|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 02 2015 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. .........you realize this is literally the argument Millitron was using a couple pages ago, right?
Yes, but people want to be able to have sex and then sign a piece of paper waiving all responsibility of any unwanted children. I just pointed out there was a simpler solution to avoid the whole issue. Some folks don't like that and want to have their cake and eat it too.
|
On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved.
So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now.
|
On April 02 2015 05:44 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:38 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:35 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:28 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:24 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:20 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:19 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 05:18 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:15 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
also I think you're exaggerating when you assume that having an unwanted kid as a man and paying child support=life ruined. there's lots of people who had kids they didn't necessarily want who've managed to be happy with their lives The key part of that is that he is paying it to a woman against his will and he doesn't like that at all because he couldn't made decisions. I mean, he could make the decision not to have sex, but he doesn't like that option either. Of course the argument will be made that women are care free, because abortions are not major, painful surgical procedures. I know I'm just objecting to some of his appeals to emotion and framing that are irrelevant to his actual argument xD. Yeah, I am cutting through the bullshit and getting to the core of the issue. Its all about men and that the world is unfair towards them because he thinks its unfair. I've seen this all before. BRO YOU'VE OPENED YOUR MIND No, I actually acknowledge that there are many places where men are systemically favored over women. Unfortunately for you, that is not an argument against fixing areas where women are systemically favored over men. Except you have not proven that this is one of them in any way. And your solution isn't a solution, just a way for men to avoid any responsibility and dump it off on the women or taxpayers. Its the "I want a get of out of child support law because I don't like it." What is there to prove? After conception, the woman is capable of opting out of being a parent while the man is not. That is an inequality. Not all inequalities can be addressed, but why not at least try? No its not. If they decide to have the child, they are responsible. If not, they are responsible for that too. The decision to have an abortion is a serious one and no one but a few folks in this thread takes it lightly. Abortion is only as serious as the media has made it out to be. A first trimester abortion is pretty benign. The biggest problem with abortions right now (in the US) is their cost and lack of availability, and the lack of education about them.
Knowing women who have gone through the process, benign is not the word they would use. Ever.
On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now.
No, I am all for birth control and people who use it. But people pointed out it fails and therefore they should have a fall back get out of jail free card if someone gets pregnant. My solution is easier.
|
I wish the anti-abortion crowd would put all their effort and money into developing artificial womb or womb transplantation technology; then we could avoid most of these arguments.
|
On April 02 2015 05:46 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:43 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. .........you realize this is literally the argument Millitron was using a couple pages ago, right? Yes, but people want to be able to have sex and then sign a piece of paper waiving all responsibility of any unwanted children. I just pointed out there was a simpler solution to avoid the whole issue. Some folks don't like that and want to have their cake and eat it too.
I'm not a meninist or anything but one person doesn't even have to sign a paper (the woman). Hell if a woman lives in ND they can drop a 1 year old baby off at any hospital in North Dakota and wipe their hands of any individual responsibility to the child. Many "Safe-Haven" statutes don't even require the father know it's happening. I know around 2003 the rights of fathers in such situations was being looked into, but I'm unsure how it turned out in practice.
|
On April 02 2015 05:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Please try to refrain from personal attacks.
Anyway, Jormundr, to me it kinda sounds more like you have an issue with custodial laws? Wouldn't it make the most sense to fix those? I can understand your sentiment because I do recognize that this area is one where males are discriminated against. I think it's terrible that fatherhood isn't cherished at even the remotely same level as motherhood, but it seems hard for me to see how men can opt out from parental responsibilities and that not resulting in children suffering from it..
From just thinking about it now, I just don't think a contract is even remotely viable. I understand that you want to supplement it with a revamping of social security (so that child support isn't necessary at all?), in which case the children wouldn't necessarily suffer economically, but couldn't this also be a way of just, enabling men to be irresponsible jackasses to a higher degree than they currently do? What about practical reasons - what if the girl had unprotected sex with several guys in the possible time frame? State subsidized fetus-DNA tests to find who has to be contacted with the opt in or out contract? What if she doesn't get hold of him until there's like 1 week until the pregnancy limit expires, do you really see this kind of bureaucracy just moving swiftly about every time? It's like, no matter how detailed or specific such a contract-enabling law would have to be, I can picture scenarios where someone is fucked over in much the same way that guy who has to pay child support for the bastard child he never wanted is.. Except I think it also leads to more single moms parenting.
One of the major problems I have (more so from Militron, but I'm sensing some of the same from you) is the equivocating of abortions with 'not caring'. For many women, abortions are very traumatizing, for nearly all, they are very painful, and it's not something girls just lightly experience cuz why the hell not. The suffering endured from having an abortion does not compare to the suffering endured from having to wear a condom. Frankly, in the event where a girl genuinely doesn't care if she has an abortion, I'm very happy to grant her one, because I don't want her to be a parent.
I disagree in that I think it is very viable if we increase availability and remove cost from abortions, provide actual sex education about the different forms of male and female birth control, subsidize those, and remove that ignorant religious stigma from discussions about abortion. All of these things (going from our current system to a contract system as well) will decrease the number of cases going through courts and result in fairer arbitration. Strengthening the social safety nets will help keep people from falling through the cracks, if this change causes any.
I'm confused about your "irresponsible jackasses" comment. It takes two irresponsible or unlucky people to make a baby. As for a woman who has sex with multiple possible fathers - why would she expect any of them to have a financial obligation to her outside of her immediate health risk (pregnancy)?
As for the pain of an abortion, the last thing I linked goes into the limited dangers of first trimester abortion. The mental trauma again, can be mitigated by better education.
|
On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved.
That's the conservative talking point since forever. Didn't figure you agreed with it.
|
On April 02 2015 05:48 zlefin wrote:
I wish the anti-abortion crowd would put all their effort and money into developing artificial womb or womb transplantation technology; then we could avoid most of these arguments.
They better create a foster/adoption system too. We already have more kids than homes to put them in.
|
On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. That's the conservative talking point since forever. Didn't figure you agreed with it.
If you look at in the context of the discussion, you will I am not advocating for anything of the sort. I have said over and over in the thread that birth control is the solution and people have pointed out if fails and they should have another way to avoid the responsibility of a child. I provided an alternative solution and is both simple and easy if birth control is not enough.
|
On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now.
I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion.
|
On April 02 2015 05:42 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:17 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 05:01 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 04:53 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:51 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:48 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:28 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 04:24 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 04:22 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 04:19 ZasZ. wrote:
[quote]
So what is your alternative, since you refuse to comment on mine? Should child support just not be a thing? Fathers everywhere get a free pass to abandon their families at the drop of a hat and go do their own thing, yippee! He has no solution, only a chip on his shoulder and some stats that he claims are real, but lack citation. he has a solution, which he clearly stated before. the father has to agree to pay child support via contract. its stupid as hell, but thats his solution. edit: On April 02 2015 03:01 Jormundr wrote:
The only reason a man should have to pay child support is if there was a prior contract stating that he would do so. Putting your dick in someone shouldn't necessitate that you own her vagina or she owns your wallet. It's stupid as hell to discuss who should pay for children in a committed relationship? Or is it dumber to be like you and assume that you're expected to pay for sex in a country where prostitution is illegal? its stupid as hell to let a child's welfare depend on the whims of the father. fathers who are responsible dont need a contract; fathers who are not wont sign a contract. also, there is such a thing as a social contract (i.e., the law). not sure why that is not sufficient in lieu of a private contract. So why have a baby with an irresponsible father? Answer: a woman should always be free to NOT do that. And she should also be free to do that. She just shouldn't be free to expect that some random guy who she fucks is going to pay for HER child. Except it is his child too. There is no debating that he was instrumental in the child's creation. Now that I understand his specific position on child support, I agree with him. You all are providing counterarguments that assume the child has already been born, when that doesn't have to be the case. Is there any fundamental problem with the following scenario: During the period during a pregnancy in which abortion is legal, the man is able to sign a contract stating he does not want a child, relinquishing any right to custody and any financial responsibility. At that point the woman can decide if she wants to raise the child alone, have an abortion, or put the child up for adoption. All the cards are on the table and both parties know how committed the other is to raising the child, and can use that information in determining whether or not they would like to have a child. If she does continue with the pregnancy after such a contract has been signed, the man (or woman, depending on custody) would be responsible for child support should it come to that. the problem here is that it completely ignores the child's rights. the mother makes a stupid decision, but the child suffers. people dont understand (or ignore) the fact that child support is not about the parents' rights, its about the child's rights. also, going down the rabbit hole a bit, shouldnt the contract be signed before sex, not after? and, shouldnt i as a taxpayer, be allowed to refuse my consent to this contract since I will be the one paying for this child most likely? The contract would definitely need to be signed prior to sex, or an "after the fact" potentially pregnant woman is going to be viewed as in an unequal bargaining position relative to the agreement. Courts routinely abrogate contracts drawn up in such a way. And I never thought I'd see the day when dAPHREAk would be discussing the rights of the child! It is interesting that the rights of the child itself are usually a peripheral concern in these debates. And yes, in saying that I am certainly implying that the religious right's "the child has a right to be alive" theory is merely a placeholder for a "moral" citizen's right to feel upset that someone else did something particularly unappealing to them. This is because conservatives tend to mirror their extreme concern for the life of a fetus with a profound disregard for the rights of that fetus once it gets born. Were you born to fucking idiot drug addict parents and, as a result, never able to effectively learn how to integrate into society? Too bad, we made sure that your mother couldn't access an affordable abortion and that your local school got sucked dry of talent through a voucher program. Were you born to insanely religious parents who decided to home school you in accordance with the Southwestern Assemblies of God take on math, science, history, and the arts? Too fucking bad, we don't want to regulate home schooling because big government is a scary thing, way scarier than your propensity to turn into exactly the kind of voter we can depend on! You get the point 
although a certain individual who shall remain unnamed thinks i come from a very privileged, white household, my parents divorced early and i was the victim of joint custody. i can tell you for damn sure that the child support paid by my father was not sufficient to raise me and my brothers and sisters. so, yes, i am biased.
plus, making the father responsible means my taxpayer money can go to other projects, which i am always in favor of as a conservative little asshole. =D
|
On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion.
So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases.
|
On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases.
Bias towards women in family courts is an issue that can be addressed. My state has been doing it for years by altering laws and through judicial training. Giving the father a get out of jail free card so he can ditch the burden on the taxpayer is not a solution.
And the women does have to carry and give birth to the child, that is a little bit of a burden, or so I have been told. It doesn't look easy.
|
I, too, am a child of divorce, and this means it's time for a poll!
Poll: Did your parents get divorced while you were a minor?Nope! Storybook shit, dawg. (11) 65% Nope! But they should have. (2) 12% Yep, when I was 1-5. (2) 12% Yep, when I was 6-10. (1) 6% Yep, when I was 11-15. (1) 6% Yep, when I was 15-18. (0) 0% 17 total votes Your vote: Did your parents get divorced while you were a minor? (Vote): Nope! Storybook shit, dawg.
(Vote): Nope! But they should have.
(Vote): Yep, when I was 1-5.
(Vote): Yep, when I was 6-10.
(Vote): Yep, when I was 11-15.
(Vote): Yep, when I was 15-18.
|
On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. That's the conservative talking point since forever. Didn't figure you agreed with it. If you look at in the context of the discussion, you will I am not advocating for anything of the sort. I have said over and over in the thread that birth control is the solution and people have pointed out if fails and they should have another way to avoid the responsibility of a child. I provided an alternative solution and is both simple and easy if birth control is not enough.
The reason I reject anti-abortion arguments are the same reason I reject yours. Two people making a bad decision shouldn't result in their future choices and options being taken out of their hands unnecessarily. At the same time, two people making a bad decision shouldn't result in one of the parties losing all control of the situation.
And no, I don't think that the solution is a simple as the father having zero responsibility over the situation. But I also don't think that "you put your dick in it, too bad" is any more reasonable than "you had sex, now give birth".
|
nvm. i figured out what they're arguing and don't really have a good way to express what I want to say
|
On April 02 2015 06:12 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. Bias towards women in family courts is an issue that can be addressed. My state has been doing it for years by altering laws and through judicial training. Giving the father a get out of jail free card so he can ditch the burden on the taxpayer is not a solution. And the women does have to carry and give birth to the child, that is a little bit of a burden, or so I have been told. It doesn't look easy.
Yeah, I agree with your "get out of jail free card" sentiment, but when there are cases (of which I know personally), where there are joint (and equal) custody, the father still has to pay for child support. Which is frankly pretty bullshit imo.
|
On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. That's the conservative talking point since forever. Didn't figure you agreed with it. If you look at in the context of the discussion, you will I am not advocating for anything of the sort. I have said over and over in the thread that birth control is the solution and people have pointed out if fails and they should have another way to avoid the responsibility of a child. I provided an alternative solution and is both simple and easy if birth control is not enough. The reason I reject anti-abortion arguments are the same reason I reject yours. Two people making a bad decision shouldn't result in their future choices and options being taken out of their hands unnecessarily. At the same time, two people making a bad decision shouldn't result in one of the parties losing all control of the situation. And no, I don't think that the solution is a simple as the father having zero responsibility over the situation. But I also don't think that "you put your dick in it, too bad" is any more reasonable than "you had sex, now give birth".
The burden of child support has to do with the fathers responsibility to the child. Its not the child's fault that it was born and the father did not intent that to happen. There are many things we are responsible for as people that we cannot help and this is one of them. A woman can make the decision of aborting the pregnancy before birth, but that has its only set of responsibilities. Some women pay for that longer than 18 years.
On April 02 2015 06:19 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. Bias towards women in family courts is an issue that can be addressed. My state has been doing it for years by altering laws and through judicial training. Giving the father a get out of jail free card so he can ditch the burden on the taxpayer is not a solution. And the women does have to carry and give birth to the child, that is a little bit of a burden, or so I have been told. It doesn't look easy. Yeah, I agree with get out of jail free card, but when there are cases (of which I know personally), where there are joint (and equal) custody, the father still has to pay for child support. Which is frankly pretty bullshit imo.
Child support doesn't cover the full cost of the child, ever. Generally in those situations its because the mother earns less money, but not always. But my state has that problem and they are addressing it.
|
On April 02 2015 06:19 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:12 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases. Bias towards women in family courts is an issue that can be addressed. My state has been doing it for years by altering laws and through judicial training. Giving the father a get out of jail free card so he can ditch the burden on the taxpayer is not a solution. And the women does have to carry and give birth to the child, that is a little bit of a burden, or so I have been told. It doesn't look easy. Yeah, I agree with get out of jail free card, but when there are cases (of which I know personally), where there are joint (and equal) custody, the father still has to pay for child support. Which is frankly pretty bullshit imo.
depends on what you mean by joint and equal custody. sometimes joint custody means one parent has primary responsibility for the child and buys all the clothes, pays for schooling, etc. and the other parent buys them christmas presents. there is some disconnect based on the terms used. obviously, the parent who buys all of the clothes, etc. deserves child support.
|
On April 02 2015 06:09 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:05 farvacola wrote:On April 02 2015 05:47 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 05:38 ZasZ. wrote:On April 02 2015 05:34 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:31 Jormundr wrote:
All I see is the reason why modern feminism has started to lose traction. Because people think being a feminist (the kind that used to be for equal rights) is about being staunchly pro-women, regardless of whether or not what is proposed will result in more equality of opportunity. It's become more dogmatic than reasonable, which is why several of the people in here pop in with a buzzfeed line and feel validated. It's already 'decided', there's no need to actually think about it, and if it isn't all that great then so what? It's good for women and people approve of it so lets just keep doing it. you keep talking about it being good for women when, for the 10th time, it's about the kid... which can end up a woman as well but that's kind of a 50/50 chance The money is child support, i.e. paid to the custodian for support of the child. But many people do raise children without child support, and if a woman goes forward with a pregnancy knowing she can't support the child alone then that would be on her at that point. EDIT: Plansix, you used "they" several times in your post. Obviously this whole thing is a moot point if both parties agree on whether or not to have the child. The area which we are discussing is when one party does want the child and the other does not. Obviously a breakdown in communication prior to having unprotected sex, but people do end up in this situation. Don't have sex if you are totally unwilling to raise children. Problem solved. So you are secretly a social conservative? That is the exact same argument they give for why abortions should not be legal in the first place. Abstinence has never been a good argument for these issues, and that doesn't change now. I think he merely phrased it oddly. The idea is not that you should be at least minimally willing to raise kids in some regard prior to having sex, rather that, by sticking your dick into a vagina, you recognize the varyingly remote possibility that, in 9 months from the date of the act, a child will pop out of that very same vagina. Phrased in those terms, it lines up pretty nicely with sufficient public access to abortions in the sense that you should be aware of the consequences that follow from fucking, one of which might be an abortion. So some how this falls all on the guy? Shouldn't the exact same expectation fall on the woman (with exclusion of obvious rape scenarios)? Cuz, if that's the case then guys shouldn't be getting fucked over in child custody and child support cases.
This is a complicated problem because the natural contours of sexual health put a woman in a naturally disadvantaged position via her having to take on the growth of the baby in a physical capacity. Add in stuff like women losing quite a bit of earning power once having a child and I think an unequal legal burden on men starts to look a bit more reasonable, at least until there's more equilibrium.
And just to head this off at the gates, when we're talking about disadvantaged women and all you (I don't mean you specifically, wei, lol) can think of is people like Marissa Meyer and the fact that colleges are now overrun with females, remember that minority women are so disproportionately disadvantaged that it more than makes up for the contemporary ascendency of the WASP-W.
(And no, I'm not saying white women can't or don't often have it fucking rough either )
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
