|
On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote: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.
As a lawyer, I promise you that any contract that waived rights to child support or compelled the woman to get an abortion would be stricken down as unenforceable on public policy grounds. I'm the sure that the women are all on the pill and get abortions if things go badly. It's probably just an unspoken rule within the industry.
|
On September 20 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Can't really argue with that I guess. Good luck with your daughter.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +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).
well but there IS NO choice present. There's basicly 2 options:
1) abortion and you don't have to pay for it. Do you want to force an abortion?
2) pay for the kid. It's not legal for a reason to do those contracts you're proposing.
There is just no option to get out of this without abortion unless states are covering the costs 100%!
|
On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car.
I don't understand how people continue to argue like this.
Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
|
On September 20 2011 03:34 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote: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. Can't really argue with that I guess. Good luck with your daughter.
Thanks!
|
On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
|
This is horrible, if you make a kid, pay for it.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
Do you have anything supporting this, besides your _personal_ experiences?
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
so you're basicly telling us that guys having to live with the decision of the girl isn't actually a problem but the fact that bad parenting is bad?
That's just another problem and you want to increase the urge to abort if you're having problems right now.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
LMFAO.
This is the exact same kind of logic racists use. You can't be for real.
From wiki :
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak english.
Problem: Those who have been met are a subset of the entire set.
Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
|
On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
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.
The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed.
Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
|
On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
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. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible.
There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal.
|
A lot of flaming tempers. This might be a lost cause, but can we all take this debate a little less personally?
Question: Exactly how much are child support payments? I have no idea.
|
On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
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. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
The women has the higher risks to take, the higher price to pay, so she makes the choice.
Yes thats not fair to the man, but is the "lesser evil" choice, if you compare it with all the other solutions in this thread.
Life is not fair.
|
On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal."
I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
So your argument is not that child support is flawed as a concept on any basis of unfairness to men, but instead that the women receiving it simply cannot be trusted to spend it "well"?
And yes, I was born into a relatively wealthy family. And yes, for years I was completely oblivious to my privileged life and assumed that everyone else lived that way as well. Myself in middle school would have not really understood that some people can't afford to see a doctor, fr example. Since then however, I've lived in some nice areas, and some absolutely shitty ones.
I assume you also dislike welfare? Because honestly who can trust those scheming poor people to spend that money well? Nevermind the actual statistics, I'm sure they're all as lazy as the people I've seen, (and I'm sure my interpretations of what I saw had nothing to do with my own preconceptions to boot)
|
On September 20 2011 02:44 Lord_J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used... What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's.
Then why aren't women obligated to spend child-support payments on the child? I mean, the money is "for the child's sake".
|
On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
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.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common.
My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them.
"I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support"
or:
"I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them."
You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point.
|
On September 20 2011 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
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. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it. as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible. There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal.
Adoption and abortion are both legal....
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
