then get his ass thrown in jail when he can’t afford to make child support payments later?
So everyone who doesn't want kids should just be celibate?
Not everyone can have the level of...have to be careful what I say because Rule 16...the level of love for women that I do, which overrides base desires easily.
Yes? If it's that big a deal just get a vasectomy or use your hand.
Now rule 16 is oppressing you too?
That doesn't answer my question
Rule 16 is literally genocide, enacted by Traitors who do not want His Radiant Eminence to inform the world about the evils of women.
He once told me that THEEEY would never make the mistake of putting him on television, because he would convince the world within five minutes that all women are pure evil. I thought that was a bit optimistic on his part, but OK.
Okay then...
I didn't say all women. I said I would convince them that women in general were. I still believe I could, with the same propaganda power they they have.
If you can't persuade me, who is in the top 5-10% of anti-feminism, then you sure as hell cannot persuade the average person. You'll sound even crazier than you do to us.
If I had their propaganda apparatus, I could convince people of anything. Look how Biden's election was accepted.
Even propaganda has to have some semblance of plausibility. You throw that out of the window with your wild nonsense.
Yes.
So, we have to fund women's existence, suffer their terrible ideas and fight our biology all because tradcucks can't say no to them.
Things like this remind me that despite Trump, most R's are still stuck in the 50s.
Why not suffer THEEEEIR terrible ideas, we suffer yours.
'Tradcucks', unlike you, don't believe that there's a woman behind every bush trying to kill them. So stuff that is reasonable will be backed by them. With falling birthrates, you have to be a complete nincompoop to start screaming about pro-birth measures, but here we are.
Really? I can't think of the last time anything I pushed for happened. Meanwhile, every delusion they have is 5-10 years from reality at maximum. Even the Federal Reserve talked about managing the economy for "gender equality".
This is a hot take. Stuck in the 50s.
Nor will it ever. You're incapable of even packaging your ideas as anything other than hate.
So The Genocide is starting 5-10 years from now, eh?
I notice that you ignored the "racial equity" part, which certainly has more of the energy and hysteria behind it in your country. You're literally the dog sitting in the fire saying: "It's fine. It's WAHMEN who want me dead."
50s did not have a falling birthrate.
So are they, but they still win. Just need the pendulum to swing back.
They wrote about it 50 years ago, I could predict it would take another 50 or I could predict it would take 5. Either could be right, if you could predict exactly when, you'd be able to stop it, so why would they let that happen?
"Racial Equity" is a women's shell movement. Refer to the founders of White Privilege Theory and BLM itself then come back.
No, but it did have gullible idiots who trusted women.
kek the downvotes. If you want to hate women then hate women. You can't have it both ways. Just coom to porn if you need something to coom to, it's practically the same thing anyway if you're not in a relationship with them.
You are pretending that women do not intentionally trap men with babies. Or that the father has any say what so ever is the child is born or not. He has all of the responsibility but none of the authority. It's madness.
I don't know if this is an unpopular stance but I agree, people should be held responsible for their actions. Still, it's at odds with the female abortion stance of "my body, my choice". Pick one.
Bill does address abortion as a conditional waiver barring some exceptions:
The definition of rape in § 76-5-402, per casetext:
Excluding cases where statutory rape is easily provable / not in doubt, that definition is and has been prone to abuse. Then again, skimming the titles of Chapter 5, maybe this is standard legalese since 'sexual assault kits' are mentioned in later sub-sections.
Edit: I'll add that child support laws are bullshit and need an overhaul for men's rights. My comments are strictly on the granular topic.
Nah, it's still 100% consistent. Her body, her choice. Your responsibility.
What, you thought they cared about men's consent?
No, or I wouldn't have pointed out the contradiction in the 1st place.
I was trying to say that I agree ideologically with the responsibility stance. Of course, in practice, men get fucked over when it comes to reproductive consequences as explicitly noted, which is how it's unreasonable.
Not dissimilar to child care, but that's effectively a lifetime of being screwed over.
Leave it to the guy who doesn't contribute anything to society to attack those who are ensuring that there is... a next generation. Though honestly, with the likes of you and SJWs out there, maybe it's better if humanity dies out.
Since when was I unemployed?
Yeah, and if everyone were as scared of women to not have children, what'd happen to society, eh?
Don't knock the unemployed. Many can't find jobs. Your nonsense is one of choice.
We'd likely have emergency moves by the government to rectify it one way or another.
I wasn't, I was simply stating that they don't contribute to society. They obviously don't.
Nah, you define 'contribution to society' as the one thing that you do do in order to justify yourself.
Whatever makes you feel better. I'd say my contributions are higher than someone who thinks dropping kids in the world is an achievement.
If those kids are not raised properly, you would be correct.
You sound like one of those people who thinks the government should pay mothers a salary.
Comment Reported for: Rule 16
Comment Removed: Yeah, the "their evil" part is the issue here.
Really? Is it not evil to baby trap someone?
ROFL. Don't you ever feel silly?
Lying to someone so that you have their child and collect payments for 18 years is pretty evil.
I never thought you'd be naive on this issue. The kid won't even need to be his. The mother will just have to say it's his. A quick internet search will bring up a lot of stories about men who were forced to pay child support for some other guy's kids.
Well, I'm assuming the law, because it's tradcucked and not feminist, will require the biological father to pay up.
There really are plenty of stories where men were forced to pay for some other guy's kids. They even got a paternity test that proved the kids weren't there's, but the courts don't give a fuck. Especially because the government takes a cut when it's paid through them. Just do a quick search on whatever your preferred search engine is, there's really no shortage of stories.
What lie? What are you even babbling about?
And talking about THEEEEIR evil is just absurd, but I won't count on you developing any sense of self-awareness.
If someone has to be forced to pay for their kid, something tells me they weren't planning on having one.
Something tells me that he (there's no such thing as 'they') was rather irresponsible. Funny how you think that all those black fathers who leave their kids to rot are just pure innocence.
You are aware that most people trust women not to lie, right? The only men who are going to be hurt by this are those who believe women are even slightly good people. This will produce more people like me, because most have to be burned before they realize fire is hot.
You think I'm fighting for myself but I'm already safe from their tactics. One, I don't hook up anymore. (Thanks C19 for helping me break that habit!) Two, I never, ever, ever trusted the woman to tell the truth at any point. Ever. Even when I was hooking up, I had zero trust, even in women I saw more than once.
Well, it wouldn't be the first time black women had decided to screw their community over for money - ask LBJ.
No, this is just a reflection of you taking what you see online as reflecting real life. Take 10 persons at random in wherever you live, and ask them if they think wahmen are incapable of lying, and obviously not. I have never encountered anyone who believes that, nor will you.
If you were smart enough to be a 'tradcuck', you'd know that women are not even slightly good people, and neither are men. Man has a fallen nature.
And neither do I.
You'll literally believe anything.
You know, I think a lot of these issues would go away if people stopped having sex before they were ready for the possibility of kids.
Is this proposed law bad? Sure, going off of the OP title. I hope it doesn't pass. Be that as it may, sooo many issues would go away if people stopped having sex with whoever. It's a big freaking deal with potentially big consequences and it only takes one time for someone to lie, or forget a pill, or not bother with a condom for both parties to need to make some awfully big decisions.