30
Comments (71)
sorted by:
14
ProfessorCrackPipe 14 points ago +16 / -2

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).

10
Tourgen 10 points ago +10 / -0

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.

7
deleted 7 points ago +11 / -4
-8
DomitiusOfMassilia [M] -8 points ago +2 / -10

Comment Reported for: Rule 16

Comment Removed: Yeah, the "their evil" part is the issue here.

15
TheImpossible1 [S] 15 points ago +15 / -0

Really? Is it not evil to baby trap someone?

-16
AntonioOfVenice -16 points ago +4 / -20

This bill will just allow women to take advantage of men's naivety of their evil

ROFL. Don't you ever feel silly?

16
TheImpossible1 [S] 16 points ago +19 / -3

Lying to someone so that you have their child and collect payments for 18 years is pretty evil.

7
IfThatIsWhatYouThink 7 points ago +7 / -0

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.

1
TheImpossible1 [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, I'm assuming the law, because it's tradcucked and not feminist, will require the biological father to pay up.

1
IfThatIsWhatYouThink 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

-16
AntonioOfVenice -16 points ago +3 / -19

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.

16
TheImpossible1 [S] 16 points ago +17 / -1

If someone has to be forced to pay for their kid, something tells me they weren't planning on having one.

-20
AntonioOfVenice -20 points ago +1 / -21

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.

15
TheImpossible1 [S] 15 points ago +15 / -0

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.

-14
AntonioOfVenice -14 points ago +2 / -16

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'll literally believe anything.

5
yvaN_ehT_nioJ 5 points ago +5 / -0

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.

5
onetruephilosoraptor 5 points ago +5 / -0

How many Mormons were involved in writng this bill?

10
TheImpossible1 [S] 10 points ago +11 / -1

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.

2
yamez 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not gonna lie, I'm only here to watch Antonio and Impossibru argue.

2
JustHereForTheSalmon 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only half? WE DID IT BOYS /s

-4
EuroFishing -4 points ago +4 / -8

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.

-6
xleb2 -6 points ago +6 / -12

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.

12
ernsithe 12 points ago +12 / -0

Regardless of that, this is bad.

requires a biological father to pay 50% of a mother's:
• insurance premiums while she is pregnant; and
• pregnancy-related medical costs, including the hospital birth of the child, that are not paid by another person.

I read this to mean whether that costs the man 4.5 months of insurance premiums or $15k+ is entirely dependent if and what type of insurance the woman is carrying. That would mean, for men, that sleeping with a woman with a full-time career or a woman on Medicaid caries less risk than sleeping with one employed part-time or as an independent contractor.

That's just a whole weird layer of complexity and responsibility shuffling that doesn't make much sense. To even approach doing it right they would need to make it so single coverage extended retroactively family coverage if a man became a biological father. Which is even MORE complexity but at least starts to split the insurance responsibilities evenly.

This is a mess waiting to happen is what this is.

12
ProfessorCrackPipe 12 points ago +12 / -0

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?

11
TheImpossible1 [S] 11 points ago +13 / -2

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.

3
yvaN_ehT_nioJ 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yes? If it's that big a deal just get a vasectomy or use your hand.

-7
xleb2 -7 points ago +3 / -10

Now rule 16 is oppressing you too?

8
TheImpossible1 [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

That doesn't answer my question

-13
AntonioOfVenice -13 points ago +2 / -15

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.

8
TheImpossible1 [S] 8 points ago +9 / -1

His Radiant Eminence

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.

-10
AntonioOfVenice -10 points ago +2 / -12

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.

9
TheImpossible1 [S] 9 points ago +9 / -0

If I had their propaganda apparatus, I could convince people of anything. Look how Biden's election was accepted.

-13
AntonioOfVenice -13 points ago +1 / -14

Even propaganda has to have some semblance of plausibility. You throw that out of the window with your wild nonsense.

-8
AntonioOfVenice -8 points ago +7 / -15

So everyone who doesn't want kids should just be celibate?

Yes.

14
TheImpossible1 [S] 14 points ago +15 / -1

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.

-14
AntonioOfVenice -14 points ago +2 / -16

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.

11
TheImpossible1 [S] 11 points ago +12 / -1

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.

-12
AntonioOfVenice -12 points ago +1 / -13

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."

This is a hot take. Stuck in the 50s.

50s did not have a falling birthrate.

9
TheImpossible1 [S] 9 points ago +10 / -1

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.

-2
The_Gay_Deceiver -2 points ago +4 / -6

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.

7
Tourgen 7 points ago +7 / -0

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.

3
DNA1 3 points ago +4 / -1

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.

5
SR388-SAX 5 points ago +5 / -0

Still, it's at odds with the female abortion stance of "my body, my choice".

Nah, it's still 100% consistent. Her body, her choice. Your responsibility.

What, you thought they cared about men's consent?

1
DNA1 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

-10
AntonioOfVenice -10 points ago +3 / -13

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.

14
TheImpossible1 [S] 14 points ago +14 / -0

doesn't contribute anything to society

Since when was I unemployed?

-13
AntonioOfVenice -13 points ago +1 / -14

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.

13
TheImpossible1 [S] 13 points ago +13 / -0

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.

-9
AntonioOfVenice -9 points ago +1 / -10

Nah, you define 'contribution to society' as the one thing that you do do in order to justify yourself.

10
TheImpossible1 [S] 10 points ago +10 / -0

Whatever makes you feel better. I'd say my contributions are higher than someone who thinks dropping kids in the world is an achievement.

-9
AntonioOfVenice -9 points ago +1 / -10

If those kids are not raised properly, you would be correct.

11
TheImpossible1 [S] 11 points ago +11 / -0

You sound like one of those people who thinks the government should pay mothers a salary.