|
On September 20 2011 02:50 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 Klipsys wrote:
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that? Also, the pill is most effective form of birth control other than not doing it.
The pill is only effective if properly used. Let's face it, there are A LOT of women who don't properly use the pill. Let's do a quick poll: Raise your hand if you know a chick who got pregnant despite being on the pill? My guess is that most everyone in here knows at least one such girl (I know two).
|
On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why.
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
|
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions.
Awful excuse, birth complications resulting in death of the mother are so low in the developed world, it's not even a viable concern. There's more of a risk of the child dieing than the mother in most cases. Plus 9 months vs 18 years of financial incarceration, in some cases without any incentive or benefit (visitation etc).
Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
True, but there is NO option for ensuring she doesn't give birth.
Look this is a really rough subject for some, but the fact remains.... NOT EVERY EJACULATION DESERVES A NAME
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Provide me with one single argument for the case other than "he knew that it could happen and he should've been more careful (despite already using protection)". Not having sex is simply not an attainable option, we are biologically addicted to having sex. You can't say "if you don't want to pay 100,000 dollars over 20 years you just shouldn't have sex". It's ridiculous.
Seriously, the only arguments against this so far have been "man up" and "you should accept the risks". Why should you? Imagine how ridiculous it would be the other way around, you have sex with a woman and your protection doesn't work (pretty common, 1% chance of failure is A LOT when you account for the large group of people that use it) and you suddenly have a choice of forcing her to pay 400$ a month to you.
While you obviously shouldn't force abortion on women, if they want to have and raise your kid while you don't want to, you shouldn't be forced to pay for them. They have the choice to opt out, why shouldn't you? If the men can proof that the woman doesn't want to abort despite being capable of aborting (abortion is available to her and it doesn't endanger her physically) it would be logical to have an option where you could sign a document while the woman is pregnant giving up all custody rights of the child in exchange for not having to pay for child support.
Why should a woman you slept with once have such a huge say over the rest of your life? How is that fair?
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
|
On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
Been there, done that (or more accurately, "am there, doing that). I have a seven-month-old daughter.
|
On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility.
And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth.
EDIT: Source
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
This problem should really be seen as a three-party argument, including the kid, instead of just the man and woman. This is invalid when the woman chooses an abortion. However if a man chose to have a "financial abortion" and withdrew from future child-support payments, the third party (the kid) is likely to suffer, assuming he/she is still born.
Aside, I imagine male porn-stars have contracts that exempt them from financial payments in the case of the woman getting pregnant. Maybe men should have contracts in the bedside table that exempt them from financial support? I mean, it would work, they'd probably never get any.
|
On September 20 2011 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids. Been there, done that (or more accurately, "am there, doing that). I have a seven-month-old daughter.
Congratulations!
But ask yourself this. Did you want a child with this women? If yes than more power to you. If this was an accident, given the option to opt out, would you? Again assuming you didn't want kids, when you met this girl and the first time you were together, did you think it be okay to have a kid with this one? If you're nodding your head yes, they we have drastically different tastes in what makes a women attractive. I want zero motherly qualities.
Also, what were you goals prior to her birth? Are they still possible?
|
On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why. Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
It feels like I'm arguing with a child. Your view is absolutist and too simplistic to provide a fair working map of the complex myriad of human existence. Two pornstars are shooting a sex scene for the purposes of monetary gain. It is unfair and unreasonable then to hold the man responsible as a father if the woman decides the purpose is other than that which was agreed upon. The fact is there are many reasons to have sex, and your view is to deny and ignore the majority of them so that you can continue to espouse a view that doesn't work. The best way to move forward as a society is to have everyone have choices as individuals. If you have a model that traps people it's a poor model. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm not offering one. I'm simply saying that you are wrong.
|
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort). It would also be impossible for men to force abortions because with doing so would be endorsing abortions by politicians, but more importantly require a large increase in funding for abortion clinics and the hiring of doctors who are willing to do abortions.
If we assume that you consent to the RISK of impregnating your partner everytime you have sex, if it is clear within the laws that the act of having sex means you are assuming your part of the responsibility for conception, then there is no doubt as to what your responsibilites are should an accidental pregnancy occur.
All arguments against men being held responsible are actually just arguments for abortion as a form of birth control (or birth prevention if you're worried about the semantics). If you honestly believe that an abortion is as easy as strapping on a condom then you definitely have a problem with perspective. If you think that sex is risk free then you are being terribly naive.
I understand that it is logical to say something like "Well what if I just pay 50% of the costs of the abortion?" unfortunately money does not properly quantify the costs of an abortion. As a man you will never be able to comprehend what that abortion means to a woman. Because of this, the only way to protect women from carrying the full burden of accidental pregnancy is to assume men are consenting to the risk of pregnancy upon the act of sex.
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
Indeed, by putting all the risks and burden on the woman, you create a scenario that legitimizes irresponsible behaviour by men. Behaviour such as sabatoging condoms, or seducing inebriated women whos judgement might not always be sound etc. By creating a situation where the man can simply opt out of pregnancy, and thus behave irresponsibly without consequences, you create a situation that is inherently dangerous to the woman, but provides no repercussions against the irresponsible man. Because, as a matter of fact, abortion cannot be considered a legitimate "opt out" of pregnancy lest it lead to dangerous behaviour by men in addition to the other reasons I stated above. It is in the interest of fairness and of safety for the woman, that men be held accountable for their part in impregnating a woman, accidental or not, and thus, should the child be born, he pay his fair share of the costs.
|
On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
But who else should pay the child support? It is the child of that man.
I could imagine the German government paying the child support with the taxes of everyone else, because Germany has a birth rate of 1.4 children per woman or something like that, meaning the population is shrinking, and the child is useful for everyone as a future tax payer (and social security and health insurance). This would be the only way I could imagine ditching the current laws for child support payments.
|
On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source
The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception.
There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid.
No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:13 Tor wrote:
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort). It would also be impossible for men to force abortions because with doing so would be endorsing abortions by politicians, but more importantly require a large increase in funding for abortion clinics and the hiring of doctors who are willing to do abortions.
If we assume that you consent to the RISK of impregnating your partner everytime you have sex, if it is clear within the laws that the act of having sex means you are assuming your part of the responsibility for conception, then there is no doubt as to what your responsibilites are should an accidental pregnancy occur.
All arguments against men being held responsible are actually just arguments for abortion as a form of birth control (or birth prevention if you're worried about the semantics). If you honestly believe that an abortion is as easy as strapping on a condom then you definitely have a problem with perspective. If you think that sex is risk free then you are being terribly naive.
I understand that it is logical to say something like "Well what if I just pay 50% of the costs of the abortion?" unfortunately money does not properly quantify the costs of an abortion. As a man you will never be able to comprehend what that abortion means to a woman. Because of this, the only way to protect women from carrying the full burden of accidental pregnancy is to assume men are consenting to the risk of pregnancy upon the act of sex.
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
Indeed, by putting all the risks and burden on the woman, you create a scenario that legitimizes irresponsible behaviour by men. Behaviour such as sabatoging condoms, or seducing inebriated women whos judgement might not always be sound etc. By creating a situation where the man can simply opt out of pregnancy, and thus behave irresponsibly without consequences, you create a situation that is inherently dangerous to the woman, but provides no repercussions against the irresponsible man. Because, as a matter of fact, abortion cannot be considered a legitimate "opt out" of pregnancy lest it lead to dangerous behaviour by men in addition to the other reasons I stated above. It is in the interest of fairness and of safety for the woman, that men be held accountable for their part in impregnating a woman, accidental or not, and thus, should the child be born, he pay his fair share of the costs.
No one wants to force women to get abortions (except the Chinese)
|
yeah, nowadays death because of pregnancy is quite rare, same as some issues because of abortion. Nevertheless I guess women still have more issues dealing mentally with an abortion than guys have. Just a guess and I don't have sources for that one but seems "normal". So I'd say it's ok if she got the final word.
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Basicly, if you don't want this "unfairness" to happen, make society pay instead. So neither the girl nor the boy got to pay for the baby. but I seriously doubt that that's going to happen. The guy being able to get out of this just by saying "sry, I'm out" is just ridiculous if the girl still got to pay (or even got to pay all on her own without help from the state) and would be way worse than what we got right now.
Besides I'm pretty sure you're not even allowed to set up a contract which says that you're not going to pay for a kid if there's going to be one, neither as a man nor as a women just because you're not paying the mother (or the father) but the kid. A contract signed by your mom that states that your dad does not have to pay for you is probably not legal as she can't set up such a thing on your behalf and the other way around.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is.
Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want?
|
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Some people argue that the chance of health risks in pregnancy and abortion are so small, they are irrelevant. While others say, the small chance of getting someone pregnant while using a condom/pill is a significant problem. And there is emotional trauma involved with abortion or having to give your child which was growing inside you for 9 months to adoption.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc.
There is no way to be 100% "safe" in life. Sex, like everything else in life, is not risk free. Deal with it.
|
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
So you're saying exceptions cannot possibly be made if this kind of law were to be implemented, and the man would always have the option to opt out? What if the law states that if the woman can get an abortion and it is physically safe for her to do so, but still wants to keep the child despite the man not wanting to, he should not be forced to pay for it (in exchange for any custody rights, obviously)?
There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea is atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid.
The second idea is to let the woman make the decision whether to keep the baby or not with the knowledge that she will not receive money from the man if she decides to keep it. If she cannot financially afford the baby, yet still makes the decision to keep it, then the baby will suffer. But this happens already in low income families or with fathers running away/not being able to pay the child support, and I doubt that, if this law were to be implemented, it would increase the amount of cases wherein this happens, it will probably decrease it because women will be more aware of whether or not they can afford the child because they don't rely on the men to pay their bills and therefore have a better oversight of the situation.
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Yea, except nobody said that. The argument we're making is that men don't have a choice in the issue while woman do. If we want to pursue equal rights, we have to pursue them both ways, and both sexes should have a choice in what they want to do in situations, granted that choice is present (it is in this case).
|
On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why. Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
I'm no expert on porn stars, but I have a feeling there is some legal precautions taken in the contracts beforehand that might address this issue.
Also, is this thread basically a discussion of what is and isn't fair ? Here's my contribution: Life's not fair. Over the years, I've learned the less I fight against this fundamental truth, the less frustrated I am.
|
On September 20 2011 03:22 Klipsys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is. Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want?
Presuming she got pregnant, yes, it would be my daughter's choice as to how she wants to handle the situation. I'd counsel her, and I'd provide her as much as support as I deemed fit, but it would still be her choice. As for the boy, it depends. If he is a dirtbag, then I wouldn't want him in the life of my grandchild. If he's a wonderkid with a full scholarship, then I'd probably want him involved in the kid's life to some extent, and, at the very least, I'd tag him for child support payments when he came of age and got a job. I definitely am not going to let him off scott-free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
