|
On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:
One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
Depends on your jurisdiction.
In the United States, it varies by state, but in the four largest states (CA, TX, NY, FL) the laws are gender-neutral. CA defines rape as any sexual intercourse against a person's will or consent, NY defines rape as forcible penetration regardless of which end you're on, TX and FL dispense with the term 'rape' altogether and just have gender-neutral laws on sexual assault and sexual battery, respectively, which include giving or recieving penetration.
|
On September 20 2011 08:57 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:
One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic) Depends on your jurisdiction. In the United States, it varies by state, but in the four largest states (CA, TX, NY, FL) the laws are gender-neutral. CA defines rape as any sexual intercourse against a person's will or consent, NY defines rape as forcible penetration regardless of which end you're on, TX and FL dispense with the term 'rape' altogether and just have gender-neutral laws on sexual assault and sexual battery, respectively, which include giving or recieving penetration.
not really, does not depend on your jurisdiction as all the cases u described are contradicting what he said  when you say it depends on your jurisdiction wouldn't that theoretically mean that he is right but in certain terms?
|
On September 18 2011 23:01 grOuSe wrote:
When you have sex you take a risk and if you not willing to accept that risk and everything that goes with it you are a pathetic excuse for a man.
Please understand the same can be said about the woman. Sex happens due to both parties reaching an agreement to do said act. i.e both parties are responsible.
No, I don't think that just because it is her body, she has the choice to override the male's decision. Her body is apart of her "life", and the man who does not want or did not want the child has to give a portion of his "life" as well to support this child.
If she wants this child knowing that the male does not want it and she knows that the male had no urge to impregnate her, the responsibility should fall completely on her.
I may sound like an ass-hole, but this is my opinion and I believe a mutual respect for both the male and female's wishes should be respected
|
On September 20 2011 09:25 ownyaah wrote:not really, does not depend on your jurisdiction as all the cases u described are contradicting what he said when you say it depends on your jurisdiction wouldn't that theoretically mean that he is right but in certain terms?
No, I just gave examples where he's wrong. There are other states where he would be correct.
|
On September 20 2011 09:36 Dark_Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:01 grOuSe wrote:
When you have sex you take a risk and if you not willing to accept that risk and everything that goes with it you are a pathetic excuse for a man. Please understand the same can be said about the woman. Sex happens due to both parties reaching an agreement to do said act. i.e both parties are responsible. No, I don't think that just because it is her body, she has the choice to override the male's decision. Her body is apart of her "life", and the man who does not want or did not want the child has to give a portion of his "life" as well to support this child. If she wants this child knowing that the male does not want it and she knows that the male had no urge to impregnate her, the responsibility should fall completely on her. I may sound like an ass-hole, but this is my opinion and I believe a mutual respect for both the male and female's wishes should be respected
Except your decision is predicated on the idea that abortion has no costs. And it assumes that the woman actually has a choice in keeping the child.
Consider this, generally when you give up your child for adoption, you do not have to pay child support. Your logic is sound and neither the man or the woman are required to pay for the child.
So lets assume abortions are free and fast and easy and noone is hurt by them. Your logic is sound, as the woman then can easily decide whether to keep the child or not and she gets to base the decision on whether or not the man wants to help out. Although there are still moral and ethical questions raised by abandoning a child, at least everyone had a fair choice and understood the consequences. (I imagine this utopia of risk free irresponsible sex could happen in some enlightened future filled with the best abortion techniques that could ever be devised)
However, if we assume that abortions do cause pain ranging from physical (whether or not the physical pain is worse than child birth, the illusion of pain/side affects removes choice just as much as real pain/side affects) to psychological to being completely alienated from your family etc. and we assume that they do cost money, are not always available and simply cannot be chosen do to antithetical beliefs, then your logic that it was the womans choice to keep the child is flawed.
Keep in mind that just because it feels like a man has no choice in whether the child is born or not, that does not mean the man has no choice or at least does not mean he should have no choice. I believe that a man should have some influence as to whether an abortion takes place both in terms of him deciding he would want to raise the child on his own, or in terms of him deciding he cannot handle being a part of the childs life. But in order for people to be protected, some overarching laws must be kept in place, and these laws are best made so that both partners engaging in sexual intercourse accept the responsibility of any accidental child to be born.
Those advocating for abortion as birth control need to understand that this unfairly endangers women by not holding men responsible for the unquantifiable hardships of EITHER abortion OR single parenthood. If you condone a society where a man does not have to consider the risks of impregnating a woman, and that woman has to be the sole individual responsible for any accidental pregnancies, you are BY DEFINITION condoning a society that provides more protection for men than women. Not only that, it actually forces women away from having carefree sex (WHICH IS WHAT WE ALL WANT) and forces them to worry more about the incredible burden that accidental pregnancy can cause.
tl;dr? Quit assuming women have the choice to abort, quit assuming abortion does not have any costs associated with it, and understand that men need to be held equally responsible for pregnancy AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION in order to protect women from being abused by men who would have nothing to fear from irresponible sex forcing all the burden of fear on the woman, in addition to the many other reasons i've provided in multiple posts.
edit:
PS: any talk of women raping men and claiming child support is a flaw with the legal system and not an example of why women should hold all responsibility for getting pregnant. Men will have much more control over getting women pregnant when a male pill equivalent is derived and you won't have to worry nearly as much about getting raped by women, as i'm sure that is the great fear of men in this day and age.
|
On September 20 2011 10:22 Tor wrote:
tl;dr? Quit assuming women have the choice to abort, quit assuming abortion does not have any costs associated with it, and understand that men need to be held equally responsible for pregnancy AT THE POINT OF CONCEPTION in order to protect women from being abused by men who would have nothing to fear from irresponible sex forcing all the burden of fear on the woman, in addition to the many other reasons i've provided in multiple posts.
Abortion has nothing to do with the issue.
A woman can just as easily choose to give the baby up for adoption.
In the end, the woman has a choice, and the man does not.
|
Still, what he says is true. I myself, am a man and cannot understand the pain of childbirth or an abortion, leaving me unable to truly understand the pain the woman has to go through. Also, I am a college student who saw this topic and does not know much concerning the costs of abortion. I also did not think of the amount of social tagging which may occur due to a woman aborting or giving her child up for adoption.
However, consider this. Both men and women are responsible for sex and bringing a child into the world. I was not going about thinking the man could say he didnt want the child whenever. My argument was based on the fact that if you are having sex with someone and have a wish to birth a child, that person should share that wish with you. The major issue concerning this whole topic was that men who had no wish to support a child from the start were being forced to support the child. The same goes for men as well. If you are having sex with a woman you know does not want to bear a child, then do not expect to get her to bear a child against her will, or for her to do it and help support it.
What I am asking of members of society is to consider their partners more carefully and for there to be a bit more equal decision between the two parties. (in the process, this will make the idea of sex scarier, making it less appealing, but, sacrifices and such  )
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On September 20 2011 08:08 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +ok once again, if this is ignored again I'm going to ignore the thread because it seems to be useless:
That's just wrong. She is not passing a 70,000$ bill on him. You owe the money YOUR KID, not the mother of your kid. That's a very important difference.
What you say, would be a problem, the second one is a responsibility BOTH got.
It's not only the man's fault, just as it's not only the woman's fault. Both are responsible and if you end up raising your child, quitting your job while the womand ends up still working she's paying "you" (i.e. the kid). The reason you're being ignored is because what you're saying, while true, has nothing to do with this discussion at all. Yes, you are paying for your child, but it was not your decision to have this child. You are avoiding that point entirely. It's the woman's choice to have your child, not yours. You shouldn't be forced to pay for a child that you do not want to have if the option is available to you to opt out of having the child (adoption/abortion). Whether or not she wants to keep the child, with these options being present and readily available, is her decision to make, but you shouldn't pay for the decision she makes. And please, stop with the "man up" bullshit, that's just a stupid argument avoiding the issue entirely.
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect.
Suppose you had your way and men could simply opt out of supporting their children. In cases where the father so chose, two people's interests would be damaged: the mother and the child. Now, the mother at least arguably brought it on herself because she's the one who decided to go through with having the child (not that the alternative is entirely free of potentially adverse effects, mind you). The child, however, made no such choice; it was entirely innocent in the matter.
The question, then, is why the child's interests should suffer in order to protect the father's interests in avoiding financial responsibility for unwanted children. The law places greater value on the child's interests. If you disagree with that decision, then your argument should be framed in terms of why the child's interests ought to count less than the father's interests. Bringing up fact that the woman could have avoided having a child in the first place into it is a red herring that does nothing address the reason why the law demands a father support his child, whether he wanted it or not.
|
On September 20 2011 11:05 Lord_J wrote:
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect.
And yet, any mother can give their child up for adoption. So why is it that the mother can opt out of supporting their child?
You can't have it both ways.
|
On September 20 2011 15:32 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 11:05 Lord_J wrote:
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect. And yet, any mother can give their child up for adoption. So why is it that the mother can opt out of supporting their child? You can't have it both ways.
Can't the man disagree with adoption, be willing to raise the child, and then sue for child support from the woman? Then the woman cannot opt out of supporting the child and it looks balanced.
|
On September 20 2011 16:31 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 15:32 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 11:05 Lord_J wrote:
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect. And yet, any mother can give their child up for adoption. So why is it that the mother can opt out of supporting their child? You can't have it both ways. Can't the man disagree with adoption, be willing to raise the child, and then sue for child support from the woman? Then the woman cannot opt out of supporting the child and it looks balanced.
No, because adoption can be decided unilaterally by the birth mother
|
On September 20 2011 17:23 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 16:31 Ropid wrote:On September 20 2011 15:32 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 11:05 Lord_J wrote:
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect. And yet, any mother can give their child up for adoption. So why is it that the mother can opt out of supporting their child? You can't have it both ways. Can't the man disagree with adoption, be willing to raise the child, and then sue for child support from the woman? Then the woman cannot opt out of supporting the child and it looks balanced. No, because adoption can be decided unilaterally by the birth mother
It is not like that, where I am from. I looked it up just now. Both parents have to agree to it, and also the child, if under 14 years old, represented by his legal guardian. Consenting to an adoption can be done eight weeks after child birth at the earliest. This difference is frankly pretty shocking.
I honestly am not sure how different my stance on the matter would be, if I lived somewhere else and came from a different background. I suspect, logically thinking, even if I would feel the situation is unfair, I would be for enforcing child support payments, looking at it from the child's point of view.
I guess my best solution for the disagreements in this thread would be for the government to ditch paying for (for example) some fighter jets and navy ships. That would free up money for a lot of $600 monthly support payments for every child, and everyone involved would feel more free. Moaning from tax payers could be placated by theorizing that the $600 is a good investment for a better future adult citizen. When I think about it, the unwilling father never will get anything back from paying child support, but society does, so one could argue society should pay instead.
|
On September 20 2011 18:23 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 17:23 vetinari wrote:On September 20 2011 16:31 Ropid wrote:On September 20 2011 15:32 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 11:05 Lord_J wrote:
The point that you seem to be missing is that once a child is born, there are three people's interests at stake, not just two. The law doesn't permit a man to opt out of supporting his child in order to protect the child's interests; it has nothing to do with who's choice the child was in the first place. That's irrelevant, because it sure as heck wasn't the child's choice, and that's who the law is designed to protect. And yet, any mother can give their child up for adoption. So why is it that the mother can opt out of supporting their child? You can't have it both ways. Can't the man disagree with adoption, be willing to raise the child, and then sue for child support from the woman? Then the woman cannot opt out of supporting the child and it looks balanced. No, because adoption can be decided unilaterally by the birth mother It is not like that, where I am from. I looked it up just now. Both parents have to agree to it, and also the child, if under 14 years old, represented by his legal guardian. Consenting to an adoption can be done eight weeks after child birth at the earliest. This difference is frankly pretty shocking. I honestly am not sure how different my stance on the matter would be, if I lived somewhere else and came from a different background. I suspect, logically thinking, even if I would feel the situation is unfair, I would be for enforcing child support payments, looking at it from the child's point of view. I guess my best solution for the disagreements in this thread would be for the government to ditch paying for (for example) some fighter jets and navy ships. That would free up money for a lot of $600 monthly support payments for every child, and everyone involved would feel more free. Moaning from tax payers could be placated by theorizing that the $600 is a good investment for a better future adult citizen. When I think about it, the unwilling father never will get anything back from paying child support, but society does, so one could argue society should pay instead.
Ah, I'm pretty sure it can still be decided unilaterally by the birth mother in germany: she need only claim that she doesn't know who the father is.
And here we come to the real issue: "its for the children". Is it right to inflict an injustice if the beneficiary is an innocent? I don't think so.
Second, I think its a very bad idea to incentivise single parenthood. Sorry, single mothers out there (and the few single fathers out there), but you suck at being parents. It is your hellspawn that were burning london, its your children that make up the slums and ghettoes, and fill up prisons. The few successful single parents are the exception that prove the rule, and those are usually widows/widowers, anyway, who tend to have the full support of both sides of the family. The optimal environment for children is a stable traditional, nuclear (father + mother + children) family.* (Needless to say, the stability is predicated on the parents actually loving each other, and putting some effort into it staying that way.)#
Third, consider a man who impregnates a woman in a drunken ONS. In the mean time, the man, having forgotten the encounter meets another woman, falls in love, gets married, and has children with his wife, gets a mortgage. Everything is going great. Suddenly, he gets a letter from the family court: the ONS woman has claimed child support**, and the money will be withheld from his paycheck. (a paternity test will be done on court order, he cannot refuse). Now, because of the child support (30% pre tax income), he cannot meet the mortgage. The bank forecloses on him. Him, his wife and legitimate children are now homeless. Fair? Just? I think not. "Its for the children" leads to homelessness for an innocent woman and some toddlers.
No, mandatory child support is only right and just when there is an "at fault" divorce, where the payer of the child support is "at-fault".
*there was a study that claimed that homosexual parents were better. You know the methodology? The parents in the study, none of whom had children over seven, where asked to rate their own performance, "good", "excellent", "average", "poor". LOL. Because self reporting in parenthood is not subject to delusion...
**You can sue for child support at any stage of the childs life, though I think there is a limitation on the amount of back child support you can claim.
#Needless to say, removing government support for single parents that are not widows/widowers would not be easy. But nothing worthwhile is ever easy.
|
You could see the child support payments as a way to ditch responsibility of raising the child, meaning it is actually good and more economical for the parent who does not want anything to do with the child. In your example, the father could instead more actively involve himself in raising the child. It is simply reality that the child is his. This fact does not change no matter what is morally right or wrong.
What went wrong in your example is the pregnancy and child being secret. I would agree that a woman should be required to notify the authorities who the father is when first noticing the pregnancy, and making that necessary for child support payments. It should be outright illegal to not do so, so that situations like that cannot happen. Secretly giving up a child for adoption is also pretty evil.
|
I was having a conversation with a colleague of mine, a seminary studied catholic turned muslim. He stated that abortion is conditional, on the grounds of rape. He also advised that he supports birth control, because the lack of it should not be used as an excuse for abortion.
I proposed, if he supports both birth control and conditional abortion, in the event that the birth control fails, what happens to the child? Technically, the child is not consented, as sufficient means to prevent its existence were taken, however, the event occurred irrelevant.
Does the above event qualify as rape? As the impregnation was without consent?
He advised it would justify an abortion, to which I carefully advised him, that this would then open the flood gates for any person to simply claim it was 'without consent'.
I think another important thing to clarify is when do we declare the foetus 'a life' if it from the time it is born, why are there people charged with double murders of a woman and her unborn child, if its from the time they are conceived? Before the second Trimester, if so, when is the second trimester 'officially'
The issue is obviously very complex. With no humanitarian yet religiously pleasing answer.
|
I don't think there is a problem with the exception in a certain case.
The woman actively and deliberately tries to impregnate herself without the mans consent. (poking holes in condoms, placing semen in herself etc.) I would hope in this case that such a human being is dubbed unfit to raise a child, and while she may still have the right to choose not to abort it, either the father would get custody and she should have to pay child support, or if he did not wish it the child would be taken by social services and put up for adoption. My argument is that such a person clearly has mental issues and cannot possibly be a fit mother.
The only other thing that annoys me is that women often do not actually use child support money to support the child. I wish this could be enforced but sadly I see no practical way. I guess I will just continue to consider these vile women as scumbag leechers who put their own welfare ahead of the childs and the fathers.
|
Ok, just because people "say" that men and women are equal does not make it so, and that's the source of all faulty logic ITT. You're basing everything on this false assumption that equality is guaranteed under the law. News flash: it isn't, because it's fucking impossible.
I'm not saying "things aren't fair", that's not the point, don't strawman me with that crap. The rights of having a uterus require a uterus. Just like the laws that apply to corporations require a corporation and the laws that apply to a food handling don't apply to accounting. It doesn't make sense, and every time some juvenile piss-ant starts bitching about gender bias I want to stab their spoiled brat face for being so stupid. Post-birth financial responsibility is only the same thing as pre-birth carrying a living thing in your uterus at a ridiculous level of abstraction.
This reminds me of that "The View" thread where sharon osbourne or somebody made a joke about a dick getting cut off and all the disgruntled men (ironically, the apparently insecure ones), were crying that dick mutilation was funny (apparently not? morons) but vagina mutiliation is not. Dicks = vaginas, right? It's another false comparison that obviously is much more complex that just a bunch of evil women enjoying their superior rights.
|
I like the idea of child support not having to be paid if the man opts out of it before birth because he wishes not to raise the child. A woman should be able to support her kid with out the dad if she plans on having it. She shouldn't be able to just use the kid to force someone to pay for it.
I dunno i'm a guy if it happened to me I would really want to be able to opt out of it. Having a kid scares the living shit out of me let alone having to pay for it too.
|
On September 21 2011 05:03 Sworn wrote:
I like the idea of child support not having to be paid if the man opts out of it before birth because he wishes not to raise the child. A woman should be able to support her kid with out the dad if she plans on having it. She shouldn't be able to just use the kid to force someone to pay for it.
I dunno i'm a guy if it happened to me I would really want to be able to opt out of it. Having a kid scares the living shit out of me let alone having to pay for it too.
i made a post a few pages ago that explained everything about feminism. Women want and have been given the exact same laber prosperity forms but yet want to claim the old because the man is the ``purse´`, that is what the society is today cry all u want but it wont change, women rule the world feminism is a double standard based concept, where man is a working pig. Yet if u ask a feminist what they stand for they will theoroticaly say equality.
feminist want equality but still want legal preferentails treatment in other matters, alimony laws one of the best examples assuming womans only value lies within her marriageability.
ofcourse child support and all that stuff would be justice if we lived 100 years ago, but not anymore because the rights of women have changed and they are now indepented just as much as men, but yet can climb on the mans balls and have it the old way aswell and that is what a double standard is.
but u wont see that independency if war breaks out, then u wont be hearing about women anymore because they will all hide behind the men dying on the battle fields. women just take advantage of men and men allow it. just look at who does what kind of jobs. and u will see that men still are and forever will be the spine, the ones who do the dirty work to have society running smoothly or rather said running at all. Think about it, if all women were removed for 2 months, not much would happen there would be rough patches but the world would still be running just as before now try it the other way. the world would collapse
|
UNCALLED FOR POST HAS BEEN REMOVED
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
