|
On September 19 2011 00:24 Ropid wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:14 SharkSpider wrote: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).
I'm not sure I buy the "child's rights" bit. It's legal to put a child up for adoption, it's semi-legal (as in you would never ever face consequences) to leave a child at a fire station or hospital (in some states it's even supported)
If you frame it differently, the whole financial abortion concept can be expressed as a pre-birth right for both parents to put the child up for adoption, with the right to adopt going to the other parent foremost. (And implicitly, a law that makes post-birth naming of a father who wasn't previously named illegal and void)
|
The "logical" conclusion does not necessarily follow because the premise that given that "if we accept that men and women deserve equal protection under the law (see 14th amendment of your constitution)" does not fully comprehend the nuances of the equal protection clause. The equal protection clause allows for classification based on substantial distinctions which make for real differences and such classification is germane to the purpose of the law. So men and women are equally protected under the law, but they may be subject to different standards of protection based on their separate classification.
|
You could use a condom and not be in this boat in the first place. There are other places to ejaculate besides the vagina. If you do happen to be subject to a pregnancy then just man up and take care of your child.
|
On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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.
If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either.
|
Yes, there should be a way to concede all parental rights of a fetus if the woman chooses to keep it against the father's wishes (thereby forever losing any right to see or raise the child, but also not pay child support). Forcing an abortion would be completely unacceptable.
The current law is in the "best interests" of the child, so even when the mother does something that should be illegal (e.g. inseminating herself outside of intercourse), the law dgaf and says the father must still pay child support. This is wrong.
On September 18 2011 20:01 ChinaLifeXXL wrote:
Double bag it if you're paranoid, imo.
Don't do this.
|
On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either.
Again, you are projecting your own beliefs (that sex outside of marriage is wrong) on to everyone, and demonizing people for making decisions which don't line up with your views.
edit: and at least in the states, there are plenty of obstacles in the way of "just getting an abortion". You really can't just walk down to the corner store and be in and out in a few minutes.
|
On September 19 2011 00:54 Craton wrote:
Yes, there should be a way to concede all parental rights of a fetus if the woman chooses to keep it against the father's wishes (thereby forever losing any right to see or raise the child, but also not pay child support).
Why should there be a way to do that?
It's not 'rights'. It's 'rights and responsibilities'.
The child needs to be taken care of.
Why the fuck should taxpayers not involved have to pay for it if the parents are capable, but doesn't want to bother?
If you want to allow this, then you need to allow it for both sexes. Equality and all that ...
So ... One night stand. The mother doesn't believe in abortion (ie, it's murder).
So she has a 'financial abortion' and lets the father handle everything ... because, he wasn't contacted before the baby was born...
Does that show you how amazingly stupid this system is?
The whole argument is based off 'nah I don't want to bother taking responsibility, so I'll make up some stupid logic that proves my point'.
Except that the logic is completely flawed, and doesn't prove anything ...
|
On September 19 2011 00:57 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either. Again, you are projecting your own beliefs (that sex outside of marriage is wrong) on to everyone, and demonizing people for making decisions which don't line up with your views.
Unprotected sex outside marriage is wrong because the child needs two parents and the child and mother need economic support from the father.
|
On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:
If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either.
I am sorry, but this is idiocy.
1) You can actually have abortions while married.
2) There's nothing irresponsible about getting pregnant outside marriage. In fact, a shitload of perfectly happy couples does have children outside marriage and raise them together, and get married later (or not at all).
3) Personal belief may stop her from having an abortion. Or the law - which sets a time limit.
Also ... there's absolutely nothing right in the statement 'if the woman was responsible she wouldn't have ...'
Yeah well if the man was responsible he wouldn't have?
It's just stupid ...
|
On September 19 2011 01:01 Potling wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:57 Haemonculus wrote:On September 19 2011 00:53 Potling wrote:On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote: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. If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either. Again, you are projecting your own beliefs (that sex outside of marriage is wrong) on to everyone, and demonizing people for making decisions which don't line up with your views. Unprotected sex outside marriage is wrong because the child needs two parents and the child and mother need economic support from the father.
You are from norway, you know better ... here tons of people live together and have children and MAYBE get married later on.
Also, if you use protection, your whole argument about 'sex outside marriage' is just idiocy.
|
On September 19 2011 00:59 aebriol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 00:54 Craton wrote:
Yes, there should be a way to concede all parental rights of a fetus if the woman chooses to keep it against the father's wishes (thereby forever losing any right to see or raise the child, but also not pay child support). Why should there be a way to do that? It's not 'rights'. It's 'rights and responsibilities'. The child needs to be taken care of. Why the fuck should taxpayers not involved have to pay for it if the parents are capable, but doesn't want to bother? If you want to allow this, then you need to allow it for both sexes. Equality and all that ... So ... One night stand. The mother doesn't believe in abortion (ie, it's murder). So she has a 'financial abortion' and lets the father handle everything ... because, he wasn't contacted before the baby was born... Does that show you how amazingly stupid this system is? The whole argument is based off 'nah I don't want to bother taking responsibility, so I'll make up some stupid logic that proves my point'. Except that the logic is completely flawed, and doesn't prove anything ...
Your whole argument is based off a false statement, man. Mother carries baby to term and doesn't want to look after it? First thing, she can ask the father to sign adoption papers pre-birth. Men can do this too, but women don't have any incentive to sign. The reason the father would sign if he wants to keep the child is because if he refuses, the mother can just walk away, have the baby elsewhere, and put it up for adoption/leave it at a hospital or fire station.
If neither parent wants responsibility, there's a thing called adoption and that happens all the time.
|
Oh, I should clarify, by "marriage" I don't mean a government license, I mean a couple agreeing to start a family together. It has nothing to do with the government.
Also, if you use protection, your whole argument about 'sex outside marriage' is just idiocy
Hence why I said "unprotected sex" -.-
1) You can actually have abortions while married.
You misinterpreted me, I meant "if she doesn't want the child, she can abort it"
|
And here I was thinking this thread was going to be about some new thing where you get rid of all of your money...
|
In my opinion men should be able to opt out of child support when the women gets pregnant and the women should have to go to a judge so that they can send out a letter notifying the man that the women is pregnant and he has such and such days to opt out of it.
Women that don't get abortions when they're with a man that they hardly know or they know the guy doesn't want a baby are selfish and are one of the main reasons why a lot of kids are growing up without a father and turn into pieces of shit.
There's also the religious idea that a lot of people have stuck in their head that makes them believe that abortion is "evil", which is idiotic because if someone is even thinking about abortion in the first place the child is apt to be born in sub optimal conditions which is not good for the child's upbringing.
|
Well I'll start by pointing out that I think abortion should be illegal so naturally I don't think men should be able to opt out of their responsibilities either.
But given that abortion is legal and looking at it from the perspective of equality, it is a good question.
I think abortion is legal because of the argument about a women's ownership of her own body. I think in reality though most abortions are retroactive birth control and a woman can get an abortion for whatever reason she wants. If she was irresponsible and didn't use birth control then she can get an abortion. This is where the disparity really comes into play but there isn't anything that can be done about it.
If the father can "financially abort" as you say, affirm that he does not want a child and absolve himself of responsibility the women has the right to choose to have the child knowing full well it is her responsibility or she can choose to abort. Well I like that from an equality perspective but consider the actual results. More abortions and more single mothers, neither of which is good for society. The fact is 2 parents are superior to 1 parent and that is what we need to worry about much more than the rights of either men or women to have sex without being liable for children they produce.
On the issue of male/female equality I am much more concerned about father's rights and the way custody and child support tend to be punitive. Fathers, especially unmarried, are treated very unfairly in courts.
|
Well ...
Me personally, I find that people saying that abortion is equal to child support are idiots. It's two different things.
One is whether or not a child will be born.
The other is making sure that a child have it's basic financial needs taken care of.
It's just not the same thing.
I dunno, I guess, a lot of people like the idea of not having to pay for a child they didn't plan for so they overlook the stupidity of it.
|
On September 19 2011 01:10 aebriol wrote:
Well ...
Me personally, I find that people saying that abortion is equal to child support are idiots. It's two different things.
One is whether or not a child will be born.
The other is making sure that a child have it's basic financial needs taken care of.
It's just not the same thing.
I dunno, I guess, a lot of people like the idea of not having to pay for a child they didn't plan for so they overlook the stupidity of it.
The nature of parental responsibilities interact with the right to choose whether or not to enter the parental relationship with a child. In current society, the right to choose whether or not to be a parent is afforded only to one gender, so it's pretty important that the parental responsibility laws take that in to consideration.
|
[QUOTE]On September 19 2011 00:46 DeepElemBlues wrote:
[quote]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?[/quote]
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.
[quote]
You can keep saying it's stupid but you aren't offering any rationale as to why it is so. Why can the vagina terminate the child during pregnancy but not the dick? It goes both ways, woman don' t JUST try and get pregnant to stick a man to child support, there are many cases where a man wants the child but the woman decides to terminate. There is no reason the entire decision to have a baby or not should be held with the woman. Please enlighten me why it should be this way.
Also for your second point about pregnancy.. i dont even know if you've read the thread. During pregnancy would be the time the man would be able to opt-out, a male abortion if you will.
|
I think this is pretty simple; but of course the world has its ways of making things complicated.
In my view, women shouldn't be forced to abort. But on the same token, men shouldn't be forced to financially provide for the child, especially in cases where he didn't intend to have the child. The mother should have the thinking capacity to realize whether she is financially capable of raising the child on her own if the father does not wish to be involved, especially if the intent to have the child was not their in the first place. This would particularly apply to cases where women shove rags and inverted condoms into themselves to get pregnant.
Also, in the animal kingdom there are many instances of the mother taking care of her child on her own, while the father leaves forever upon impregnating her. So think about that for a second, those of you who are in intense support of the mother in the OP's scenario. The mothers in the animal kingdom don't complain about it... they raise their kids alone... and they don't even have the choice to abort. In the human world however, so many women, out of hate towards a particular man, will impregnate themselves with his sperm just to fuck him over by forcing him into a 20 year financial committment. Clearly conniving, deceptive and childish on the parts of these women.
So yeh... women can choose to have the baby... but men should not be on the hook financially. Short, sweet, simple solution... but as I mentioned before, the world has a habit of complicating simple things.
|
If the woman was responsible she wouldn't have gotten pregnant outside marriage in the first place. There is nothing stopping her from getting an abortion if she doesn't want the child, either.
This putting all responsibility on the woman theme is disgusting.
You can keep saying it's stupid but you aren't offering any rationale as to why it is so. Why can the vagina terminate the child during pregnancy but not the dick? It goes both ways, woman don' t JUST try and get pregnant to stick a man to child support, there are many cases where a man wants the child but the woman decides to terminate. There is no reason the entire decision to have a baby or not should be held with the woman. Please enlighten me why it should be this way.
Because the baby is inside her body?
Also, I have offered rationales, the problem is you are sexist and want to put men in a higher place than women with this crazy talk.
Also for your second point about pregnancy.. i dont even know if you've read the thread. During pregnancy would be the time the man would be able to opt-out, a male abortion if you will.
I did the read the thread, the entire idea is dumb. "Oh well it'd be during the pregnancy" irrelevant.
Problem is men in their 20s and 30s are now still developmentally stuck in their teens, people like you need to grow up and man up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
