|
On September 18 2011 21:30 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
this was taken from another forum
i want to see what the opinions of Team Liquid are on this subject
if we accept that men and women are both people
if we accept the act of sex does not equate to consent to raise and support a child (see roe v. wade/adoption legality)
if we accept that men and women deserve equal protection under the law (see 14th amendment of your constitution)
then logically we must conclude that men deserve the right to have sex without it meaning consent is given to raise a child.
currently, that is obviously not the case. from the moment a man ejaculates in the same room as a woman (dont laugh, women have scraped semen off rags and shoved it inside themselves to get pregnant) he is potentially on the hook for 20 years of child support. this isnt the case for women. women have the right to have sex, then later decide they aren't ready or dont want to become a parent. even for those opposed to abortion, adoption exists. what we have here is an obvious case of gender discrimination.
what is TL's thoughts on the subject? do you think men deserve the right to have sex without consenting to paying for and raising a child for 20 years? if a man does not want the child, can he be freed from the financial obligations of child support? LOL wow. Crazy bitches always be scrapin' up semen and jammn' it in themselves. I do it all the time, and so do alllll my friends. We even have parties for it. We invite over some poor chump, all get pregnant off him, and then demand child support. It's all part of our feminist agenda (tm)! Holy shit get over yourself.
That's exactly what he said. Well read and well thought.
|
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. Abortion or not has to be the sole decision of the woman because it is her body and noone should have the right to make that choice for her. Unfair? Maybe but until we reach the stage of in vitro embryo development it can't be helped.
If she does choose to keep it then a child is going to be born, a child innocent of any argument or disagreements between mother and father. And at that point both mother and father need to take their responsibilty, both emotionally and monetary, of raising this child.
|
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.
|
On September 18 2011 22:18 whiteguycash wrote:
Abstinence?
If you choose not to, make better decisions about the women you choose to sleep with. All of this could have been prevented with proper foresight and rational development of though. In other words, if you continually think with your dick, you deserve to be held accountable for what comes (please excuse the pun) of it. Accountability has no statute of limitations.
I feel like any "right" that a man may feel he has in terms of prior notification to a woman's decision on dealing with a child, as well as any say on dealing with said child are forfeit when he engages in an act which exists for procreation.
I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the moment of complete clarity and critical thinking always comes to me after a good ejaculation (Oh fuck, she's horrible, why'd I drink this much!). For a few minutes, my sex drive and hormones is not what motivates me. On the other hand, if there's been periods of 'abstinence', as you say, I find my thoughts and motivations to be more towards having sex or taking a wank than it'd be during the periods of casual / regular sex. In a way, you can say that abstinence focuses sex-driven motivation more than having sex would. Abstinence, thusly, is a horrible suggestion if you wish to make people less sex-focused.
That said, yea, of course people should take responsibility of their actions and think through what they do before they do it, but advocating 'abstinence' as a method of motivating this is ridiculous. Unless a person has a very low natural sex drive, the desire to have sex will continually grow in a person untill a release has been reached, giving a temporary suspension of desire.
I guess you can say "lol, go have a wank", but sex is much more than just assisted masturbation. I feel, personally, the emotional bond you have with a person during sex is just as important as the physical short-term effect, as well as the mental relaxation the aftermath of good sex brings.
On September 18 2011 22:33 Chylo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:05 Haemonculus wrote:On September 18 2011 21:57 Klive5ive wrote:
The argument holds weight.
If abortion is free to all women and the choice is totally theirs; then why should the man be forced to atone for a choice that is not his?
That does make logical sense. It would help reduce teenage pregnancy too. Except that abortion is *not* free to all women. There is a huge campaign in this country to restrict access to abortion even further. Check out the new abortion restriction laws Virgina passed just yesterday. Or the parental consent laws in some southern states. Or that some states are attempting to entirely outlaw abortion entirely, (and in the case of North Dakota, make it illegal even to leave the state to seek one elsewhere), or that there are only 9 abortion providing clinics in the entire state of Georgia, and that they all have numerous legal loopholes to jump through. Low-income women especially have trouble finding access to abortion, (and even contraceptives in some states). The reproductive health in our nation is pretty sad. Yes, how dare they try to create laws to stop people from killing their babies! The horror! Low-income generally means minority, and abortion centers are virtually always in the middle of minority areas. The goal has always been population control of "undesirables" with abortion. It's truly amazing how hard people like you would condemn people such as Hitler for eliminating the people he didn't like, yet you can't see the exact same thing happening right in your own country.
I don't know wether to laugh or cry. Paranoid anti-establishment thoughts in line with pro-life fluff rethorics, emotional argumentation with a good ol' Godwin to top it off. I do hope you're trolling.
I think you'd be surprised of the ammount of well-off or wealthy people who take abortions. Having a kid is not just about financial means - it's also very much about convenience and desirability. In contrast, I think your assumption of 'minority control through abortion' is failing hard, because as far as I know, poor families are usually those who have most kids, which sounds somewhat odd if they're also the ones who're supposely being 'controlled'.
Anyhow, if you screw a girl and get her pregnant, then it's your damn fault and you should take responsibilities. But - since this is an ideological discussion, I completely agree that the ruleset should be changed to have the man able to 'opt out' to parental responsibilities before the ejaculation if it's agreed upon by both participants. If the sex is a consentual action, then anything coming from it should be consentual as well - forcing something onto one party is a breach of that person's individual sovereignity. If the effect is forced upon one party, then you can say that this was not the concentious act that they first entered, and as thus the action should be considered rape.
|
wow, assuming a "child" is killed as a result of abortion just makes me angry and pissed.
|
I'm actually not aware of the laws in many states/countries. Is a woman always entitled to child support if she decides to keep the child? I recently read an article where a boy said he was raped by what is now the mother of his child, but he still had to pay for it. Another scenario might be lying about birth control when sleeping with someone rich, because maybe you always wanted a child, but couldn't really afford it. It just seems to me there are a number of ways to abuse it, because a woman can always decide to either abort or keep the child, something her partner would have no say over.
|
i think they should split the cost of the abortion between them, if they both want an abortion. if the man wants one and the woman doesnt, then i dont think he should have to pay any child support
|
On September 18 2011 23:06 plated.rawr wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:18 whiteguycash wrote:
Abstinence?
If you choose not to, make better decisions about the women you choose to sleep with. All of this could have been prevented with proper foresight and rational development of though. In other words, if you continually think with your dick, you deserve to be held accountable for what comes (please excuse the pun) of it. Accountability has no statute of limitations.
I feel like any "right" that a man may feel he has in terms of prior notification to a woman's decision on dealing with a child, as well as any say on dealing with said child are forfeit when he engages in an act which exists for procreation. I'm not sure if you've noticed, but the moment of complete clarity and critical thinking always comes to me after a good ejaculation (Oh fuck, she's horrible, why'd I drink this much!). For a few minutes, my sex drive and hormones is not what motivates me. On the other hand, if there's been periods of 'abstinence', as you say, I find my thoughts and motivations to be more towards having sex or taking a wank than it'd be during the periods of casual / regular sex. In a way, you can say that abstinence focuses sex-driven motivation more than having sex would. Abstinence, thusly, is a horrible suggestion if you wish to make people less sex-focused. That said, yea, of course people should take responsibility of their actions and think through what they do before they do it, but advocating 'abstinence' as a method of motivating this is ridiculous. Unless a person has a very low natural sex drive, the desire to have sex will continually grow in a person untill a release has been reached, giving a temporary suspension of desire. I guess you can say "lol, go have a wank", but sex is much more than just assisted masturbation. I feel, personally, the emotional bond you have with a person during sex is just as important as the physical short-term effect, as well as the mental relaxation the aftermath of good sex brings. Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:33 Chylo wrote:On September 18 2011 22:05 Haemonculus wrote:On September 18 2011 21:57 Klive5ive wrote:
The argument holds weight.
If abortion is free to all women and the choice is totally theirs; then why should the man be forced to atone for a choice that is not his?
That does make logical sense. It would help reduce teenage pregnancy too. Except that abortion is *not* free to all women. There is a huge campaign in this country to restrict access to abortion even further. Check out the new abortion restriction laws Virgina passed just yesterday. Or the parental consent laws in some southern states. Or that some states are attempting to entirely outlaw abortion entirely, (and in the case of North Dakota, make it illegal even to leave the state to seek one elsewhere), or that there are only 9 abortion providing clinics in the entire state of Georgia, and that they all have numerous legal loopholes to jump through. Low-income women especially have trouble finding access to abortion, (and even contraceptives in some states). The reproductive health in our nation is pretty sad. Yes, how dare they try to create laws to stop people from killing their babies! The horror! Low-income generally means minority, and abortion centers are virtually always in the middle of minority areas. The goal has always been population control of "undesirables" with abortion. It's truly amazing how hard people like you would condemn people such as Hitler for eliminating the people he didn't like, yet you can't see the exact same thing happening right in your own country. I don't know wether to laugh or cry. Paranoid anti-establishment thoughts in line with pro-life fluff rethorics, emotional argumentation with a good ol' Godwin to top it off. I do hope you're trolling. I think you'd be surprised of the ammount of well-off or wealthy people who take abortions. Having a kid is not just about financial means - it's also very much about convenience and desirability. In contrast, I think your assumption of 'minority control through abortion' is failing hard, because as far as I know, poor families are usually those who have most kids, which sounds somewhat odd if they're also the ones who're supposely being 'controlled'. Anyhow, if you screw a girl and get her pregnant, then it's your damn fault and you should take responsibilities. But - since this is an ideological discussion, I completely agree that the ruleset should be changed to have the man able to 'opt out' to parental responsibilities before the ejaculation if it's agreed upon by both participants. If the sex is a consentual action, then anything coming from it should be consentual as well - forcing something onto one party is a breach of that person's individual sovereignity. If the effect is forced upon one party, then you can say that this was not the concentious act that they first entered, and as thus the action should be considered rape.
yea its true, the rich can actually afford more abortions, i knew a rich little snob who had her third one, and wasnt afraid of getting knocked up as she can just easily get another
also
On September 18 2011 20:48 Sokalo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:01 ChinaLifeXXL wrote:
Seems fair. Just be careful with ya spermies, bro. Double bag it if you're paranoid, imo. Can't tell if you're kidding or not, but there's a name for people who like to double bag it: Fathers. The friction between the two condoms increases the chance they rip or break.
that is true, friction increases the chance itll break
|
On September 18 2011 22:15 Liquid`Nazgul wrote:
The person who has to go through the emotional nightmare of an abortion is the one who decides. There is no equality in this unless you offer to carry a baby.
But in a way a man does carry the baby but when it´s a lot smaller. 
jk, I agree.
|
In the political climate we (Americans) live in today, a law allowing the father to walk away obligation free if he didn't want the pregnancy and felt "deceived" (how would you prove this?) would never pass. It would probably ruin the political career of whoever proposed it.
We live in a country where physicians who perform abortions, even if they only do it in extreme cases where mothers are in imminent danger of death, routinely receive death threats from organizations who track them and publicize their personal information.
|
Man, this is an interesting thread. Never crossed my mind before. I think I agree with this quote:
On September 18 2011 20:19 Darkalbino wrote:
If the woman wishes to keep the child, and the man doesn't, there shall be no child support paid to the woman out of the man's pocket, then we will see if she changes her mind.
Edit: In the event they both agree, and later the man and woman separate, child support is paid.
with the proviso that reasonable precautions were taken against pregnancy at the time of copulation, I guess. (yes I realise that's probably going to be hard to prove)
|
On September 18 2011 23:16 Biochemist wrote:
In the political climate we (Americans) live in today, a law allowing the father to walk away obligation free if he didn't want the pregnancy and felt "deceived" (how would you prove this?) would never pass. It would probably ruin the political career of whoever proposed it.
We live in a country where physicians who perform abortions, even if they only do it in extreme cases where mothers are in imminent danger of death, routinely receive death threats from organizations who track them and publicize their personal information.
You can say the same thing about rape. In lots of cases that seems hard to prove as well, but you can still end up in prison.
|
On September 18 2011 22:09 Jongl0 wrote:
If you get a bitch pregnant and she wants to keep it, you should be ready to pay.
You have to take responsibility for your actions.
if you use that logic, shouldn't the woman who gets pregnant take responsibility for her actions and raise the child instead of having it aborted. the one of basic advantages of abortion is that it allows women to be sexually active without the responsibility of raising a child. isn't it a double standard to favor something that absolves a women from responsibility when being sexually active and then to berate a man who wants to be absolved as well?
@ nazgul: i agree which is why i don't think there can ever be equality. also, i believe that since the female is carrying the baby she can choose whether or not she wants the child to live. however, i don't believe that decision should force court-ordered financial obligations for the man.
|
First of all, America is conservative and highly squeamish about sex, so passing any laws regarding sex and abortion is going to be impossible unless it's "don't have sex blah blah".
Second of all, the idea of the conditions that are present during copulation, short of it actually happening, is going to be very difficult to prove in a court of law. Depending on assumption of guilt, either the female or the male party will be biased against.You can't have a child then go to court saying the guy didn't have a condom on, because you can't prove whether the condom burst or whatever.
Third of all, abortion is equal financially, but not equal physically. Women can be damaged permanently by having abortions. This risk alone arguably justify for the choice to be that of the woman's. A man always have the choice of not participating in sex, as does woman. Responsibility is shared but the liability woman will have to bear the birthing process.
|
On September 18 2011 23:00 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. Abortion or not has to be the sole decision of the woman because it is her body and noone should have the right to make that choice for her. Unfair? Maybe but until we reach the stage of in vitro embryo development it can't be helped.
If she does choose to keep it then a child is going to be born, a child innocent of any argument or disagreements between mother and father. And at that point both mother and father need to take their responsibilty, both emotionally and monetary, of raising this child.
should this be a court-ordered forced financial obligation? why can the mother legally bypass her responsibility to her innocent child by aborting it, but the father can't? why can't the father use his own judgment to fulfill his financial obligations for his child instead of writing a blank check to the mother for her to use at her own discretion? why can the legal system enforce a forced financial obligation and then have no system to make sure the funds are used properly?
|
On September 18 2011 23:35 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:00 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. Abortion or not has to be the sole decision of the woman because it is her body and noone should have the right to make that choice for her. Unfair? Maybe but until we reach the stage of in vitro embryo development it can't be helped.
If she does choose to keep it then a child is going to be born, a child innocent of any argument or disagreements between mother and father. And at that point both mother and father need to take their responsibilty, both emotionally and monetary, of raising this child. should this be a court-ordered forced financial obligation? why can the mother legally bypass her responsibility to her innocent child by aborting it, but the father can't? why can't the father use his own judgment to fulfill his financial obligations for his child instead of writing a blank check to the mother for her to use at her own discretion? why can the legal system enforce a forced financial obligation and then have no system to make sure the funds are used properly?
This is a biological difference you have to accept. The fact women have an additional 'failsafe mechanism' to prevent having to support a child isn't too relevant when men can just exercise more judgement when sleeping with a women to begin with. I think it's only unfair when a women acts in bad faith with the intent to get him to pay for child support.
|
On September 18 2011 23:48 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:35 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 23:00 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. Abortion or not has to be the sole decision of the woman because it is her body and noone should have the right to make that choice for her. Unfair? Maybe but until we reach the stage of in vitro embryo development it can't be helped.
If she does choose to keep it then a child is going to be born, a child innocent of any argument or disagreements between mother and father. And at that point both mother and father need to take their responsibilty, both emotionally and monetary, of raising this child. should this be a court-ordered forced financial obligation? why can the mother legally bypass her responsibility to her innocent child by aborting it, but the father can't? why can't the father use his own judgment to fulfill his financial obligations for his child instead of writing a blank check to the mother for her to use at her own discretion? why can the legal system enforce a forced financial obligation and then have no system to make sure the funds are used properly? This is a biological difference you have to accept. The fact women have an additional 'failsafe mechanism' to prevent having to support a child isn't too relevant when men can just exercise more judgement when sleeping with a women to begin with. I think it's only unfair when a women acts in bad faith with the intent to get him to pay for child support.
women can exercise more judgment when sleeping with a man as well. in fact, that is the long-term plan for most women throughout history; having sex with men of good character who are less likely to abandon you after childbirth.
i have taken into account the biological difference by proposing that the decision be solely left to the woman. i am just favoring removing the court's involvement which doesn't even insure that the funds taken will be used properly.
|
United States43136 Posts
It's completely unfair that women have the right to choose whether they have children or abort whereas the man does not. As people have said you can end up in situations in which a man was tricked into child support or equally a man see's a potential child aborted against his will. However legal equality does not equal biological equality, the woman carries the baby and complaining that the law doesn't treat both sides equal does nothing to change the fact that in this, both sides aren't equal. Bitch to God about it because the law does the best it can with what it has. In the mean time, don't have sex with crazies, take responsibility for your own protection and don't be an idiot.
|
On September 18 2011 23:56 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 23:48 Grumbels wrote:On September 18 2011 23:35 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 23:00 KlaCkoN wrote:
I find myself disagreeing with the OP. Abortion or not has to be the sole decision of the woman because it is her body and noone should have the right to make that choice for her. Unfair? Maybe but until we reach the stage of in vitro embryo development it can't be helped.
If she does choose to keep it then a child is going to be born, a child innocent of any argument or disagreements between mother and father. And at that point both mother and father need to take their responsibilty, both emotionally and monetary, of raising this child. should this be a court-ordered forced financial obligation? why can the mother legally bypass her responsibility to her innocent child by aborting it, but the father can't? why can't the father use his own judgment to fulfill his financial obligations for his child instead of writing a blank check to the mother for her to use at her own discretion? why can the legal system enforce a forced financial obligation and then have no system to make sure the funds are used properly? This is a biological difference you have to accept. The fact women have an additional 'failsafe mechanism' to prevent having to support a child isn't too relevant when men can just exercise more judgement when sleeping with a women to begin with. I think it's only unfair when a women acts in bad faith with the intent to get him to pay for child support. women can exercise more judgment when sleeping with a man as well. in fact, that is the long-term plan for most women throughout history; having sex with men of good character who are less likely to abandon you after childbirth. i have taken into account the biological difference by proposing that the decision be solely left to the woman. i am just favoring removing the court's involvement which doesn't even insure that the funds taken will be used properly.
The court is the only institution capable of enforcing decisions. Removal of the courts from child support is tantamount to removal of child support entirely.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
