But you said you were okay with abortion...

[Koldo]

You are so stuck on the abortion part you can't see anything else...

Perhaps you should take notice this is an essential part of the topic.

How much time do you thin would be wasted in court trying to figure out what was actually promised, by who, and when?
Not to mention filtering through all the conditional modifiers...

A hearing?

 

[ChristineES]

I sometimes wonder (rather stupidly) what would happen if the men were the ones who got pregnant.

 

[Me Myself]

I sometimes wonder (rather stupidly) what would happen if the men were the ones who got pregnant.

Heh, sounds kind of interesting to wonder about.

Many posible and weird scenarios and technically, we wouldnt biologially be the same, which would reflect on out psychology.

I guess in many ways we wouldnt be men, but something else.

 

[Alceste]

I sometimes wonder (rather stupidly) what would happen if the men were the ones who got pregnant.

Maybe you'd see all-female panels of politicians deciding what they should or shouldn't be allowed to do, birth-control wise. I suspect some amount of the interference we (women) get in our personal choices results from insecurity. IOW, if men couldn't force us to have children for them through repressive legislation restricting our right to choose, would we still have children for them? If I needed my offspring to gestate in the autonomous body of a man, maybe I'd be pushy on the subject as well.

Actually, the evidence shows that women seem to have far fewer babies wherever they have any choice in the matter (including widespread access to birth control), so maybe their insecurities are justified.

 

[McBell]

Perhaps you should take notice this is an essential part of the topic.

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the tangent.

A hearing?

perhaps we should try again, only this time read the question:

How much time do you thin would be wasted in court trying to figure out what was actually promised, by who, and when?
Not to mention filtering through all the conditional modifiers...
​

emphasis on the part you missed the first time.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That part of the argument was about who is a deadbeat dad. Not about who should pay child support.

This whole discussion is about the question of who should pay child support. As part of this discussion, you declared that those men were not deadbeat dads in order to support your point.

IOW, you assumed a conclusion to the overall question as part of your argument for that conclusion. This is called "begging the question", and it's a logical fallacy.

If your argument uses a logical fallacy, then it's invalid.

Hopefully you see my point this time, because I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

 

[Koldo]

Perhaps you should pay better attention to the tangent.

perhaps we should try again, only this time read the question:

How much time do you thin would be wasted in court trying to figure out what was actually promised, by who, and when?
Not to mention filtering through all the conditional modifiers...
​

emphasis on the part you missed the first time.

Ok.
The time of a hearing.

 

[Willamena]

Ok.
The time of a hearing.

More like the time of each hearing.

 

[Koldo]

This whole discussion is about the question of who should pay child support. As part of this discussion, you declared that those men were not deadbeat dads in order to support your point.

IOW, you assumed a conclusion to the overall question as part of your argument for that conclusion. This is called "begging the question", and it's a logical fallacy.

If your argument uses a logical fallacy, then it's invalid.

Hopefully you see my point this time, because I don't know how to explain it more clearly.

As part of this discussion, you declared that those men were deadbeat dads in order to support your point. And by calling them deadbeat dads you assume a conclusion to the overall question as part of your argument for that conclusion.

Oh yes... how did i miss this?

Because you seemed surprised when I suggested that your plan to let deadbeat dads off the hook might be unpopular.

 

[Koldo]

More like the time of each hearing.

Well, yes. The time of a hearing for each case.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

As part of this discussion, you declared that those men were deadbeat dads in order to support your point. And by calling them deadbeat dads you assume a conclusion to the overall question as part of your argument for that conclusion.

Oh yes... how did i miss this?

Except I don't use your definition for "deadbeat dad".

 

[Koldo]

Except I don't use your definition for "deadbeat dad".

My definition? Do you mean the standard definition?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My definition? Do you mean the standard definition?

Your definition is not the standard definition.

Deadbeat parent is a term referring to parents of either gender that have chosen not to be financially supportive of their children.

Deadbeat parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Koldo]

Your definition is not the standard definition.

Deadbeat parent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did you leave out the rest?

Deadbeat parent is a term referring to parents of either gender that have chosen not to be financially supportive of their children. Primarily used in the United States and Canada, the gender-specific deadbeat dad and deadbeat mom are commonly used by child support agencies to refer to men and women who have fathered or mothered a child and willingly fail to pay child support ordered by a family law court or statutory agency such as the Child Support Agency.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Why did you leave out the rest?

Basically, you're arguing that the legal definition of a deadbeat parent is unjust and inaccurate and that, in your opinion, needs to be adjusted? Is that correct?

 

[Koldo]

Basically, you're arguing that the legal definition of a deadbeat parent is unjust and inaccurate and that, in your opinion, needs to be adjusted? Is that correct?

Is there a legal definition for 'deadbeat parent'?

 

[Alceste]

Why did you leave out the rest?

That changes nothing. You're arguing that some men who want to weasel out of paying legally-mandated support their children aren't actually called "deadbeat dads". You're wrong. They are all called deadbeat dads. Even the ones who got "tricked", and think it's all somebody else's fault, and whine about how unfair it is.

 

[Koldo]

That changes nothing. You're arguing that some men who want to weasel out of paying legally-mandated support their children aren't actually called "deadbeat dads". You're wrong. They are all called deadbeat dads. Even the ones who got "tricked", and think it's all somebody else's fault, and whine about how unfair it is.

By the force of the current laws, they are.
But the current laws do not matter to this topic.
What matters is that if the law i proposed was added then the label 'deadbeat dad' wouldn't fit certain men anymore as they wouldn't have to pay any sort of legally-mandated support.
So it is very inaccurate to say 'deadbeat dads' would be let off the hook with my proposed law. Rather, they ( those who fit specific criteria ) wouldn't be 'deadbeat dads' anymore.

EDIT: I doubt many ( if any ) of the current 'deadbeat dads' would have a recording of the woman saying she promises to abort though...

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Is there a legal definition for 'deadbeat parent'?

Let's go by the definition in wiki.

So? Is that correct that you believe it ought to be adjusted to reflect your morals and according to promises made on the night of conception?

 

[Koldo]

Let's go by the definition in wiki.

So? Is that correct that you believe it ought to be adjusted to reflect your morals and according to promises made on the night of conception?

No. That is not correct.

What i said is that the defintion implies a person who should be paying child support, but isn't doing so.

No change is required.