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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.