|
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 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:19 wei2coolman wrote: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.
As far as I know from the 2 cases I've mentioned, the fathers in both positions still provides the most (tends to buy the children clothes, school supplies, extracurricular activities/sports, etc). This is not including child support payment.
|
On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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.
You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of.
I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place.
|
On April 02 2015 06:26 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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. As far as I know from the 2 cases I've mentioned, the fathers in both positions still provides the most (tends to buy the children clothes, school supplies, extracurricular activities/sports, etc). This is not including child support payment.
Judges have a great deal of control over the specifics of many custody agreements and their enforcement. Sometimes, it isn't even the judge who has control but rather someone known as a guardian ad litem, a judge-appointed attorney or counselor who makes legal decisions on behalf of the child while the pending legal dispute is resolved or as part of the resolution.
The point I'm trying to make is that there aren't easily visible trends insofar as how custody agreements look, even in the face of a fair bit of anecdote.
|
On April 02 2015 06:21 farvacola 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. 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  )
I would definitely say most child support and custody battles tend to happen more often at the lower end of socioeconomic ladder. (Obvious socioeconomic forces causes this, such as financial instability of both parties, social conservative values along with strong familial ties often makes abortion a non-viable option, etc etc.)
So while, child support payment may not be enough for the child, it still doesn't excuse the usual court overwhelmingly favoring females in these cases, regardless of socioeconomic class. Especially since it'd be impossible for most guys to afford a competent lawyer to deal with the initial court bias.
TBH, there's really no good solution that I can see regarding this. The obvious solution is to make condoms free, but fucking retarded super social conservatives think that's a bad thing.
|
On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place.
There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child.
But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible.
|
On April 02 2015 05:11 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 05:07 Toadesstern wrote:On April 02 2015 05:05 Jormundr wrote:On April 02 2015 05:03 Plansix 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:
[quote]
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:
[quote] 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. Who would he sign this contract with? The partner who is pregnant or who is considering having children in the event of a pregnancy. that's the point he's making because that should not be legal... You don't pay child support to the mom, you pay child support for the kid (s welfare). You'd have to make a contract with the kid agreeing that you don't have to pay childsupport for him/her... You can't make contracts like that... The kid is a fetus, not a kid. I don't think these contracts should be allowed to exist after the period (and maybe even a little bit before) the woman is able to abort the pregnancy, because she should have all available information before that deadline is passed. But during her window to opt out, he should be able to opt out as well. The "he should have used a condom" argument is a silly one because it is the same one that people use to argue against abortion in the first place. It won't get you anywhere. Sometimes people have unprotected sex and shit happens. I would rather no one's life get ruined as a result instead of solely protecting the woman from an unwanted pregnancy.
This doesn't solve any of the problems you pretend it solves. Two young people have unsafe sex, and the girl becomes pregnant. Unfortunately, everybody involved is strictly anti-abortion. However, the boy, nor his parents have any qualms about signing a contract that UNILATERALLY equits him from any responsibility towards the unborn baby. He still tells the girl it is ethically wrong to have an abortion, and that he will be there for them, but he does not want to be tied down by the law forcing him to pay for child support. Child is born, and 6 months later the boy is no longer interested in the girl, or their baby daughter, and stops paying child support. GG.
|
i know only one thing for sure
nobody will ever sign a contract before sex
:D
|
On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible.
And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say.
|
On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place.
keep in mind that this whole discussion started because 1 (or 2?) people were arguing that it should be totally fine to "abort" 3 year olds as well if you think abortion is tolerable at all.
I don't think anyone is really arguing that the situation is fine. It's just that most people realize that those are two different things that need fixing and need to be looked at seperately without making up for it with each other.
|
On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say.
he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child (at least that's how it's generally considered legally now). once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,)
|
On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say.
The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support.
On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,)
Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed.
|
Norway28682 Posts
On April 02 2015 05:59 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I can kinda see it as a future pipe dream which could currently function in certain (small) segments of the population and that after a grand morality paradigm shift also resulting in fairer distribution of resources (including education) it could work everywhere. I don't think we're really in disagreement regarding desired outcome, but I don't see a child-contract having a positive role in our current society. Everything else from the first paragraph I totally agree with, and I think the actual solution to the discrimination problem relating to this is found in the same vein. If men and women were to be considered equal potential parents rather than the woman being favored by default, if we manage to empower men as dads like women have been empowered to be full members of society, custody cases could be determined in a much fairer way, and child support would not have to be an exclusive male to female transaction.
My woman who has sex with multiple partners example was stupid, no rebuttal there. As for the irresponsible jackasses comment, I do believe it is still the case that more guys lie about their intentions to be loyal, faithful, that they'll stay forever, than what is the case with women. Note, I'm not saying that guys lie more, or even cheat more, just that I think more guys lie about wanting something serious when they don't - I also think it's probably more common for girls to lie about wanting something not serious when they do. Perhaps in a more gender-neutral society that would no longer be the case..
|
On April 02 2015 06:26 wei2coolman wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:20 dAPhREAk wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 wei2coolman wrote: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:
[quote]
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. As far as I know from the 2 cases I've mentioned, the fathers in both positions still provides the most (tends to buy the children clothes, school supplies, extracurricular activities/sports, etc). This is not including child support payment.
if that is truly the case and there is adequate documentation, i assume you can get a modification of the child support order, which is pretty common. the initial child support order is prediction based, but is modifiable by the courts if the evidence doesnt support the predictions.
have your friends hired an attorney and sought to modify the child support order?
|
On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote: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:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed.
Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one).
|
On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:On April 02 2015 05:42 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one).
Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out.
|
On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out.
and the system is more based upon our societal/cultural assumptions that mothers are better natural caregivers as opposed to the court system itself
|
On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:02 Sbrubbles wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out.
Never said anything about throwing the system out.
Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex".
|
On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:05 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex".
I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either.
|
On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either.
You could have just said: "no that's a stupid idea". I think I wasn't the only one confused by your turn to abstinence as the solution.
|
On April 02 2015 06:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2015 06:46 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:44 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:41 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:37 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:15 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. The father can't force the women to carry a child to term. And we have already addressed that bias in family courts is an issue, but not one that can be solved by removing the responsibility of child support. On April 02 2015 06:37 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On April 02 2015 06:34 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:32 Plansix wrote:On April 02 2015 06:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On April 02 2015 06:19 Plansix wrote:
[quote]
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. You're also ignoring the scenarios where the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, or the aforementioned cases where both want the child, but custody and control is overwhelming placed in the mother's hands. And probably several others that I can't even think of. I don't think it's controversial to say that in the case of unplanned parenthood, the father has almost no say in the matter. And to some degree, the mother should have more rights. But definitely not to the point where the father's only option is to preemptively avoid sex in the first place. There is no other solution if you don't want the responsibility of a child, beyond birth control. If that is still to unsafe for that person, then they have to refrain from having sex. If the man wants to avoid the issue, there are surgeries that can prevent them from ever having a child. But beyond that, there is no solution because the child has rights in relation to the parents. The child cant be stripped of those rights just because the father doesn't want to be responsible. And again, you're speaking purely about avoiding responsibility, and ignoring entirely the scenarios where the man wants the responsibility, but still has zero say. he has zero say until the child is born since the mother is the one who's bodies supporting the child. once it's born he should have roughly equal say (excluding other circumstances like being an absentee father etc, etc etc,) Or cases where the court is bias, but everyone agrees those should be addressed. Well, certainly not forcing the mother to take the child to term. But the option of the father raising the child and the mother paying child support is never even mentioned (though, that's far more a societal issue than a legal one). Once again, no one is arguing for bias in the court systems in favor of women. And I know of cases where the mother has been required to pay and she does not have majority custody. Its an issue that can be addressed without throwing the whole system out. Never said anything about throwing the system out. Just arguing against any statements that begin and end with "don't have sex". I think you should go back and read the context of those argument. They were in response to people saying "I want to be able to just sign a contract and give up all responsibility for the child." after they stated that birth control didn't work 100% of the time, so it wasn't a solution either.
Just mentioning again that women can take a 1 year old baby (in ND) to the hospital and just drop it off and never look back. So it's pretty one sided to say that it's absurd to have men be able to avoid responsibility for a born child.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
