08-08-2016, 07:38 AM
(08-07-2016, 11:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I understand the argument just fine. But the only way to ensure that children get cared for is to hold BOTH parents financially responsible for their care.
I don't see any other way to make it work. What do you suggest? Who would care for the child if BOTH parents decide they do not want to support it? Can they both just walk away and let the child starve?
When you have sex you are responsible for the possible outcome. There is nothing misogynist about this.
There is . The assumption that the only way for the child to be cared for is for both parties to be financially responsible is rooted in misogyny. It is a hallmark of a patriarchal society to believe in this way.
For the second section, please avoid the strawman. We are discussing events before a child is born.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
