|
If we live in an equal society, then men have as many rights as a women when it comes to the situation of having a child. It's not like having a child is only consequential for women. It's consequential for a man as well.
Men shouldn't necessarily be able to force abortion. However, both the woman and the man knew the risks of having sex before they had sex. If they both consented to the act, that means that they are equally responsible for the end result, that being a child. If a woman can choose to end her responsibility, with an abortion, then a man can choose to end his responsibility there as well, through whatever means are deemed acceptable within a society.
If you don't want to have a child with a man who won't support you, don't have sex with him. If you suspect he won't, or if you don't trust him, it's as simple as "Just don't fuck.". Similar to if a man is worried about getting someone pregnant, or if he's worried that she will try to manipulate him into getting her pregnant, he should just choose not to have sex with them. The most basic, simple solution is just to abstain. Find someone you can trust. If you accept the risks of the action, and you go through with it, then you accept the consequences afterwards.
Even when it comes to libido, we do have choices, and a moral responsibility to make them, and consequences that come after we make those choices, whatever they may be.
|
The way I see it, if the man is not willing to take the risk, then don't have sex.
Otherwise, man up and be ready to take responsibility if it comes to it.
|
On September 19 2011 00:09 Adila wrote:
The way I see it, if the man is not willing to take the risk, then don't have sex.
Otherwise, man up and be ready to take responsibility if it comes to it.
It's not a natural responsibility, it's a recently developed state-enforced responsibility. Child support is primarily an alternative to marriage for women. See: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/08/24/the-child-support-catastrophe/ (one of the few good articles on that site)
|
On September 18 2011 22:58 CheeseMeNot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 21:30 Haemonculus wrote: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.
Sadly enough, in the few (very, very few) cases were this (using discarded smen for artificial insemination without consent) has happened, courts have ruled that child support is owed. Same deal in statutory rape, too.
As far as the financial abortion concept, it's fair and I don't see a reason not to do it. The biggest problem IMO is calling it a financial abortion, because people will be up in arms about how lacking someone to siphon money off will cause people to get abortions they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
|
On September 19 2011 00:11 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:09 Adila wrote:
The way I see it, if the man is not willing to take the risk, then don't have sex.
Otherwise, man up and be ready to take responsibility if it comes to it. It's not a natural responsibility, it's a recently developed state-enforced responsibility. Child support is primarily an alternative to marriage for women. See: http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/08/24/the-child-support-catastrophe/ (one of the few good articles on that site)
Then, we can argue whether or not the courts are treating men fairly. Ideally, equal responsibility should be given. I also am aware that there's a history of bias against men in this regard.
However, that doesn't mean that men should forego all financial responsibilty. The real discussion is how to fix the court system to remove as much of the old biases as possible.
|
The solution is to remove child support so women will be forced to wise up, don't have sex before marriage and stay married to their man in order to be supported financially. This will solve a lot of the current problems of illegitimacy and divorce.
|
On September 19 2011 00:19 Potling wrote:
The solution is to remove child support so women will be forced to wise up, don't have sex before marriage and stay married to their man in order to be supported financially. This will solve a lot of the current problems of illegitimacy and divorce.
"Forced to wise up?" Really?
You're dumping the decision to have sex entirely on women, (and implying that it's the wrong decision to boot). There's a lot offensive about your post.
|
On September 19 2011 00:14 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 22:58 CheeseMeNot wrote:On September 18 2011 21:30 Haemonculus wrote: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. Sadly enough, in the few (very, very few) cases were this (using discarded smen for artificial insemination without consent) has happened, courts have ruled that child support is owed. Same deal in statutory rape, too. As far as the financial abortion concept, it's fair and I don't see a reason not to do it. The biggest problem IMO is calling it a financial abortion, because people will be up in arms about how lacking someone to siphon money off will cause people to get abortions they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.
The courts rule that way because the child support is owed because of the child's rights. I guess the man could try to recoup that money from the woman as damages or something, but not acknowledging the child's rights would be unconstitutional and that's why the laws are the way they are (at least that's how I understood it from reports about a recent court case here in Germany, involving a sperm donor, a child and a woman).
|
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.
No because men and women are different, yet both people, capable of having sex, and deserving of equal protection under the law.
You might as well add:
- If we accept that the government is given power by the people.
- Government can imprison and punish on behalf of the people.
- Then logically, whatever government does, is done by the people.
So we might as well conclude that anything government does, people can do.
It's stupid logic, done to prove whatever you want.
You can prove that the sky is red, white people are all racists, black people are idiots, jews should be shot, etc etc etc by doing the same sort of 'smart' logical process.
|
![[image loading]](http://static.ctia.in/images/article/sexuality/Better_Bedroom_Performance/sex%20consent%20form5.jpg)
EDIT - if you feel like you need to sign something like that beforehand, you're probably with the wrong girl.....
|
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?
Because what is aborted is not considered a child obviously. Some people think differently and they try to change abortion laws, but that is not very relevant to the discussion at hand.
As for the second point, sure the in my oppinion optimal situation (assuming mother and father separate before birth) is a shared responsibility where the child spends an equal amount of time with both parents and both parents share the costs for both food/clothes and entertainment equally.
And I do think this should be the legal default. But sometimes one of the parents have no interest in raising the child and then a blank check becomes the best solution.
|
OP and most of the posts in this thread:
It's not fair!
Life isn't fair. A court isn't going to give two whoops in hell that you think it should be your right to put your dick in someone with no consequences because that's 'fair.' The physical existence of a baby trumps this juvenile nonsense. People need to grow up.
|
I really can't think of a logical reason against this argument except for all the people who are going "derp, you should've thought of that before". I agree with the principle of the argument, and especially and skeptical of the divorce system.
I'm fine with men stating OK, you have the baby if you want, but I won't pay for it in obvious cases where protection was used to a reasonable extent (don't ask me how to take know that). I don't think that the forced abortion thing is where the passage wanted to go though.
|
On September 19 2011 00:33 moltenlead wrote:
I really can't think of a logical reason against this argument
That's probably because the argument is completely flawed, and doesn't prove anything whatsoever.
There's no need to 'refute' an argument after you've proven its stupidity.
|
If a woman can terminate the pregnancy without any consent of the man, the man should be able to have a similar function (obviously not force an abortion of the actual fetus in the woman's body) but he should be able to relinquish all rights etc., to the child.
It should go both ways. ;/
|
On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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.
The logic is this argument is flawed.
It does not follow that because a man had sex with a woman without the in intention of consent to pregnancy he should be absolved of responsibility for care (financial or otherwise).
Why?
Consent does not imply responsibility and conversely neither does lack of consent imply lack of responsibility.
This is a poor axiom; the argument is either incomplete or invalid.
It is not a very good to situation to be in (the example you are citing), though is the best where the child concerned is at the centre. Child support is designed to protect and provide for a child. The the mother is in the best position to
This is not a case of gender discrimination. It is a case of a small minded argument propagated by uninformed people quick to form opinions proliferating across the internet. Sorry, ANOTHER case.
PS I am not attacking you PrideNeverDie but simply the argument. I understand that you have proposed this argument for debate.
Peace.
NB lots of children are born without the intention pregnancy to the joy of both mother and father.
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 00:31 DeepElemBlues wrote:OP and most of the posts in this thread: Life isn't fair. A court isn't going to give two whoops in hell that you think it should be your right to put your dick in someone with no consequences because that's 'fair.' The physical existence of a baby trumps this juvenile nonsense. People need to grow up.
but a court does care if you let a dick inside you? why would/should the court favor a vagina over a dick? If the vagina can have sex without thinking about it and terminate the pregnancy or keep the child all within her own rights, why can't the dick?
|
Life isn't fair. A court isn't going to give two whoops in hell that you think it should be your right to put your dick in someone with no consequences because that's 'fair.' The physical existence of a baby trumps this juvenile nonsense. People need to grow up.
It's the woman that bears the consequences from irresponsible sex, not the man, so it's primarily the woman who needs to act responsibly, something I actually think women are capable of doing if they try. Of course, it's criminal to suggest that women should take responsibility for their own actions.
Please people, see beyond the facade of "It's for the children!". Child support is an alternative to marriage for women. In fact, the massive divorce and illegitimacy resulting from child support has a horrible impact on children.
|
but a court does care if you let a dick inside you? why would/should the court favor a vagina over a dick? If the vagina can have sex without thinking about it and terminate the pregnancy or keep the child all within her own rights, why can't the dick?
It's the woman that bears the consequences from irresponsible sex, not the man, so it's primarily the woman who needs to act responsibly, something I actually think women are capable of doing if they try. Of course, it's criminal to suggest that women should take responsibility for their own actions.
Please people, see beyond the facade of "It's for the children!". Child support is an alternative to marriage for women. In fact, the massive divorce and illegitimacy resulting from child support has a horrible impact on children.
I'm sorry but this is incredibly stupid. Not to mention the second quote (from someone else) is almost irredeemably sexist. Woman are "actually" capable of being "responsible," "if they try." "It's criminal to suggest women should take responsibility for their actions..." WHAT? Let's try to take this back into the real world now:
The "vagina" can only terminate the pregnancy while it is still a pregnancy. A woman has no rights to refuse not to support a child. She can put it up for adoption, give it to the State to put into foster care, but she can't just say "I'm not going to do shit" and have a court of law be okay with that.
The courts in this and any country more or less presume that a baby is best off with its mother and that presumption includes within it a legal obligation of the mother to care for the child.
A father is not expected from the get-go to physically be present and care for the child.
The mother is.
If there is a double standard, it is against whoever actually sticks around to take care of the baby. The mom runs away? Guess what dad, it's up to you, actually getting someone to pay child support who doesn't want to is a long and arduous and frequently unsuccessful process. Dad runs away? Guess what mom, it's up to you.
That's where the double standard is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
