|
On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.  what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato?
You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill"
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I think if a guy has to wear a rubber, a girl has to take birth control pill, But so many women choose not to take the pill, while almost every guy chooses to wear a rubber. Guys shouldn't be on the hook for 18 years paying child support, just because the girl he had sex with chose not to take birth control.
|
On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill"
Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll.
|
On September 19 2011 16:58 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill" Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll.
Do you agree with Obama that a healthy baby that was accidentally fully birthed during a partial birth abortion should be killed because that was the original choice?
You calling a fetus a potato shows you to be a giant brainwashed left wing nutjob or psychosis, so you need to think about your views.
|
I agree that women have some absurd protections under the law when it comes to sexual protection / sexual discrimination, but that is based on rectifying, or attempting to protect them from the abuses they used to face in the past. As per relating to this topic, I honestly must say I agree with you, but I also must infer that society as a whole is in a fucking shithole, especially the Western Hemisphere. We have no morals left, we can't keep marriages together, and our children are out of control. Now, I agree that liberties are more important than morality, however I also feel that MEN should not be worrying about this problem, only teenagers should be.
Long story short: once you grow up, your views on children, women, marriage and life all change. Morality and social norms far outweigh liberties in the long run, due to the fact that our liberties are directly derived from how we act and function in society.
|
Funny poke at the irony present in the system.
No real solution, so men just gotta step it up. Wait for a quality woman and don't get her pregnant. Gotta do what's in the realm of possible, because the reverse (forced abortions, no required financial support in any way) is just untenable.
|
On September 19 2011 17:20 Danglars wrote:
Funny poke at the irony present in the system.
No real solution, so men just gotta step it up. Wait for a quality woman and don't get her pregnant. Gotta do what's in the realm of possible, because the reverse (forced abortions, no required financial support in any way) is just untenable.
male birth control is being developed as we speak
|
On September 19 2011 17:02 nukeazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 16:58 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill" Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll. Do you agree with Obama that a healthy baby that was accidentally fully birthed during a partial birth abortion should be killed because that was the original choice? You calling a fetus a potato shows you to be a giant brainwashed left wing nutjob or psychosis, so you need to think about your views.
Well now I KNOW you are trolling, excuse me if i stop responding to you.
|
Slightly off-topic, but please don't go out and make abortion this horribly unsafe and physically damaging procedure. Childbirth is infinitely times more dangerous, yet people still manage to have children, so I imagine abortion can't be all that bad from that perspective. Obviously there are moral and emotional issues, but those depend a lot more on cultural context. (there's people from all over the world arguing here who will probably all differ)
|
On September 19 2011 12:52 vol_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:16 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support? i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs? He moved and we don't know his address. The CSA (Child support Agency) keeps asking us for his address and we don't know it, and they say they can't find him. His side of the family knows where he is but won't tell us. We can't afford to talk to a lawyer who is any good so I dont know wtf to do. I was on a waiting list for housing the whole 3 months I was living on the street, I was 17. I applied for my own welfare but they didn't give me shit because I needed both parents to sign some bullshit. I stole food and clothing and eventually got a job.
Cases like yours where a father does not pay child support while hoarding millions of dollars are exceedingly rare. Almost all "dead beats" do not pay because they don't have the money.
It is also a fact that women who are ordered to pay support are much more likely to not pay the support than men. You will never hear about anything other than "dead beat dads" though because politicians score points when they demonize men, they lose points when they demonize women.
|
On September 19 2011 14:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
A bunch of British scientists got together in the 1900s and concluded "scientifically" that the earth was overpopulated as well. It was called the science of eugenics. It was oligarchal Malthusian thinking when Giammaria Ortes set the "carrying capacity" of the planet at 3 billion people in 1790, it was Malthusian when it was called eugenics, and it is Malthusian today. If you're seriously arguing that the joint statement of the worldwide academies of science is somehow a eugenics conspiracy, then you're an idiot and we have nothing more to talk about. Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
Nevermind the fact that mankind can use his creative mind to overcome resource constraints, the population statistics themselves prove the fallacy of overpopulation. There is no major country or region on earth today that is predicted to have a birth rate of 2.1 or above by 2050, and that includes India and China. Europe's birthrate is as low as 1.3 in some countries already, and averages around 1.7. World population is estimated to stabilize around 9 billion and then begin to decline over the next 5 decades. There is absolutely no population crisis.
You don't get it. The reason that the population will stabilize at around 9 billion and then decline because that is the point at which the planet will no longer have enough resources to sustain additional population growth. The thing is, reaching that point results in a dramatic decrease in the quality of life.
I don't know why this is getting so off topic, but I have to ask, a decrease in the quality of life for which people?
The native populations of Europe are falling, and the non recent immigrant populations of the United States and Canada are stable. The population of Japan is falling, and I'm not sure about South Korea and Australia but I'll guess that they are either stable or falling.
You are saying that if China, India, Africa and Brazil continue to have a population explosion that the whole world will be on the hook? This is why I still stick to nationalism and reject globalism.
And how does abortion come into play in a global population debate anyways? Does anyone think that some rich white women having an abortion in order to avoid cramping her lifestyle will do anything to offset the increasing population in the third world and currently industrializing nations?
|
If men could give birth, we'd have drive-by abortions.
"Hi, can I have a Big Mac and a coat hanger please."
Well, we're not discussing abortion right. But that's so much easier to have an opinion on.
This subject is actually difficult. In Sweden everyone pays for all the kids (Taxes) so the father is not obligated (by law) to pay anything. The only thing I know for sure is that no child should ever have to suffer because of stupid, irresponsible parents.
Also, does the child support vary with the father's income in the US? If the father's income drops, does the child support as well? You'd think that there could be a standardized amount, regardless of social status/income. I don't see how you can justify some childing needing more/less money to get by.
|
I can only speak from a Danish point of view but reading the thread here it feels like there are plenty of similarities between the different western countries.
I'm gonna tell my personal story that doesn't directly relates to the OP, but still shows in part what is wrong with the legislation.
I have a daughter with my ex. Now, we get along just fine, not much arguing and we see eachother now and then. Our daughter is living equally between us, usually spending one weeks each place (we live very close for this exact reason). Even so not only am I forced to pay to the mother of my child, she also receives different kinds of funding from the government. Now, we both agreed this was silly, and so I transfer her the money every month, deduct it from my taxes, she pays me back the full amount. I pay less tax, she gets money from the government because she is a "single parent". Of course that works out just fine in our case but it's obvious how the laws are completely miscontructed and fit for 1950's instead of 2011.
I can't for the life of me figure out why a young girl shoudl have os much power over a guy. They both chose to have sex. It's either no one's fault that the condom broke, the pill didn't work etc or it's the girls fault for lying to the guy. Yet when it comes to deciding what to do the girl has all the say. She can right there and then say, that even though he is only gonna be spending limited time with the child he will have to pay for it the next 20 years.
Now, no one is suggesting forced abortion, but if the guy clearly states before hand he's not interterested in having the baby he shouldn't be forced to pay for it. The girl is fine to have the baby by herself but then she has to be the one looking out for it and paying for it (or the government can do that, if that's your country's thing)
It basicly comes down to this simple problem: A girl can have sex with anyone she wants at any time she wants in any fashion she wants and still don't have to worry about becomming a mom if she don't want to. A guy cannot.
I think that is a problem in a modern equal-rights, sexually liberated society.
|
My 0.02$ comes here. Keep in mind I am just a foolish teenager and probably have no opinion of value.
Anyway, I have a girlfriend and we have sex. We have sex because we enjoy the feeling of intimacy that comes with it, and it feels really good of course.
Having sex != wanting to have kids
Sex is just much more than trying to have kids, so you can't use that as an argument. What if I want to express love to my girlfriend? Should I have to risk getting a kid every time? That is just stupid in my opinion.
Also, if you think about it objectively, you realize you can NEVER, EVER, EVER trust another human being 100% because you don't know what the hell is going on in their minds. Even if you think a person wouldn't/would do something, all that you have to support that opinion is your impression of the person and what they say. You never know what the person has inside their heads and how people will react to different situations (sometimes we don't even know ourselves until we are in that position).
So, are men, as soon as we decide to have sex with a female, supposed to take the risk of paying child support and being burdened with a child for ~20 years?
This makes even less sense as you realize that a woman has an equal say in the matter (if she wants to have sex or not) but she can decide to abort the fetus (I say fetus because it's not a human being in this stage yet) no matter the reason?
So the woman is pretty much safe, while the man has to gamble with 20 years of his life every time he has sex? Does not sound fair to me.
Anyway, what I propose is simple:
The male should be able to decide if he wants to pay child support in case of an eventual child. Should he decide not to pay, he will have nothing to do with the child, it will not even exist in his eyes.
This decision has to be made while in the time where the woman still can abort the child (preferably even before it has happened) and there has to be some kind of proof, like a written contract or something.
If this doesn't sound fair to you, you're probably a feminist (not the ones fighting for equality, but the ones trying to make a matriarchy), right-wing nutjob or just plain evil.
|
the laws around child costudy and child support are fucking retarded and completely redicoulous. but that is actually fine women -> dogs -> men !
|
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
OK, so first if this change was made it would essentially lead to a "your problem now!" issue occurring probably not infrequently. That would cause far more problems than there are current situations that maybe don't make complete sense.
Second, why are people having irresponsible sex and not considering the after effects? I'm not saying no one has ever made a mistake but there's always just not having sex unprotected and there are morning after pills if something does go wrong.
To address the issue at the core of this, no you shouldn't have a right to just risk creating another life cuz it felt nice and then have no responsibility for it. If you're in a relationship you should both know where you stand on the issue ahead of time so you can make an informed decision and if you're having a one night stand, first that's your problem and second in 99% of cases she's going to make sure you're wearing a condom.
Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
Now with the negativity out of the way, there are some things that are currently wrong.
First, if a woman impregnates herself without your knowledge (I'm sure this is an urban legend, the logistics are just mind boggling, but still) then that should be considered a crime and at that point the man shouldn't be held responsible. Equally if it was in any way forced (in some way rape) then that should also be considered a crime for which the man is not responsible.
Second, the more important case about child support should be who takes care of the child generally, the current situation at least here is a terrible mother is preferential to a loving father by default and you go from there. That's wrong in my opinion.
Finally blanket payment requirements are a little too rigid and they should be carefully considered for everyone's individual cases.
|
On September 19 2011 22:16 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:52 vol_ wrote:On September 19 2011 12:16 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support? i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs? He moved and we don't know his address. The CSA (Child support Agency) keeps asking us for his address and we don't know it, and they say they can't find him. His side of the family knows where he is but won't tell us. We can't afford to talk to a lawyer who is any good so I dont know wtf to do. I was on a waiting list for housing the whole 3 months I was living on the street, I was 17. I applied for my own welfare but they didn't give me shit because I needed both parents to sign some bullshit. I stole food and clothing and eventually got a job. Cases like yours where a father does not pay child support while hoarding millions of dollars are exceedingly rare. Almost all "dead beats" do not pay because they don't have the money. It is also a fact that women who are ordered to pay support are much more likely to not pay the support than men. You will never hear about anything other than "dead beat dads" though because politicians score points when they demonize men, they lose points when they demonize women.
Hmm, interesting. Do you have any material on deadbeat moms?
|
Men should only be exempt from dealing with their children if the woman deceived the man to get pregnant or refused to use birth control. Otherwise, it is a man's responsibility to contribute financially to the child's life. For example, if a woman refused to use a condom it would absolve the man's responsibility.
The problem is that it is very rare that we can be certain that pregnancy is impossible. Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean she gives her consent to raise a child any more than the man did. Neither does it mean she gives her consent to an abortion. The chance nature of pregnancy means that in having sex, both the man and the woman must accept that pregnancy (and contributing to a child financially) is a possibility and a responsibility. With that said, it is also both party's right to demand thorough birth control.
I don't think I need to address the idea of mandated abortion.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
OK, so first if this change was made it would essentially lead to a "your problem now!" issue occurring probably not infrequently. That would cause far more problems than there are current situations that maybe don't make complete sense.
Second, why are people having irresponsible sex and not considering the after effects? I'm not saying no one has ever made a mistake but there's always just not having sex unprotected and there are morning after pills if something does go wrong.
To address the issue at the core of this, no you shouldn't have a right to just risk creating another life cuz it felt nice and then have no responsibility for it. If you're in a relationship you should both know where you stand on the issue ahead of time so you can make an informed decision and if you're having a one night stand, first that's your problem and second in 99% of cases she's going to make sure you're wearing a condom.
Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
Now with the negativity out of the way, there are some things that are currently wrong.
First, if a woman impregnates herself without your knowledge (I'm sure this is an urban legend, the logistics are just mind boggling, but still) then that should be considered a crime and at that point the man shouldn't be held responsible. Equally if it was in any way forced (in some way rape) then that should also be considered a crime for which the man is not responsible.
Second, the more important case about child support should be who takes care of the child generally, the current situation at least here is a terrible mother is preferential to a loving father by default and you go from there. That's wrong in my opinion.
Finally blanket payment requirements are a little too rigid and they should be carefully considered for everyone's individual cases.
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem.
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
|
On September 20 2011 00:19 CCitrus wrote:
Otherwise, it is a man's responsibility to contribute financially to the child's life.
Why?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
