krashmo

I don't think money is the same thing as your body and I never said that. I said you're making contradictory statements about the nature of choice. On one hand you're arguing that women should get to make their own choices about the level of involvement they have with their child because becoming a parent is their choice to make and no one else's, which yes we're on the same page there. On the other hand you're saying that men don't get to decide whether or not they want to become a parent because they have to support whatever decision women make. That is obviously not equitable. You are simultaneously arguing for and against the right to choose not to be a parent and all that comes with that decision.

It doesn't make sense to allow one person to both make a decision for someone else and force that person to be financially responsible for the choice that they had no part in. If a woman chooses to keep the child she should be choosing to accept the financial consequences of that decision as well. Anything less is based on the idea that abortion is not available as an option which entitles women to financial support to continue on a path that can no longer be changed. Abortion provides an alternative which, when waived, should remove that entitlement.

If a woman chooses to keep a child that a man does not want and demands a portion of his income to support that choice, how is that not "being a controlling dickwad... dictating to others what their boundaries and responses should be" as you so graciously phrased it?

Hilary Clinton, ok sure I guess, but how are the Biden's and Obama's political dynasties? That's just one guy in politics.

It would also evaporate pretty much instantly

True but if we suddenly invent an AI that can replace most jobs I think the rich have more to worry about than we do.

In what way is presenting factually incorrect information as if it's true not a bad thing?

Sitting still /= experiencing nature. There's nothing wrong with meditation but it's an unrelated exercise.

I watched the video of Obama's speech on yt last night. Great speech, but what struck me most was how many obvious bot accounts were trying to spread negative messaging about Democrats in the comments.

Now yt comment sections aren't exactly known for being a great place to discuss things but I've never seen that amount of blatant astroturfing all in one place. I scrolled through over a hundred of the top comments and 80% were from accounts with the "firstname-lastname-4digit#" type of username and little or no account activity aside from comments. This was 3 hours after the video was originally posted.

We really need to address bot activity on the internet because people are way too easily swayed by stuff like that. We're making it almost trivial for bad actors to control the narrative in ways that are not good for society.

That's a very convenient exit ramp from introspection you've created for yourself. Unfortunately it's not even internally consistent logic, much less a convincing counterpoint.

Isn't that the same logic anti-abortion activists use to argue against a woman's right to choose? She should have kept her legs closed, birth control exists, abstinence, etc. It's pretty odd to me that you don't see the hypocrisy in that.

Ignoring that this is a form of birth control, would you quote a woman who asked the same question the price for a hysterectomy?

The point I'm getting at is that women have a disparate amount of control over determining the outcome of the situation. In many ways that's how it should be but the obvious follow up question is is it fair to force someone else to pay money to support a decision that you made without their consent? If you're going to give women the option to back out of a pregnancy without input from their partner after their birth control fails then why can a man not have the same option?

I've never heard an actual answer to these questions aside from "men have had the power for centuries so deal with it" and sure, that's true, but I don't think that's adequate justification for implementing a system that is ostensibly supposed to be more equitable than what we had before. This just seems inequitable in the opposite direction.

If you can fit it on your roll holder why wouldn't you? That's just good sense right there