|
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?
|
Seems fair. Just be careful with ya spermies, bro. Double bag it if you're paranoid, imo.
|
The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. 
|
never confuse what is natural with man-made laws
u can whine all u want about same rights and whatnot but if nature begs to differ, well... tough luck!
|
I think imposing to a woman to abort is just monstrous. Not an option.
If a woman lies to get pregnant or anything like that, then maybe we can discuss whether it is the right to the father not to give a pension. But the abortion really is something that should be between the mother's hands, in my opinion.
Most cases you will have an unwanted child, a father who asks for abortion and a mother who refuses. And then, I think if it is not malicious from the mother, the guy just takes his responsibility.
|
Although those are fair points in theory, it's not as simple in practice imo. Women have the responsibility for their own bodies, just like you need to take responsibility for your own semen (don't laugh, you started it ). Wear a condom and dispose of it yourself, or take a risk and pay the price if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.
|
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.
|
20 years of child support! oh no! It makes you wonder about all those single mothers who dont get child support and how just it is that their fathers escaped the discriminative sexist system that expects them to take responsibility for their offspring.
If your thoughts are that women should pay child support if the child stays with the father that makes perfect sense or that the current laws favour the mother in who keeps the children then that makes sense and is valid but saying that men should have the right to abort if they inseminate a woman is a bit far but debateable and saying that if the baby is born then it isnt their responsibility is probably too much. Use a rubber.
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal.
|
On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.
what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children?
i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations?
|
Yes, on the outside it seems ridiculous that a single sexual encounter can force a man to pay two decades of child support whether he likes it or not, while women can always opt out of it VIA abortion/adoption, but there's more to this.
Even for many of those who are pro-abortion, the act is still considered terminating a life, and is a very difficult decision to make. While both parents may agree that there is no reason why they should raise a child together, I think it goes without saying that the majority of the guilt of aborting a child is absorbed by the woman, and she therefore has the right to choose not to despite the father's best wishes. She could always just throw her child into the adoption system and hope somebody picks it up, but that isn't exactly easy either.
Now, in the event that she chooses she wants to have and raise the child, why should she be forced to raise it alone because the father has the physical convenience of just walking away? This all goes without saying that being granted maternity leave is not always possible, and that children cost an exorbitant amount of money to raise. I agree with the system the way it is. Responsible sex has such an absurdly low pregnancy risk anyway that cases like these would be incredibly rare.
|
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.
|
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.
Somewhat my opinion on the matter... But they only want equality if it benefits them... like staying at home for 15 years but the same payment once they begin to work (the man has 15 years more experience)...
|
I think he should be. Someone needs to fight for us!!!
|
Nope. Women and men are both equally obligated to raise the child.
|
Baltimore, USA22254 Posts
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.
That was my initial, watered down thought when I read the question.
|
The obvious difference is that for a man choosing not to have a kid is as simple as saying "I choose not to financially support this child" and a woman choosing not to have a kid is not as simple... I think if you want equality then woman should be allowed to opt out of parenthood simply by stating their refusal to raise a child. But since that is physically impossible...
|
Enforced abortion makes no sense and is downright disgusting, but men shouldn't be held accountable in exceptional cases such as when one party actively deceives the other.
|
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. Basically this. Having an accident and the man not wanting the child but the mother refuses to abort it is not a reason for the man having to pay child support for a very long time.
|
Seems kinda unfair tbh, opting out of child support before birth should be possible thinking about it.
Until then, doublebag, tie up and flush that shit if you have suspicions man 
|
So many posts are ending in "Just wear a condom" or some equivalent... but that can fail, and the probability is not so small that you can just ignore those cases. One of my friends got his gf pregnant while using protection.
Edit: Not that I think forced abortion should be legal but it is not fair that women can choose to have sex without risk of ever having a child and men must ultimately leave the choice up to whomever they are sleeping with. If a man with no desire for children wants to have a night of fun and the condom fails, suddenly he has a kid to either abandon or be burdened with. A woman in the same position suddenly has to get an abortion, which while not a negligible thing is less impactful on the rest of her life. A man should not be expected to provide child support in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. If the woman chooses to raise it despite the man not wanting to have a kid, the woman should have to take on all responsibility, including the financial. After all, it is HER choice.
|
This is one of the most ill-thought through arguments i've seen in a loooong time.
1. Contraceptives - you have to differentiate between protected and unprotected sex.
2. The abortion argument - equating a surgical procedure with a social stigma to simply saying "i don't want to pay for this baby" is not only stupid but offensive. If it was that easy for women, we'd live in a different world where children weren't born into poverty.
3. Most importantly though - you're forgetting about the main character in this drama: the innocent child. Who do you suggest should pay for this child to grow up with opportunities? Society? No society in the world would be able to bear the expense this moronic suggestion would spawn.
Abortion is supposed to be an option. With this suggestion it'd become a necessity for society to cope.
|
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.
|
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.
how about lying to their bf/husbands and telling them the child is theirs? is that a more realistic and plausible scenario for you. in that case, even if he can prove the child isn't his, he still has to pay child support for the child for 20 years.
how about addressing the proposal for men to not have to pay court-ordered child support if he did not want the baby, but the woman did? most men would definitely have some role in their children's life and would be willing to pay for the absolute essentials even if they did not want to have the child at first. however, forcing them through the legal system is something i think should be changed.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
It makes sense that if the man "didn't sign up" to raise a child(so to speak), and took precautions such as condoms, then he should be able to give up any parental rights in favor of not paying child support.
This is analog to taking all the necessary precautions in terms of safety in the workplace then having an accident which might be considered "act of god" - you wouldn't be held accountable.
|
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.
failwow. Men should have 49% of the say in an abortion... oh wait they already do
On September 18 2011 22:14 Timestreamer wrote:
It makes sense that if the man "didn't sign up" to raise a child(so to speak), and took precautions such as condoms, then he should be able to give up any parental rights in favor of not paying child support.
This is analog to taking all the necessary precautions in terms of safety in the workplace then having an accident which might be considered "act of god" - you wouldn't be held accountable.
impossible to prove you took the necessary precautions unless you film a high-res video of the act
|
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.
|
Sex is one of the better things about life but people seem to be forgetting that its primary and only nature-intended purpose is to reproduce. It's like saying you want to eat food but you don't want to go to the toilet, can't have one without the other.
|
impossible to prove you took the necessary precautions unless you film a high-res video of the act
I'd like to think it's possible if there are people whose jobs are making sure you did so/did not do so.
edit: I mean this far as safety in the workplace go, not sex
|
|
|
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.
|
On September 18 2011 22:05 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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!
Considering that most anti-choice activists couldn't give two shits about said babies once they're born, I find this unlikely to be their sole motivator.
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 even know how to touch that one, wolo
|
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.
you know people actually do that crap right? he's just keeping all options open. i dont think we need to get all offended and start the personal attacks.
|
My opinion is an unpopular one.
If you can't trust the girl you're having sex with to not take the condom or towel or whatever and try to make herself pregnant, you shouldn't be having sex with her.
Of course, I don't support abortions in general, but that's a completely separate debate
Edit: Also, like its been said before, if you can't pay the child support, don't have the sex. Everyone knows that pregnancy is a risk of it no matter how much birth control is involved.
|
On September 18 2011 22:41 FrankWalls 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. you know people actually do that crap right? he's just keeping all options open. i dont think we need to get all offended and start the personal attacks.
I'm sure there's a few crazies out there who have done such things. To use such an unusual and highly uncommon example in an argument is ridiculous though.
|
"Wear a condom and dispose of it yourself, or take a risk and pay the price if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby."
The problem I see in this quote is this. The woman has all the control over the decision. What if a man wanted to keep the baby and the woman wanted an abortion? Who has the right to choose in this situation? Should the man be compensated for 20 years if she chooses not to keep it. If not then why should a man choosing not to keep a baby be taxed for the woman's choice of keeping the baby? Though the man should "man up", these are questions we must ask our justice system.
|
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.
|
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal.
I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place.
Anyway, this post more or less gets it right.
|
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
There was no "child support" in any of the most productive civilizations in history. You will probably say these men were also "developmentally stuck in their teens".
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.
Accusations of "sexism" in response to rational arguments should be worn as a badge of intellectual honesty.
|
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree with that.
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested 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. 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.
... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that?
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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 read, 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.
... and no, your ad hominem isn't helping you look any smarter/better.
|
On September 19 2011 01:37 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal. I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place. Anyway, this post more or less gets it right.
The post claims that "men are getting the better of the deal." I'd liken this argument to saying that in the dark ages, women got the better end of the deal because they didn't have to fight and die in battles.
The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc. The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
|
i believe that women should be responsible of raising the kid with their own funds if the man does not want to have the a child
|
There was no "child support" in any of the most productive civilizations in history. You will probably say these men were also "developmentally stuck in their teens".
The most productive civilization in history is this one, we have child support. The most productive civilizations in history are all in existence right now, they have child support.
So... what are you talking about? This is sad.
... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that?
Anyone in this thread advocating the position that men have no responsibility towards a baby if they didn't want to have one is attempting to place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men.
... and no, your ad hominem isn't helping you look any smarter/better.
And the repeated ad hominems against women in this thread mean the men making them are sexists, and calling them sexist is not ad hominem.
It would be an ad hominem to call you disgusting. Which I won't, but I will say your ideas are. Extremely.
The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc.
Ahahahaha no. It is a rationale of rationalizing the abandonment of responsibilities in favor of spurious "rights."
The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves.
Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort)
Ummm no they don't have right of possession. They have the presumption of a very strong privilege that can be and is taken away from them if they do not uphold their responsibilities in a reasonable fashion.
Are you just pulling this out of your ass or what?
are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
How juvenile. Perfect display of the "fuck you I'm all for me" mentality so prevalent among today's young people. Not responsible for anything, no obligations whatsoever, no consequences that are fair so there should be no consequences. There's nothing about equality of genders here.
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean.
|
On September 19 2011 01:49 Sina92 wrote:
i believe that women should be responsible of raising the kid with their own funds if the man does not want to have the a child
How would you enforce such a policy then? A signed contract months before the child is even born?
What if the father changes his mind, can you nullify the contract? What if he changes his mind AGAIN after the child is born, can you then nullify the nullified contract?
Personally I cringe at the thought of getting a girl pregnant, and then being forced into paying child support for a child I'm not financially stable to provide for yet, or in an effort to save child support, forced into a relationship with a woman I don't want to be in a relationship with anymore. I wish there was an option like this, where I could get an "abortion" and sign a contract so I don't have to pay child support.
But I don't think it's a valid option.
|
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +... but now you're just attacking the wrong person. When the hell did crms do that? Anyone in this thread advocating the position that men have no responsibility towards a baby if they didn't want to have one is attempting to place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men.
Oh? Let me point out that quite a few people have said that men should only be let off the hook if they took precautions against having the baby beforehand and yet it still happened. If women make a mistake they can get an abortion. But if men make a mistake they're saddled with it for life? Hmm... sounds fair.
We're not trying to "place obligations solely on women by taking them away from men", we're pointing out that women have a way to dodge the obligations, so why shouldn't men?
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:And the repeated ad hominems against women in this thread mean the men making them are sexists, and calling them sexist is not ad hominem. It would be an ad hominem to call you disgusting. Which I won't, but I will say your ideas are. Extremely.
*shrug* I'll just quote SharkSpider at you because I think he's said it already:
On September 19 2011 01:48 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:37 xDaunt wrote:On September 18 2011 20:27 Lord_J wrote:
I think it's a spurious argument.
Roe v. Wade was based on the Supreme Court's conception of a right to personal privacy -- the question of whether the act of sexual intercourse amounted to "consent" to raise or support a child was not discussed in the opinion. Furthermore, the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is not a blanket prohibition against the law treating men and women differently; rather, laws which make gender-based classifications are subject to "intermediate scrutiny." Where--as here--men and women are differently-situated because of their widely differing biological roles in reproduction, a legal distinction based on gender is unlikely to be an abridgement of equal protection under the law.
Moreover, it's not clear to me that the law even does discriminate between genders in the alleged regard. A woman is no more permitted to leave a child she has in the father's care and then walk away, refusing to provide any financial support that might be required for the child's well-being than a man is to do likewise. It seems to me that the law treats men and women quite equally in that regard. Of course, women are less likely to find themselves in that position where they can simply opt to have an abortion if they do not want the child. It's true that men don't have that option -- however, it's not because the law has taken it away from them; rather, biology has. And, all things considered, I think we should be grateful for that. I don't know many men that would prefer that they were the ones who could become impregnated. To the extent that it has its downsides as well, I'd say men are still getting the better of the deal. I just did a quick search through this thread and this is the only on where the term "privacy" comes up. Seems like a lot of people are missing something about why abortion is legal in the first place. Anyway, this post more or less gets it right. The post claims that "men are getting the better of the deal." I'd liken this argument to saying that in the dark ages, women got the better end of the deal because they didn't have to fight and die in battles. The rationale behind the idea of financially aborting is one of agency, rights matching with responsibilities, etc. The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders.
edit: I see you edited your post to address the sharkspider post I quoted too.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
Why don't you clarify your stand - you seem to show a lot of disdain for your strawman "irresponsible young people". So what exactly is your position? That men shouldn't be allowed to ditch their financial obligations AND women shouldn't be allowed to abort either?
|
It's not unfair... There are ways to prevent the birth of a child. And if someone you have one by accident (however that happens) both parties should feel they owe their fair share (e.g. 50% each) of child support.
|
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote + The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it.
I would agree with your position, except that "making it" is a very ambiguous term. People can be forced to make children without their knowledge or against their will. You need to get off your high horse and remember that financial abortions would only ever affect the situation where a woman gets pregnent and wishes to carry the baby to term and raise it against the wishes of the biological father, and have him pay the bill for it. If the mother consented to adoption then it would not be affected. Applying your logic to other situations leads to things like banning adoption.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +The laws, policies and genetics surrounding children and birth in general need to work in unison, and I would argue, in the interests of relative equality in rights and responsibilities. It's demonstrably true that women, due to their (in my opinion undeniable) right to abortion and also (something most people forget) the right of possession (that is, they have unilateral decision making post-birth with some effort) Ummm no they don't have right of possession. They have the presumption of a very strong privilege that can be and is taken away from them if they do not uphold their responsibilities in a reasonable fashion.
Right of possession means you hold something. If your friend loans you his car, you have possession.
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +are able to opt out at the pre-birth stage and immediately post-birth. This is part of genetics, and part of the fact that we don't live in police states, and it isn't going away, nor should it. One gender is always going to have rights functionally similar to that of financially aborting in a free, democratic society. The best and only solution is to extend similar rights to both genders. How juvenile. Perfect display of the "fuck you I'm all for me" mentality so prevalent among today's young people. Not responsible for anything, no obligations whatsoever, no consequences that are fair so there should be no consequences. There's nothing about equality of genders here.
You're calling me juvenile, but I'm not the one losing my cool and throwing out ad hominems like candy. I'm civil enough to respond without insulting you, maybe you could do the same?
On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean.
You're misrepresenting the premises and conclusions of my argument. I'll make it simple so we don't get that kind of conclusion. My premise is that due to factors I've discussed in depth, women are able to opt out of parenthood at two key times: immediately post conception, and immediately following birth. These are rights I would not see taken away, because doing so denies basic freedoms. I would argue that these same rights should be extended to both genders, then, in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you accept gender equality, that leads to the conclusion that the current laws are ineffective.
Currently, you have four situations:
1. Mother and father want baby. Result: Baby, yay.
2. Father wants baby, mother does not. Result: Father either signs adoption papers and relieves mother of obligations, or she can abort or abandon the child at birth, neither of which the father has any ability to stop.
3. Mother wants baby, father does not. Result: Baby's born, father pays child support.
4. Neither parent want a baby: Result: Abortion or adoption.
With financial abortions, 2 and 3 would be changed to have the same result in that either an abortion occurs, or one parent has custody and responsibilities.
The only questionable part of this argument is 2, where I claim that if a baby is born, the mother can abandon it without the consent of the father. Technically this isn't supposed to happen. The baby is born, the mother names the father, he has a few weeks to come and take on his parental rights. If he isn't named, he gets an ad in the classifieds that he has to find. If he isn't named and if the mother gave bith without carrying personal identification, she's allowed to leave and it's a done deal. These protections are in place because of human rights legislation and policy. Obviously it's morally questionable and most women wouldn't go to such lengths, but sometimes reality needs to be factored in to these kinds of things. Even if this doesn't occur, the implicit threat that a mother might relocate with a man's child is more than enough to make signing pre-birth adoption papers (relieving the mother of child support) an attractive option. Whether or not you see them as such, these things are all basic rights, and refer to the right of "possession" that I discussed in less depth, earlier.
|
On September 19 2011 02:30 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote: The notion that men, because of their gender, must "man up" and support any child born of their genetic material is just as sexist as the notion that women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions because they should just be responsible for themselves. Ahahaha no. The idea that men must support children they sire is based on simple personal responsibility. You make it, you're responsible for it. I would agree with your position, except that "making it" is a very ambiguous term. People can be forced to make children without their knowledge or against their will. You need to get off your high horse and remember that financial abortions would only ever affect the situation where a woman gets pregnent and wishes to carry the baby to term and raise it against the wishes of the biological father, and have him pay the bill for it. If the mother consented to adoption then it would not be affected. Applying your logic to other situations leads to things like banning adoption.
I'm not sure whether that's what he wants or not though, so I'm asking for clarification.
On September 19 2011 02:30 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 01:55 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Women can abort a baby, relieving both parents of the time and financial obligations to the child, so men should be able to able to relieve themselves of the obligation and place it all on the woman. That is what is being presented as equality here. One way no one has responsibility, the other way one side has 100%. That's "equal" and "fair" to people like Spider. Makes you wonder if he knows what those words mean. You're misrepresenting the premises and conclusions of my argument. I'll make it simple so we don't get that kind of conclusion. My premise is that due to factors I've discussed in depth, women are able to opt out of parenthood at two key times: immediately post conception, and immediately following birth. These are rights I would not see taken away, because doing so denies basic freedoms. I would argue that these same rights should be extended to both genders, then, in a way that doesn't infringe on the rights of others. If you accept gender equality, that leads to the conclusion that the current laws are ineffective. Currently, you have four situations: 1. Mother and father want baby. Result: Baby, yay. 2. Father wants baby, mother does not. Result: Father either signs adoption papers and relieves mother of obligations, or she can abort or abandon the child at birth, neither of which the father has any ability to stop. 3. Mother wants baby, father does not. Result: Baby's born, father pays child support. 4. Neither parent want a baby: Result: Abortion or adoption. With financial abortions, 2 and 3 would be changed to have the same result in that either an abortion occurs, or one parent has custody and responsibilities. The only questionable part of this argument is 2, where I claim that if a baby is born, the mother can abandon it without the consent of the father. Technically this isn't supposed to happen. The baby is born, the mother names the father, he has a few weeks to come and take on his parental rights. If he isn't named, he gets an ad in the classifieds that he has to find. If he isn't named and if the mother gave bith without carrying personal identification, she's allowed to leave and it's a done deal. These protections are in place because of human rights legislation and policy. Obviously it's morally questionable and most women wouldn't go to such lengths, but sometimes reality needs to be factored in to these kinds of things. Even if this doesn't occur, the implicit threat that a mother might relocate with a man's child is more than enough to make signing pre-birth adoption papers (relieving the mother of child support) an attractive option. Whether or not you see them as such, these things are all basic rights, and refer to the right of "possession" that I discussed in less depth, earlier.
Nicely summed up.
|
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract?
|
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.
Don't be so sure here. Many studies indicate that the latex on latex friction would lead to an increase in breakage possibilities!
|
On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract?
The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother)
|
On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother)
Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract.
|
My thoughts is: Never have unprotected sex with a girl you don't trust enough to be certain she actually takes the pill / will get an abortion if something happens
+ Show Spoiler +
|
It's your own fault if you knock her up.
|
On September 19 2011 02:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother) Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract.
Any need for such a dramatic change to contract laws would be erased if financial abortions existed, so I don't think the question is all that relevant.
|
On September 19 2011 03:17 SharkSpider wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 02:58 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:On September 19 2011 02:55 SharkSpider wrote:On September 19 2011 02:51 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
How about this:
What if before I have sex with a woman she and I both sign a contract that states IF a pregnancy occurs I, the father, will have no legal obligations to the woman or the child.
Should I still be on the hook for child support if she gets pregnant and if she decides to have the child if we've signed this contract? The law does not recognize such contracts in either the US or Canada. Just like you can't contract someone to have an abortion or adopt their child to you (pre-birth adoption is voidable by the birth mother) Obviously the relevant question is should the law recognize such a contract. Any need for such a dramatic change to contract laws would be erased if financial abortions existed, so I don't think the question is all that relevant.
Obviously the relevant question is should financial abortions exist even if that entails a change to contract law.
|
I am inclined to basically ignore SharkSpider's wall of text. I really do not see what there is to talk about so much. My argumentation would simply be, the child itself has a need for child support, and both parents are responsible.
The child had nothing to do with whatever contracts and decisions are done before its birth. Adoption works regarding child support, because there is someone taking over the responsibility of the parents. About woman's right to decide what to do with her own body and abortion, for me I see no need to argue, because it is only done the first few months of pregnancy, where the embryo does not yet really have a brain (or whatever makes one human) and is not yet a person.
|
On September 19 2011 03:19 Ropid wrote:
I am inclined to basically ignore SharkSpider's wall of text. I really do not see what there is to talk about so much. My argumentation would simply be, the child itself has a need for child support, and both parents are responsible.
The child had nothing to do with whatever contracts and decisions are done before its birth. Adoption works regarding child support, because there is someone taking over the responsibility of the parents. About woman's right to decide what to do with her own body and abortion, for me I see no need to argue, because it is only done the first few months of pregnancy, where the embryo does not yet really have a brain (or whatever makes one human) and is not yet a person.
(Edited because I just remembered an article I read a while back)
Germany's got pretty reasonable laws relating to child support anyways, makes sense that a citizen there wouldn't recognize any problems with it.
|
On September 19 2011 01:34 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested 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. 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. Show nested quote +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.
ok, you're delusional, it's official.
No more responses for you.
Calling me sexist because i think both parties should be able to decide if they want to raise a child? Then call men in their 20s and 30s developmentally teens haha, oh man, your true colors are finally revealed. All i want is an equal say in if someone wants to keep a kid or not, man and woman.
Anyway, when you can't dismiss a claim or rationally speak about something just call the other person racist/sexist/stupid, works every time!
|
You do know a lot of men just leave and not pay anything at all right?
|
On September 19 2011 04:13 lorkac wrote:
You do know a lot of men just leave and not pay anything at all right?
Statistics?
There are also women who squander child support money for herself, and not for her child. There are abusers from both genders. Not to mention the women gets the child a vast majority of the time when the couple splits.
|
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves.
|
I think the choice of abortions is not really about "whether or not you want to be a parent".
It's really more about "I have the right to do with my body as I please".
You, as a man, do not have the right to do whatever you want with the woman's body. You require her consent.
Until the baby is born, it's part of the woman. Blame mother nature for that one bro.
|
On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves.
You're assuming the female takes care of the child.
|
On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
women have scraped semen off rags and shoved it inside themselves to get pregnant)
can someone provide a credited example of this actually happening?? it just seems like another bullshit schoolyard rumour to me
|
On September 19 2011 05:02 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. You're assuming the female takes care of the child.
which is mostly the case, the courts almost always side with the women :/
by the way birth control works wonders people
|
I don't like abortion, I don't like divorce, and I don't like it when children have to be put up for adoption, it's all very sad. IMO, people should have to take care of their biological children indefinitely, but I know this is not possible, and I can accept that.
But what I can't accept is that women can get abortions because it is their body and child, so they can do whatever they want with it, but if she wants to keep it and the man doesn't then he has to pay her money out of his pocket because he has a dick, at least I think that's the reason, right?
I don't have to worry about ever paying child support because I use extra strength steel-framed condoms.
|
|
|
child support doesnt have to do with the parents; it has to do with the child. child support is ordered by courts to make sure all children have a good well-being. focusing on the rights of the parents and equal protection is off-key.
|
On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves.
The question is not wether the money is spent on the child or not... It's a question about the male not having a choise wether or not he wants to pay.
Either he will father the child. Raise it and everything.
Or else he will not want the child - in which case he will pay 3,600$ * 18 years (I reckon) which turns out to be 64,800$.
Is it fair that IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER NOT WANTING THE CHILD the woman can still claim 64,800$? Where in the opposite case... the father wanting it - but the mother doesn't... She will "just" have an abortion...
I have a hard time seeing the equality. Either way - if a woman is pregnant... She gets the upper hand.
I'm not saying women by any means are superior in society - but at this particular point - men really need a chance to get some legal rights.
|
On September 19 2011 05:10 MenSol[ZerO] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:02 buhhy wrote:On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. You're assuming the female takes care of the child. which is mostly the case, the courts almost always side with the women :/ by the way birth control works wonders people
I mean, assuming the woman spends the money on the child. I'm well aware a vast majority of children disputes ends in favor of women. It's completely bullshit, but that's not what this discussion is about.
|
Yes, it's happened, but the vast vast vast majority of unintended pregnancies have nothing to do with this. It's amazing how a few nutters can be brought up and presented as a legitimate argument to support an argument. Something like this happens SO RARELY that it's absurd to base any form of argument off of it.
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 05:31 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:10 MenSol[ZerO] wrote:On September 19 2011 05:02 buhhy wrote:On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. You're assuming the female takes care of the child. which is mostly the case, the courts almost always side with the women :/ by the way birth control works wonders people I mean, assuming the woman spends the money on the child. I'm well aware a vast majority of children disputes ends in favor of women. It's completely bullshit, but that's not what this discussion is about.
just so it is clear, the courts normally rule in favor of the custodial parent, not the woman. it just so happens that the custodial parent is normally the mother. it is not about man vs. woman; the law is designed to protect the child.
|
On September 19 2011 05:21 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. The question is not wether the money is spent on the child or not... It's a question about the male not having a choise wether or not he wants to pay. Either he will father the child. Raise it and everything. Or else he will not want the child - in which case he will pay 3,600$ * 18 years (I reckon) which turns out to be 64,800$. Is it fair that IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER NOT WANTING THE CHILD the woman can still claim 64,800$? Where in the opposite case... the father wanting it - but the mother doesn't... She will "just" have an abortion... I have a hard time seeing the equality. Either way - if a woman is pregnant... She gets the upper hand. I'm not saying women by any means are superior in society - but at this particular point - men really need a chance to get some legal rights.
is it fair for a child (who had no choice at all in his or her conception) not to receive adequate support because his parents are deadbeats (mother or father)? the father chose to have sex; he bears the consequences.
|
They definitely need to fix child support I agree. I heard of a few people that actually killed people over it a long with themselves. I heard one story about a guy that paid and his ex even started to collect alimony off of him. He got a second job to benefit himself since he couldn't make much with just one job while paying alimony and child support and his ex took him to court so that she could collect on his second job too. Well, turns out he ended up flipping out and killed her and himself.
It's in my opinion that the only women that collect child support from a man that never wanted to be a parent in the first place are weak women that need to rely on a man for money and cant support them self or their kid. So they abuse the system and take the money from the man that never wanted to be a father.
Personally, if I ever got a girl pregnant and I didn't want to be a parent I'd have nothing to do with the baby and I'd go a long and start a family with a women that I love and show her kid and her what they missed out on due to their greediness.
On September 19 2011 05:44 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 05:21 Mentalizor wrote:On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. The question is not wether the money is spent on the child or not... It's a question about the male not having a choise wether or not he wants to pay. Either he will father the child. Raise it and everything. Or else he will not want the child - in which case he will pay 3,600$ * 18 years (I reckon) which turns out to be 64,800$. Is it fair that IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER NOT WANTING THE CHILD the woman can still claim 64,800$? Where in the opposite case... the father wanting it - but the mother doesn't... She will "just" have an abortion... I have a hard time seeing the equality. Either way - if a woman is pregnant... She gets the upper hand. I'm not saying women by any means are superior in society - but at this particular point - men really need a chance to get some legal rights. is it fair for a child (who had no choice at all in his or her conception) not to receive adequate support because his parents are deadbeats (mother or father)? the father chose to have sex; he bears the consequences.
Yea, cause having sex should have consequences  .Sex is a basic human act and without it none of us would exist. To make it have consequences is retarded and the system regarding child support needs to be fixed. Furthermore, throwing someone in jail because they lack the money or don't pay child support is retarded and a waste of tax dollars.
|
[quote][QUOTE]On September 19 2011 05:49 Sovern wrote:
They definitely need to fix child support I agree. I heard of a few people that actually killed people over it a long with themselves. I heard one story about a guy that paid and his ex even started to collect alimony off of him. He got a second job to benefit himself since he couldn't make much with just one job while paying alimony and child support and his ex took him to court so that she could collect on his second job too. Well, turns out he ended up flipping out and killed her and himself. [QUOTE][/quote]
so, because of one situation we should destroy the whole system? also, alimony means they were married, its unrelated to child support.
[quote][QUOTE]It's in my opinion that the only women that collect child support from a man that never wanted to be a parent in the first place are weak women that need to rely on a man for money and cant support them self or their kid. So they abuse the system and take the money from the man that never wanted to be a father. [QUOTE][/quote]
this is stupid on so many levels. a woman gets pregnant for child support? that so stupid. child support covers, what, 10% of the total cost of a kid? get real dude.
[quote][QUOTE]Personally, if I ever got a girl pregnant and I didn't want to be a parent I'd have nothing to do with the baby and I'd go a long and start a family with a women that I love and show her kid and her what they missed out on due to their greediness. [QUOTE][/quote]
well, you are a deadbeat. point made.
[quote][QUOTE][QUOTE]On September 19 2011 05:44 dAPhREAk wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 19 2011 05:21 Mentalizor wrote:
[QUOTE]On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves.[/QUOTE]
The question is not wether the money is spent on the child or not... It's a question about the male not having a choise wether or not he wants to pay.
Either he will father the child. Raise it and everything.
Or else he will not want the child - in which case he will pay 3,600$ * 18 years (I reckon) which turns out to be 64,800$.
Is it fair that IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER NOT WANTING THE CHILD the woman can still claim 64,800$? Where in the opposite case... the father wanting it - but the mother doesn't... She will "just" have an abortion...
I have a hard time seeing the equality. Either way - if a woman is pregnant... She gets the upper hand.
I'm not saying women by any means are superior in society - but at this particular point - men really need a chance to get some legal rights.[/QUOTE]
is it fair for a child (who had no choice at all in his or her conception) not to receive adequate support because his parents are deadbeats (mother or father)? the father chose to have sex; he bears the consequences.[/QUOTE][QUOTE][/quote]
Yea, cause having sex should have consequences .Sex is a basic human act and without it none of us would exist. To make it have consequences is retarded and the system regarding child support needs to be fixed. Furthermore, throwing someone in jail because they lack the money or don't pay child support is retarded and a waste of tax dollars. [/QUOTE]
yes. having sex should have consequences. you bring a kid in this world, you take care of it.
your reference to tax dollars is just moronic. who do you think pays for the kids when the deadbeat father doesnt?
edit: well formating was fucked. got to go. fix later
|
On September 19 2011 05:00 darkscream wrote:
I think the choice of abortions is not really about "whether or not you want to be a parent".
It's really more about "I have the right to do with my body as I please".
You, as a man, do not have the right to do whatever you want with the woman's body. You require her consent.
Until the baby is born, it's part of the woman. Blame mother nature for that one bro.
These things don't exist in a vacuum. Child rearing laws exist in an environment where only women decide whether or not a baby is born and where women have possession of a child immediately after birth. The relationship is a one way street, in the sense that we can't ethically alter the environment, so the laws and policies have to compensate in a way that doesn't favor or disfavor genetically determined aspects.
|
On September 19 2011 05:08 Telebear wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
women have scraped semen off rags and shoved it inside themselves to get pregnant) can someone provide a credited example of this actually happening?? it just seems like another bullshit schoolyard rumour to me
I don't see why it would be hard to believe this has happened..
But i also expect men have say, purposely put a hole in a condom so that a girl would get pregnant.
As for the actual topic. I do think it's messed up in the cases where men aren't allowed to be equal partners in raising the child, don't have a say in whether or not it's birthed, and then are expected to assume financial responsibility. but life isn't fair and it's a complicated subject.
|
Perhaps men should be more careful where they" put" themselves if they are so worried about financial obligation.
Also, the whole child support system is broken in many ways. I fought for many years to receive child support from my ex, a physician making big $. He always tried to find a way out even though he "wanted" the children. Many men like to have children to reflect positively on them but they get out of doing the vast majority of the work of raising children, even in intact families!! Once, I was even ordered to pay support to my ex the doctor while the child lived with me!!
Both parties need to be accountable & responsible for their actions, including having & raising children.
|
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years, emotional trauma, scorned by friends, family, society.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion.
I think we got a raw deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Fixed. Unless you don't believe in first or second trimester abortions. Or, for that matter, morning-after pills.
Actually, I'm not even sure if women pay the cost of abortions any more in first world countries. Maybe in America, but I'm not sure of even that.
|
It reminds me of suing your friend because he was driving and wrecked the car even though neither of you was wearing a seat belt.
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Cost of abortion is only a few hundred dollars, less so depending on health care coverage. Abortion is also a safe medical procedure. Emotional trauma is related to scorn by society and depends a lot on where you live, so it can be either very bad or mild.
|
Even though I realise (by reading through a lot of posts) that the laws regarding that topic are obviously pretty controversial in the US, I'm pretty shocked how that is a lot of folks basis for arguing like they're suffering under acute brainlessness.
Blaming "weak and greedy" women for it and not being able to decide the abortion of a child as a man, really?
The OP is mainly responsible for directing this thread into a overall disgusting and phrasemongering discussion. There's no point in arguing that the laws have to be changed (in the US obviously...) and judgements have to be made considering every detail of such a case, but a lot of men are obviously venting a lot of frustration right here, making this another bullshit internet discussion
|
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.
Are you serious? What can woman no longer support herself at all? are they help-less armless droopy-eyed children? Welcome to the 21st century, if a man can support a child a woman can to.
|
Simplier thing.
CONDOMS !!!
|
If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant he is responsible to take care of that baby. End of story.
|
The no. 1 issue of this thread is the following question:
Is abortion OK or not?
Those who say yes it is OK, are likely to agree with the OP.
Those who say it's not OK are likely to disagree with the OP.
Personally I don't see a problem with abortion, so I somewhat agree with the OP but also including the clause that if the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, the woman should be forced to fully carry the pregnancy, but the man should pay for all the costs involved and the baby would obviously go to the father without child support.
HOWEVER: In countries where abortion is limited by law (excluding purely time restrictions) and the woman can't legaly abort her child, I think the current situation is perfectly fine.
TL;DR : Agree with OP, unless prohibited by law then current situation is fine.
Edit: yes I realise i'm a man, and i don't know what it's like to have a life growing in me etc. etc. but to be honoust, I wouldn't make this decision easy myself but I do think men have just as much right to make this choice as women.
|
OP: It's the law that is at fault.
The act of having unprotected sex (or the act of having sex itself) should be seen as a consent by both parties to accept the risk of pregnancy.
The law should be set so that both parties are equally responsible from that very moment.
|
At the moment there are so much more cases of men who dont pay for their childreen or leave their girlfriends in the middle of a pregnacy (or short after) than women who would abuse the child support system, you cant even compare that. And the argument of women who "rub someones semen" is absurd, its so absurd that an OP with such an argument actually shouldnt be responded to.
Women always carry the bigger risk in a pregancy.
If you dont want a baby, use protection!
If you want a child, talk to your girlfriend about it (or take a new gf who wants childreen).
But you cant force someone to carry out a baby for you.
You want equality? Then get all those millions fucktards that leave their familys and wifes out of some selfish reasons to fulfill their part first.
|
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.
Even were your objectionable premises (in italics) true, it wouldn't at all follow that unprotected sex outside of marriage was wrong. What is marriage but the approval of some sect about your personal life? A healthy and well-off heterosexual couple doesn't need marriage to raise a child any more than I needed a birth certificate to escape the womb.
On September 19 2011 07:03 Perdac Curall wrote:
If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant he is responsible to take care of that baby. End of story.
If that were the end of the story, we wouldn't have a thread open. Here is an alternative. If she consented, whether or not she knew the exact risk of pregnancy to her own body, she's responsible. Where was the pill? how about an emergency contraceptive? (Birth control outside of condoms exists.)
|
On September 19 2011 07:18 esperanto wrote:
At the moment there are so much more cases of men who dont pay for their childreen or leave their girlfriends in the middle of a pregnacy (or short after) than women who would abuse the child support system, you cant even compare that. And the argument of women who "rub someones semen" is absurd, its so absurd that an OP with such an argument actually shouldnt be responded to.
So we have our oppression olympics, then an appeal to the absurdity of something that actually happens. We've had men learn that they are fathers after giving blow jobs, or after throwing out condoms during sex at their partner's apartment. Ain't common but it happens. Something that's a lot more common, though, is forgetting to take birth control pills. There's a range of how selfish and single-minded people can be. The OP mentioned the extremes, which represent a unique and disturbing human rights case.
On September 19 2011 07:18 esperanto wrote:
You want equality? Then get all those millions fucktards that leave their familys and wifes out of some selfish reasons to fulfill their part first.
I'm sure that talking to them will convince them to abandon their selfish ways so that philosphical gender equality can be attained in our society.
|
Simple solution, mothers who don't have money to support a child should not be allowed to give birth. Unless the father consent to give child support.
|
I'm actually surprised that you don't need to do paper work if you're pregnant. Lot's of people aren't capable of raising a child adequately and make very low income yet it seems to me at first glance that these are the people popping out the most baby's and end up having kids that turn out to be criminals.
They should make it so that you can only have a set number of children and you can only have children if you make above a set threshold and can pass an evaluation test to determine if you can get a license that lets you raise a child. When a women gets pregnant the man should be notified by the courts and he should have to fill out paper work letting them know if he wants to financially abort or not. Right now the system reminds of this:
Women "OMG look at that brand new car, its so nice and pretty and it will love me, but I cant afford the car payments on my own. *takes man to court to make payments even though he doesn't want anything to do with any of it, and hes forced to make car payments for 18 years whether he wants to drive the car on the weekends or not.
|
On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children?
I really like this point. But I have a feeling this thread will get closed pretty quick.
|
i think its pretty obvious that women shouldn't be forced to have abortions under any circumstances. however, i think its also pretty obvious that if a man doesn't want a child and an accidental/unwanted pregnancy occurs, he shouldn't be forced to pay for it for the next 20 years (just like a woman wouldn't be forced to pay for it). i don't really see how anyone can argue with that, despite how much you guys want to post stuff like "just wear a condom!"
|
Every time I stumble upon something mentioning unwanted children, I get a panic attack thinking about all the kids I have potentially fathered to women I have forgot about.
|
This article and thought process is completely bullshit. a father should NEVER have to right to walk out on their children regardless of the circumstances. Any man who abandons their children is scum and should be executed immediately. Few people actually think about the child in these cases and i can tell you that being raised without a father is extremely painful. Every child needs a mother AND a father. end of story.
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
actually child support is 300/month if you make 30k/year. as you make more money, the child support increases.
not all women experience emotional trauma and the ruination of their body. also, a lot of the time, women get an abortion without friends, family, and society finding out. there are women with multiple abortions who keep partying like nothing is out of the ordinary.
also, just because the woman has to pay a cost in abortion doesn't mean you have to punish the man. what if the man covered the healthcare costs of the pregnancy and then his financial obligations were met. would that be a sufficient cost for you?
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 07:54 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences. not all women experience emotional trauma and the ruination of their body. also, a lot of the time, women get an abortion without friends, family, and society finding out. there are women with multiple abortions who keep partying like nothing is out of the ordinary.
I've first hand witnessed a friend go through an abortion. It is *NOT* pretty, and it is not anything a woman would go through lightly.
The reason they would seek one without friends, family, and society finding out s because of how much such a decision is stigmatized. The social backlash you would suffer for such a decision has a major impact on your life.
I'm sure somewhere out there are a few crazies who've had lots of abortions. The number of people who do that is so minute that it's a mere outlier. Again you can't just think up the most ridiculous example, and tout that as reasoning to support any argument.
edit: durrrr i can grammar
|
Being forced to support a child you didn't even want in the first place is somewhat screwed up tbh. But it's a delicate subject.
I'm actually somewhat baffled creating life and a new human is so open and simple in the strict societies we live in today, it dosen't really fit the scheme, but it's not like anyone can change that. It's abit offtopic either way.
All in all, there should be a possiblity for men to opt-out of child support, with some reasonable restrictions of course.
|
On September 19 2011 07:59 Xevious wrote:
wear a condom
They can break, and they aren't the only form of birth control that exists.
|
Intuitively, it seems obvious to me that a man can't force a women to get an abortion; likewise a women should not be able to force a man to pay to support for the baby if the man didn't want the child in the first place. So a "financial abortion" in the sense that a man could force a woman to abort to avoid paying child support seems absurd. But at the same time, it would be best for a system to be implemented that would absolve the man from paying support if he did not want the child.
|
On September 19 2011 07:50 TheLOLas wrote:
This article and thought process is completely bullshit. a father should NEVER have to right to walk out on their children regardless of the circumstances. Any man who abandons their children is scum and should be executed immediately. Few people actually think about the child in these cases and i can tell you that being raised without a father is extremely painful. Every child needs a mother AND a father. end of story.
Were you raised without a father? Because I was, and I'm fine.
On September 19 2011 08:16 itkovian wrote:
Intuitively, it seems obvious to me that a man can't force a women to get an abortion; likewise a women should not be able to force a man to pay to support for the baby if the man didn't want the child in the first place. So a "financial abortion" in the sense that a man could force a woman to abort to avoid paying child support seems absurd. But at the same time, it would be best for a system to be implemented that would absolve the man from paying support if he did not want the child.
By "financial abortion" they meant a termination of fiscal responsibility, not a literal abortion of the child.
|
There are two issues here. The first is the relationship between personal freedom and personal responsibility. I've noted numerous comments to the effect that using a condom solves this problem (actually that's totally irrelevant to what's being discussed). If you're in favor of the notion that by taking responsibility you remain in control of your life, however, then I don't see how you can disagree with what OP is saying.
A man who takes responsibility and wears a condom, takes responsibility and tells the woman he isn't ready or willing to be part of an unwanted pregnancy, and takes responsibility and pays for medical costs associated either with an abortion, or for arranging for an adoption is absolutely taking responsibility for his actions.
A man who mistakenly gets a woman pregnant and becomes indebted to her for child support because she decides she wants to keep the baby regardless of his desires is taking responsibility for her actions. There is a very large difference.
@theLOLas: your point is absolutely correct and also totally irrelevant. Children should indeed have a father and a mother, but you can't simultaneously criticize a man who doesn't wish to be a father (thus depriving the child of a father) while at the same time defending a woman who knowingly chooses to be a single mother (because she is doing the same thing -- depriving the child of a father).
The second issue is where moral imperative meets the practical limitations of our society. Casual sex in our society is just that -- casual sex. People need to take responsibility for their actions, but reasonably that can only go so far. Casual sex is not consent to be a parent, nor is it the doorway into financial obligation (particularly in light of the way our culture views sex). Morally this is the most inclusive and self-consistent view. Unfortunately, with the current limited number of practical options for a pregnant woman in our day and age, it is somewhat more difficult to reconcile practicality with moral imperative. Let me put it this way; if there was a fool proof method of contraception or an option similar to abortion but without the negative theological/ethical/physiological implications, noone would feel like they were throwing a pregnant woman under the bus for being pregnant, since it would no longer be a difficult situation.
My point, I suppose, is this. Morally it's not right to expect an unwilling "father" to submit to 20 years of child support for casual sex gone wrong, but due to the practical limitations of our current society its difficult to find a solution that works for everyone.
Edit: I should mention that I don't agree with theLOLas about executing people.
|
If a woman and I have sex with the sole purpose of pleasure and we discuss the "what if" situation of her getting pregnant (even though contraceptives were used) and come to the conclusion that neither of us want a child and that abortion would be the course of action taken if this situation arises - I shouldn't be financially responsible if she changes her mind after the fact and decides to have the baby anyway.
If however once she gets pregnant I state that I will help support the child then I should be responsible to either raise that child with her or financially support the baby. This is because by stating that I will help raise/support the child I'm having an impact on what she decides to do with the fetus - abort or give birth.
|
We simply need to have the courts allow a formal sex contract which can be signed by both parties prior to the act agreeing on what is to happen in the event of pregnancy.
Problem solved.
|
On September 19 2011 08:03 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 07:54 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences. not all women experience emotional trauma and the ruination of their body. also, a lot of the time, women get an abortion without friends, family, and society finding out. there are women with multiple abortions who keep partying like nothing is out of the ordinary. I've first hand witnessed a friend go through an abortion. It is *NOT* pretty, and it is not anything a woman would go through lightly. The reason they would seek one without friends, family, and society finding out s because of how much such a decision is stigmatized. The social backlash you would suffer for such a decision has a major impact on your life. I'm sure somewhere out there are a few crazies who've had lots of abortions. The number of people who do that is so minute that it's a mere outlier. Again you can't just think up the most ridiculous example, and tout that as reasoning to support any argument. edit: durrrr i can grammar
your first hand anecdote is equally as ridiculous to use as an 'argument' as the stories of crazy women who get multiple abortions.
my mom's friend was an abortion counselor for planned parenthood for 10 years, clients have a wide range of emotional experiences, herpderp anecdotes. So lets all try and get away from random anecdotes, while they are fun and have meaning in our lives, they are hardly logical arguments, the less fallacy the better.
|
On September 18 2011 20:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think imposing to a woman to abort is just monstrous. Not an option.
If a woman lies to get pregnant or anything like that, then maybe we can discuss whether it is the right to the father not to give a pension. But the abortion really is something that should be between the mother's hands, in my opinion.
Most cases you will have an unwanted child, a father who asks for abortion and a mother who refuses. And then, I think if it is not malicious from the mother, the guy just takes his responsibility.
Yeah this.
This topic would never be created by a man who either has a Daughter, a Wife or a Sister and if you still have one of these three and still consider this an option you're either very young or very stupid.
There is no way in hell this would be an option in a state of law and justice.
|
Everytime you have sex with your partner you are accepting the risk that you might get the girl pregnant. The reality is, a man opts in to a pregnancy as soon as he has sex with the woman. If you decide you made the wrong decision once your girl gets pregnant, too bad, you wanna opt out you gotta pay the dues. Take responsibility for your actions and accept that you can't force a woman to risk serious side effects both physical and pyschological just because you didn't think ahead about the possible consequences of sex. Most importantly understand that the very act of sex carries a risk of pregnancy and even as a man you're consenting to an equal amount of responsibility should that accidental pregnancy occur.
If you didn't sleep with the girl and she stole your sperm, no problem, you aren't responsible. If the woman raped you and got pregnant that way, no problem, you aren't responsible (and the woman just committed a criminal offense HURRAY!)
For those of you not convinced by this, I assume you believe that a woman choosing not to have an abortion implies that she is choosing to have the child despite your protests. Unfortunately abortion is an intrusive procedure, one that is not actually considered a way out of pregnancy for many women. For instance, women who can not abort for religious reasons cannot even consider abortion as an option, therefor she cannot abandon the child and so the man must not be allowed to abandon the child either. Equally, if the woman is fearing physical side effects such as the proposed theory that abortions cause breast cancer (whether it does or it doesn't) than the woman cannot be treated as having the choice to abandon the child via abortion and therefor the man cannot have the choice to abandon the child. All a woman needs is a single health concern to rule out abortion as a way out of pregnancy (even if the health concern is not absolutely confirmed false). Therefore it is simply best to assume the man consented to the same amount of responsibility over the child as the woman (unless we perhaps devise some wonderful technique of aborting the child with no risk at an early enough stage where no psychological harm can be identified, perhaps something like the morning after pill or a noninvasive alternative that could be invented in the future).
tl;dr? Each person accepts the responsibility of pregnancy at the moment you decide to have sex whether or not you used birth control, because abortion is too invasive to be considered birth control.
|
On September 19 2011 08:35 sevencck wrote:
There are two issues here. The first is the relationship between personal freedom and personal responsibility. I've noted numerous comments to the effect that using a condom solves this problem (actually that's totally irrelevant to what's being discussed). If you're in favor of the notion that by taking responsibility you remain in control of your life, however, then I don't see how you can disagree with what OP is saying.
A man who takes responsibility and wears a condom, takes responsibility and tells the woman he isn't ready or willing to be part of an unwanted pregnancy, and takes responsibility and pays for medical costs associated either with an abortion, or for arranging for an adoption is absolutely taking responsibility for his actions.
A man who mistakenly gets a woman pregnant and becomes indebted to her for child support because she decides she wants to keep the baby regardless of his desires is taking responsibility for her actions. There is a very large difference.
@theLOLas: your point is absolutely correct and also totally irrelevant. Children should indeed have a father and a mother, but you can't simultaneously criticize a man who doesn't wish to be a father (thus depriving the child of a father) while at the same time defending a woman who knowingly chooses to be a single mother (because she is doing the same thing -- depriving the child of a father).
The second issue is where moral imperative meets the practical limitations of our society. Casual sex in our society is just that -- casual sex. People need to take responsibility for their actions, but reasonably that can only go so far. Casual sex is not consent to be a parent, nor is it the doorway into financial obligation (particularly in light of the way our culture views sex). Morally this is the most inclusive and self-consistent view. Unfortunately, with the current limited number of practical options for a pregnant woman in our day and age, it is somewhat more difficult to reconcile practicality with moral imperative. Let me put it this way; if there was a fool proof method of contraception or an option similar to abortion but without the negative theological/ethical/physiological implications, noone would feel like they were throwing a pregnant woman under the bus for being pregnant, since it would no longer be a difficult situation.
My point, I suppose, is this. Morally it's not right to expect an unwilling "father" to submit to 20 years of child support for casual sex gone wrong, but due to the practical limitations of our current society its difficult to find a solution that works for everyone.
Edit: I should mention that I don't agree with theLOLas about executing people.
Very well-written post; summed up all my thoughts reading through this thread.
On September 19 2011 08:49 Tor wrote:
Everytime you have sex with your partner you are accepting the risk that you might get the girl pregnant. The reality is, a man opts in to a pregnancy as soon as he has sex with the woman. If you decide you made the wrong decision once your girl gets pregnant, too bad, you wanna opt out you gotta pay the dues. Take responsibility for your actions and accept that you can't force a woman to risk serious side effects both physical and pyschological just because you didn't think ahead about the possible consequences of sex. Most importantly understand that the very act of sex carries a risk of pregnancy and even as a man you're consenting to an equal amount of responsibility should that accidental pregnancy occur.
If you didn't sleep with the girl and she stole your sperm, no problem, you aren't responsible. If the woman raped you and got pregnant that way, no problem, you aren't responsible (and the woman just committed a criminal offense HURRAY!)
For those of you not convinced by this, I assume you believe that a woman choosing not to have an abortion implies that she is choosing to have the child despite your protests. Unfortunately abortion is an intrusive procedure, one that is not actually considered a way out of pregnancy for many women. For instance, women who can not abort for religious reasons cannot even consider abortion as an option, therefor she cannot abandon the child and so the man must not be allowed to abandon the child either. Equally, if the woman is fearing physical side effects such as the proposed theory that abortions cause breast cancer (whether it does or it doesn't) than the woman cannot be treated as having the choice to abandon the child via abortion and therefor the man cannot have the choice to abandon the child. All a woman needs is a single health concern to rule out abortion as a way out of pregnancy (even if the health concern is not absolutely confirmed false). Therefore it is simply best to assume the man consented to the same amount of responsibility over the child as the woman (unless we perhaps devise some wonderful technique of aborting the child with no risk at an early enough stage where no psychological harm can be identified, perhaps something like the morning after pill or a noninvasive alternative that could be invented in the future).
tl;dr? Each person accepts the responsibility of pregnancy at the moment you decide to have sex whether or not you used birth control, because abortion is too invasive to be considered birth control.
Well, men are held responsible even if women steal their sperm or rape them. And as for religious restrictions - it's not the man's fault that the woman chooses to believe whatever she believes.
|
On September 19 2011 07:50 TheLOLas wrote:
This article and thought process is completely bullshit. a father should NEVER have to right to walk out on their children regardless of the circumstances. Any man who abandons their children is scum and should be executed immediately. Few people actually think about the child in these cases and i can tell you that being raised without a father is extremely painful. Every child needs a mother AND a father. end of story.
But it is okay for the mother kill them?
Lets say a father is willing to raise the child himself. Should the mother still be allowed to kill the unborn?
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Situation 1 is spot on...
Situation 2... well... Man DOESN'T get the wanted child...
Woman DOESN'T pay... at least in Denmark your first 2 abortions are free (universal healthcare) - emotional trauma... Well, while this is true, this is her choise and is easier to deal with than an unwanted child, the man will be stuck with in situation 1... Body goes through hell... Hmm.. Sure... But with proper surgeons and doctors this should be over within a month... Woman is scorned? Lol wtf? You're from Canada... Not Somalia (not racist just making a point). In a 1st world country no one is scorning you for making the responsible choise. If you do not have the money/responsibility/skills to take care of a child - and then makes the choise of NOT having one... Nobody will look at you the wrong way. Heck, 2 of my (girl)friends had abortions. Sure, didn't see them for 1month afterwards.. But now they're happier than ever
|
On September 19 2011 07:50 TheLOLas wrote:
This article and thought process is completely bullshit. a father should NEVER have to right to walk out on their children regardless of the circumstances. Any man who abandons their children is scum and should be executed immediately. Few people actually think about the child in these cases and i can tell you that being raised without a father is extremely painful. Every child needs a mother AND a father. end of story.
Then what about homosexuel couples? Just your honest opinion... I'm curious...
|
On September 19 2011 08:49 Tor wrote:
Everytime you have sex with your partner you are accepting the risk that you might get the girl pregnant. The reality is, a man opts in to a pregnancy as soon as he has sex with the woman. If you decide you made the wrong decision once your girl gets pregnant, too bad, you wanna opt out you gotta pay the dues. Take responsibility for your actions and accept that you can't force a woman to risk serious side effects both physical and pyschological just because you didn't think ahead about the possible consequences of sex.
I can quite easily turn your reasoning on it's head. I'll use your reasoning and change the words slightly, let's see if you still agree with the statement.
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant. The reality is, a woman opts into a pregnancy as soon as she has sex with the man. If you decide you want him to be the father once you get pregnant, too bad, you wanna opt out you gotta pay the dues. Take responsibility for your actions and accept that you can't force a man to risk serious side effects both physical and pyschological just because you didn't think ahead about the possible consequences of sex.
Now don't get me wrong, I don't actually fully believe this statement, nor do I wish to come across as insensitive to women, I'm trying to make a point that your logic is slightly flawed. According to your view, women are offering terms of sex and men implicitly agree to them upon doing the act, and it's just that simple. The reality can be quite different.
|
i wonder if the law can force you to recognize a child as yours... would be interesting to see how it is done? what are they going to do? jail me for not wanting to take a DNA test?
|
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions.
|
On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions.
That's debatable, but my point was simply that such reasoning goes both ways.
|
On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions.
What is this? The bible-belt?
For alot of people sex has more to do with love, intimicy, fun, feelings and the occasional drunk blunder than it has to do with parenting - and personally I feel this is great.
I've been with my GF for 6years now. I'm still not ready to father her child, but should I just NOT have sex with her? Sex is the single most amazing experience when it's with a person you love. And I have told her several times, that at the moment I do not wish to be a father - and she somehow cheated with birthcontrol (skipped pills, made holly condoms or w/e this thread has come up with) would it then be MY responsibility - when I've already clearly told her on what conditions I'm having sex?
It is HER actions... Or even without the messing around with birthcontrol... if we by accident got pregnant... I've always claimed we did NOT have sex with the intention of having babies. Just with the attention of showing each other our love.
Did this ever occur to you? Pregnancy =/ the sole reason of sex
|
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.
You're right, life isn't fair. Thats why courts exist, to give some semblance of fairness and justice to the chaotic sprawl that is life. They shouldn't exist to compound the intrinsic unfairness of life, and the fact that you have accepted that as its purpose is just evidence of how broken our justice system is.
|
On September 19 2011 09:05 Manimal_pro wrote:
i wonder if the law can force you to recognize a child as yours... would be interesting to see how it is done? what are they going to do? jail me for not wanting to take a DNA test?
Court orders a DNA test after you're declared the father. Refusal constitutes contempt of court, so yes, jail.
|
The moment a man decides to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the exact same moment he puts himself at risk to face the consequences. If he (the man) so chooses to engage in such an action without protection or insight of where his semen goes then it is no ones fault but his own. Personally, I use a condom. After sex, I fill the condom up with water to see if it leaks (which means I am at risk). Afterwards, I flush the condom down the toilet. This provides security and assures me that I am safe to continue my daily life without any sort of worries. Victory loves preparation; if you want to prevent this from ever happening, then you have to eliminate all of the possibilities for it to happen.
On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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.
Also, women get to decide when they want to become a parent because they carry the baby in their stomach and face excruciating pain during labor. All the man has to do is ejaculate. The moment he doesn't monitor the situations (As I mentioned above) is the moment he gives up the right on if he wants to become a parent or not.
I don't see it as gender discrimination. I see calling it "gender discrimination" as an excuse to defend irresponsible men from a mistake that could have been prevented.
On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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?
Is the woman freed from financial obligations of child support? Your answer is, no. It was a sexual agreement. Both chose to reap the consequences by engaging in intercourse to begin with. Child support is a consequence of a bad relationship (a relationship that didn't work out) or a lustful engagement (one night stand, friend with benefits, etc.) therefore once you decide to have sex with that person your freedom to dodge child support has just been denied.
|
On September 19 2011 09:12 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions. What is this? The bible-belt? For alot of people sex has more to do with love, intimicy, fun, feelings and the occasional drunk blunder than it has to do with parenting - and personally I feel this is great. I've been with my GF for 6years now. I'm still not ready to father her child, but should I just NOT have sex with her? Sex is the single most amazing experience when it's with a person you love. And I have told her several times, that at the moment I do not wish to be a father - and she somehow cheated with birthcontrol (skipped pills, made holly condoms or w/e this thread has come up with) would it then be MY responsibility - when I've already clearly told her on what conditions I'm having sex? It is HER actions... Or even without the messing around with birthcontrol... if we by accident got pregnant... I've always claimed we did NOT have sex with the intention of having babies. Just with the attention of showing each other our love. Did this ever occur to you? Pregnancy =/ the sole reason of sex
I did not say pregnancy is the only time you should have sex. I said if you have sex you have to be ready to take responsibility for your actions. If she gets pregnant, you can't skip out on the child. You can have sex all you want with your gf and not get her pregnant I don't care. I'm saying if you do get your gf pregnant you be a man and be prepared to take care of that baby.
|
On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions.
is this the same real world where women can have sex but aren't held responsible for their own actions by aborting their child everytime they get pregnant?
abortion relieves women of the financial obligations of having a child as well as the responsibility of being ready and willing to take care of a child before having sex.
the only thing that is being proposed is relief of court-ordered financial obligations with the threat of jailtime for men.
|
On September 19 2011 10:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:The moment a man decides to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the exact same moment he puts himself at risk to face the consequences. If he (the man) so chooses to engage in such an action without protection or insight of where his semen goes then it is no ones fault but his own. Personally, I use a condom. After sex, I fill the condom up with water to see if it leaks (which means I am at risk). Afterwards, I flush the condom down the toilet. This provides security and assures me that I am safe to continue my daily life without any sort of worries. Victory loves preparation; if you want to prevent this from ever happening, then you have to eliminate all of the possibilities for it to happen. Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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. Also, women get to decide when they want to become a parent because they carry the baby in their stomach and face excruciating pain during labor. All the man has to do is ejaculate. The moment he doesn't monitor the situations (As I mentioned above) is the moment he gives up the right on if he wants to become a parent or not. I don't see it as gender discrimination. I see calling it "gender discrimination" as an excuse to defend irresponsible men from a mistake that could have been prevented. Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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? Is the woman freed from financial obligations of child support? Your answer is, no. It was a sexual agreement. Both chose to reap the consequences by engaging in intercourse to begin with. Child support is a consequence of a bad relationship (a relationship that didn't work out) or a lustful engagement (one night stand, friend with benefits, etc.) therefore once you decide to have sex with that person your freedom to dodge child support has just been denied.
I only have view of this from a child's point of view, (my parents split when i was quite young due to my mother being with someone else) I spent equal time with both my mother and father for the next 10 years. Yet my father was the one paying child support for all that time. That still seems hardly fair to me, he looked after us 50% of the time. Both my parents had jobs, what reason was there for child support to be paid, my father hadn't done anything wrong yet was left paying money out for over 10 years (I have younger siblings) leaving him financially crippled.
I have always thought that the system for such things in my country was flawed and still do. If one parent ups and leaves they are making the choice right there saying they don't need nor want their partners support (most times they take the children for 100% of the time). Yet they still wish to reap the benefits of their partners success. I hate reading all this you choose to have sex so you have to deal with the consequences. Well one apparently responsible adult chose to leave another for whatever reason, if they can't afford to look after their child alone because of financial woes maybe the child should go into foster care. Most times I have seen friends and family split up child support has been wanted just because they can, not because it is needed.
|
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means.
|
On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means.
That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children.
|
|
|
On September 19 2011 11:13 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:12 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means. That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children. Australia already has this in the form of the baby bonus; http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/baby-bonus/
What is the justification for this?
|
On September 19 2011 11:14 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:13 mcmartini wrote:On September 19 2011 11:12 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means. That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children. Australia already has this in the form of the baby bonus; http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/baby-bonus/ What is the justification for this?
Never had a child myself so not really sure about the justification to be honest just no that's how it is :/
|
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.
Like he said, it's not as far-fetched as you might think. It happens. Keyword: crazy.
|
On September 19 2011 11:12 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means. That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children.
http://overpopulationisamyth.com/
|
On September 19 2011 06:24 DoomsVille wrote:
Situation 1:
Man doesn't want child. Woman does. Man pays ~ $300/mth for 20 years.
Situation 2:
Man wants child. Woman doesn't. Woman pays cost of abortion, emotional trauma, body goes through hell. Woman is scorned by friends, family, society.
I think we got a good deal guys. I don't know how you just ignore the non-monetary consequences.
Even putting the oppresion olympics aside, that's a terrible argument. Not all abortions are traumatic late-term processes. Assuming the woman is paying even a modicum of attention to her body, it's very easy to obtain a first trimester abortion that has very little of the problems you described. And even later on, the assumption of emotional trauma and social scorn is unwarranted.
Not to mention that in either case, the woman's choice overrules the man, so any costs she incurs were her own to decide upon, unlike the man's.
On September 19 2011 06:31 oBlade wrote:
It reminds me of suing your friend because he was driving and wrecked the car even though neither of you was wearing a seat belt.
Except that in this case, the mother is the driver and is suing the passenger.
That site is BS.
The scientific consensus is that population growth is a major problem. The InterAcademy Panel Statement on Population Growth already concluded this 17 years ago.
|
On September 19 2011 10:56 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions. is this the same real world where women can have sex but aren't held responsible for their own actions by aborting their child everytime they get pregnant? abortion relieves women of the financial obligations of having a child as well as the responsibility of being ready and willing to take care of a child before having sex. the only thing that is being proposed is relief of court-ordered financial obligations with the threat of jailtime for men.
I could never understand the whole sending someone to jail because they don't have money. I'm not talking about just child support, I'm talking about any court ordered payments. If someone doesn't have the money sending them to jail wont magically fix their problems. Seems like all that the government cares about is money. To the contrary, sending them to jail will support them.
Anyways, last I heard you cant go to jail for not paying anymore in the states because the jails were getting over crowded with people that weren't paying. Not to mention that they're not a threat to society so whats the point of putting them in jail if they're broke. Waste of tax dollars.
|
In a 100% logical environment this makes sense.
But abortions really get people worked up for some reason.
|
On September 19 2011 11:42 MattBarry wrote:
But abortions really get people worked up for some reason.
Abortion is not the issue here. Child support is.
The only link is that men have no longer have control over women's bodies and cannot usually effectively compel abortions, which is a good thing, but now have to take 'responsibility' for something beyond their control.
|
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me
|
On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me
what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support?
i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs?
|
On September 19 2011 10:56 PrideNeverDie wrote:
is this the same real world where women can have sex but aren't held responsible for their own actions by aborting their child everytime they get pregnant?
abortion relieves women of the financial obligations of having a child as well as the responsibility of being ready and willing to take care of a child before having sex.
the only thing that is being proposed is relief of court-ordered financial obligations with the threat of jailtime for men.
I don't think abortions are a good thing either! Personally if I got a girl pregnant I would do everything in my power to stop her from having an abortion, including offering to take care of it myself if she didn't want to.
I am totally for jailtime for deadbeat fathers who can't take enough responsibility in life to pay child support. If you are responsible for another life in this world and you skip out on that responsibility you cannot call yourself a man. Anyone who would do that to their child deserves to have the law come after them. It is sad that you have to have the law force the boys of this world to own up and be men but if that's what's needed to get some deadbeats to take care of their own kids I have no sympathy for them.
|
On September 19 2011 12:18 Perdac Curall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:56 PrideNeverDie wrote:
is this the same real world where women can have sex but aren't held responsible for their own actions by aborting their child everytime they get pregnant?
abortion relieves women of the financial obligations of having a child as well as the responsibility of being ready and willing to take care of a child before having sex.
the only thing that is being proposed is relief of court-ordered financial obligations with the threat of jailtime for men. I don't think abortions are a good thing either! Personally if I got a girl pregnant I would do everything in my power to stop her from having an abortion, including offering to take care of it myself if she didn't want to. I am totally for jailtime for deadbeat fathers who can't take enough responsibility in life to pay child support. If you are responsible for another life in this world and you skip out on that responsibility you cannot call yourself a man. Anyone who would do that to their child deserves to have the law come after them. It is sad that you have to have the law force the boys of this world to own up and be men but if that's what's needed to get some deadbeats to take care of their own kids I have no sympathy for them.
Your attitude is a clear example of what is wrong with this situation. "Deadbeat father" is the term you use to describe a man who decides not to take care of a child he never consented to have. What term should we use to describe a woman who decides to have a child that she cannot financially support?
I also detest the attitude that a man must sacrifice himself for others in order to be a real man. We are striving for an age of equality between men and women, so lets stop it with that bullshit.
|
A bunch of British scientists got together in the 1900s and concluded "scientifically" that the earth was overpopulated as well. It was called the science of eugenics. It was oligarchal Malthusian thinking when Giammaria Ortes set the "carrying capacity" of the planet at 3 billion people in 1790, it was Malthusian when it was called eugenics, and it is Malthusian today.
Nevermind the fact that mankind can use his creative mind to overcome resource constraints, the population statistics themselves prove the fallacy of overpopulation. There is no major country or region on earth today that is predicted to have a birth rate of 2.1 or above by 2050, and that includes India and China. Europe's birthrate is as low as 1.3 in some countries already, and averages around 1.7. World population is estimated to stabilize around 9 billion and then begin to decline over the next 5 decades. There is absolutely no population crisis.
|
On September 19 2011 11:14 Demonhunter04 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:13 mcmartini wrote:On September 19 2011 11:12 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means. That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children. Australia already has this in the form of the baby bonus; http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/baby-bonus/ What is the justification for this?
Quite simple. The large baby boomer generation is going to retire soon and with their god damn low birth rates there's going to be a relatively large amount of pensioners and a relatively low amount of workers to support them. An upside down population pyramid that will fuck up the economy. Superannuation might alleviate some of this.
|
On September 19 2011 11:02 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:The moment a man decides to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the exact same moment he puts himself at risk to face the consequences. If he (the man) so chooses to engage in such an action without protection or insight of where his semen goes then it is no ones fault but his own. Personally, I use a condom. After sex, I fill the condom up with water to see if it leaks (which means I am at risk). Afterwards, I flush the condom down the toilet. This provides security and assures me that I am safe to continue my daily life without any sort of worries. Victory loves preparation; if you want to prevent this from ever happening, then you have to eliminate all of the possibilities for it to happen. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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. Also, women get to decide when they want to become a parent because they carry the baby in their stomach and face excruciating pain during labor. All the man has to do is ejaculate. The moment he doesn't monitor the situations (As I mentioned above) is the moment he gives up the right on if he wants to become a parent or not. I don't see it as gender discrimination. I see calling it "gender discrimination" as an excuse to defend irresponsible men from a mistake that could have been prevented. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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? Is the woman freed from financial obligations of child support? Your answer is, no. It was a sexual agreement. Both chose to reap the consequences by engaging in intercourse to begin with. Child support is a consequence of a bad relationship (a relationship that didn't work out) or a lustful engagement (one night stand, friend with benefits, etc.) therefore once you decide to have sex with that person your freedom to dodge child support has just been denied. I only have view of this from a child's point of view, (my parents split when i was quite young due to my mother being with someone else) I spent equal time with both my mother and father for the next 10 years. Yet my father was the one paying child support for all that time. That still seems hardly fair to me, he looked after us 50% of the time. Both my parents had jobs, what reason was there for child support to be paid, my father hadn't done anything wrong yet was left paying money out for over 10 years (I have younger siblings) leaving him financially crippled. I have always thought that the system for such things in my country was flawed and still do. If one parent ups and leaves they are making the choice right there saying they don't need nor want their partners support (most times they take the children for 100% of the time). Yet they still wish to reap the benefits of their partners success. I hate reading all this you choose to have sex so you have to deal with the consequences. Well one apparently responsible adult chose to leave another for whatever reason, if they can't afford to look after their child alone because of financial woes maybe the child should go into foster care. Most times I have seen friends and family split up child support has been wanted just because they can, not because it is needed.
Well, you may hate reading and hearing about the consequences part but it's true. It's also frustrating when women abuse the child support for their own personal gain. With that said, you have opened up my eyes to believe that women should have the same amount of money drafted from their account by the government and put into a savings fund that's assigned to a trustee and the child can only activate the account when he/shes fatherly child support expires (at the age of 18). Women should also send receipts to the government of the child support funds (provided by the father) showing that they spent 100% of the funds for the kids best interest.
|
On September 19 2011 12:16 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support? i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs?
He moved and we don't know his address. The CSA (Child support Agency) keeps asking us for his address and we don't know it, and they say they can't find him. His side of the family knows where he is but won't tell us. We can't afford to talk to a lawyer who is any good so I dont know wtf to do.
I was on a waiting list for housing the whole 3 months I was living on the street, I was 17. I applied for my own welfare but they didn't give me shit because I needed both parents to sign some bullshit.
I stole food and clothing and eventually got a job.
|
This thread is a prime example of why I never want children. Unless I'm insanely rich
And I just want to make this abundantly clear: Children are absolutely awful creatures. They simply exist to consume. This nonsense about them being special and innocent is nonsense. That's just malarkey thought up by the progenitors of these little monsters to make themselves feel better about the absolute wreck there life is in now because of this human being you're not growing as a pet. This applies to about 90% of kids. There are some kids which are great, polite, intelligent and generally enjoyable to be around, but they get picked on by the neanderthal majority in high-school and turn into serial killers.
I'm speaking from experience here, I was a terrible child to my father now that i think about it, and I Honestly have no idea why he even bothered.
|
On September 19 2011 13:03 Klipsys wrote:
This thread is a prime example of why I never want children.
A wise move if you don't want to pay for them.
Many innocent children the world over would have been spared suffering if their dumbass parents were smart enough to not have children
|
substantial distinction between men and women man
in the end it's really for the best interests of the chlid. woman gives time, guy gives money.
or course some cases are unfair. judges tend to be more sympathetic to the woman. that's because in case of doubt, it's better to err on the side of too much child support than too little.
|
On September 19 2011 09:12 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions. What is this? The bible-belt? For alot of people sex has more to do with love, intimicy, fun, feelings and the occasional drunk blunder than it has to do with parenting - and personally I feel this is great. I've been with my GF for 6years now. I'm still not ready to father her child, but should I just NOT have sex with her? Sex is the single most amazing experience when it's with a person you love. And I have told her several times, that at the moment I do not wish to be a father - and she somehow cheated with birthcontrol (skipped pills, made holly condoms or w/e this thread has come up with) would it then be MY responsibility - when I've already clearly told her on what conditions I'm having sex? It is HER actions... Or even without the messing around with birthcontrol... if we by accident got pregnant... I've always claimed we did NOT have sex with the intention of having babies. Just with the attention of showing each other our love. Did this ever occur to you? Pregnancy =/ the sole reason of sex
He's just saying that if you get her pregnant, don't bitch and moan and blame the world. Suck it up.
|
On September 19 2011 13:48 BarbieHsu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 09:12 Mentalizor wrote:On September 19 2011 09:07 Perdac Curall wrote:
Every time a woman has sex with a partner who has told her he is unready and unwilling to be a father, she is accepting the risk that she might get pregnant.
If you are unready and unwilling to have children you should not be having sex!!!! Welcome to the real world where you are responsible for your own actions. What is this? The bible-belt? For alot of people sex has more to do with love, intimicy, fun, feelings and the occasional drunk blunder than it has to do with parenting - and personally I feel this is great. I've been with my GF for 6years now. I'm still not ready to father her child, but should I just NOT have sex with her? Sex is the single most amazing experience when it's with a person you love. And I have told her several times, that at the moment I do not wish to be a father - and she somehow cheated with birthcontrol (skipped pills, made holly condoms or w/e this thread has come up with) would it then be MY responsibility - when I've already clearly told her on what conditions I'm having sex? It is HER actions... Or even without the messing around with birthcontrol... if we by accident got pregnant... I've always claimed we did NOT have sex with the intention of having babies. Just with the attention of showing each other our love. Did this ever occur to you? Pregnancy =/ the sole reason of sex He's just saying that if you get her pregnant, don't bitch and moan and blame the world. Suck it up.
No he isn't, he's specifically saying people shouldn't have sex unless they're ready and willing to have a child, which is ridiculous!
|
On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
A bunch of British scientists got together in the 1900s and concluded "scientifically" that the earth was overpopulated as well. It was called the science of eugenics. It was oligarchal Malthusian thinking when Giammaria Ortes set the "carrying capacity" of the planet at 3 billion people in 1790, it was Malthusian when it was called eugenics, and it is Malthusian today.
If you're seriously arguing that the joint statement of the worldwide academies of science is somehow a eugenics conspiracy, then you're an idiot and we have nothing more to talk about.
On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
Nevermind the fact that mankind can use his creative mind to overcome resource constraints, the population statistics themselves prove the fallacy of overpopulation. There is no major country or region on earth today that is predicted to have a birth rate of 2.1 or above by 2050, and that includes India and China. Europe's birthrate is as low as 1.3 in some countries already, and averages around 1.7. World population is estimated to stabilize around 9 billion and then begin to decline over the next 5 decades. There is absolutely no population crisis.
You don't get it. The reason that the population will stabilize at around 9 billion and then decline because that is the point at which the planet will no longer have enough resources to sustain additional population growth.
The thing is, reaching that point results in a dramatic decrease in the quality of life.
|
On September 19 2011 12:34 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:14 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:13 mcmartini wrote:On September 19 2011 11:12 Demonhunter04 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:04 nukeazerg wrote:
People should be paid to have kids. Child support paid by government no matter your means. That sounds like a terrible idea, considering we are already overpopulated; we don't need to give people even more reason to have children. Australia already has this in the form of the baby bonus; http://www.familyassist.gov.au/payments/family-assistance-payments/baby-bonus/ What is the justification for this? Quite simple. The large baby boomer generation is going to retire soon and with their god damn low birth rates there's going to be a relatively large amount of pensioners and a relatively low amount of workers to support them. An upside down population pyramid that will fuck up the economy. Superannuation might alleviate some of this.
Australia changed their laws to prevent anchor babies and then started paying this baby bonus. America needs to do these two things. Children from established American families are needed to provide the resources for the care of the elderly.
|
On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.
Just make sure they get the local anesthetic done right. God was that a pain full day, at least I dented the wall.
|
On September 19 2011 05:21 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 04:57 Haemonculus wrote:
For the record, the average child support paid by men to women comes out t $3,600 a year, or roughly $300 a month.
Considering how much it costs to actually raise a child, I doubt there's a lot of money for the parent with custody to "squander" on themselves. The question is not wether the money is spent on the child or not... It's a question about the male not having a choise wether or not he wants to pay. Either he will father the child. Raise it and everything. Or else he will not want the child - in which case he will pay 3,600$ * 18 years (I reckon) which turns out to be 64,800$. Is it fair that IN THE CASE OF THE FATHER NOT WANTING THE CHILD the woman can still claim 64,800$? Where in the opposite case... the father wanting it - but the mother doesn't... She will "just" have an abortion... I have a hard time seeing the equality. Either way - if a woman is pregnant... She gets the upper hand. I'm not saying women by any means are superior in society - but at this particular point - men really need a chance to get some legal rights.
People are correctly pointing out the inequality but I think it is sad that the focus is on bringing men down to the level of women rather than putting an end to the notion of destroying "unwanted" children. How about instead of asking that men can abandon children to single mothers or asking that they be destroyed we could ask that both men and women be responsible for the children that they produce.
Why should the right to have random sex with strangers trump the rights of the children? Not that legal abortion protects the right to have free sex, it just takes away potential "consequences" on the part of women. The whole notion of abortion, whether actual physical abortions or these so-called financial abortions just promotes the idea that unmitigated sex is what is important, and the lives that are produced are just nuisances.
|
On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations?
An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato?
|
For about the trillionth time, this thread is not at all about abortion, a problem brought on by a rather misleading thread title. The question at hand isn't "Should men have the right to force women to get abortions or put a child up for adoption?" The question everyone who read the entire OP instead of just the title is "Should men be forced to pay child support in the event that he doesn't want the baby?".
This is a right granted to women - the right to choose whether or not to pay for a baby in the case of an unwanted pregnancy - but not to men.
IMO the answer is pretty clear based on gender equality - whoever wants the baby pays for the child support. And I think all this is decided at the point when the child is born, after that if only the women wants the child, then the father isn't asked for child support, if they both want the baby, then both parents will support the child.
I don't mean to sound cruel or callous, I just don't want to see a baby used as a financial weapon.
|
On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato?
You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill"
User was temp banned for this post.
|
I think if a guy has to wear a rubber, a girl has to take birth control pill, But so many women choose not to take the pill, while almost every guy chooses to wear a rubber. Guys shouldn't be on the hook for 18 years paying child support, just because the girl he had sex with chose not to take birth control.
|
On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill"
Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll.
|
On September 19 2011 16:58 gosuMalicE wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill" Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll.
Do you agree with Obama that a healthy baby that was accidentally fully birthed during a partial birth abortion should be killed because that was the original choice?
You calling a fetus a potato shows you to be a giant brainwashed left wing nutjob or psychosis, so you need to think about your views.
|
I agree that women have some absurd protections under the law when it comes to sexual protection / sexual discrimination, but that is based on rectifying, or attempting to protect them from the abuses they used to face in the past. As per relating to this topic, I honestly must say I agree with you, but I also must infer that society as a whole is in a fucking shithole, especially the Western Hemisphere. We have no morals left, we can't keep marriages together, and our children are out of control. Now, I agree that liberties are more important than morality, however I also feel that MEN should not be worrying about this problem, only teenagers should be.
Long story short: once you grow up, your views on children, women, marriage and life all change. Morality and social norms far outweigh liberties in the long run, due to the fact that our liberties are directly derived from how we act and function in society.
|
Funny poke at the irony present in the system.
No real solution, so men just gotta step it up. Wait for a quality woman and don't get her pregnant. Gotta do what's in the realm of possible, because the reverse (forced abortions, no required financial support in any way) is just untenable.
|
On September 19 2011 17:20 Danglars wrote:
Funny poke at the irony present in the system.
No real solution, so men just gotta step it up. Wait for a quality woman and don't get her pregnant. Gotta do what's in the realm of possible, because the reverse (forced abortions, no required financial support in any way) is just untenable.
male birth control is being developed as we speak
|
On September 19 2011 17:02 nukeazerg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 16:58 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 19 2011 16:17 nukeazerg wrote:On September 19 2011 15:29 gosuMalicE wrote:On September 18 2011 20:43 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy. what about the child who is killed through a woman's choice to abort. if you are going to use the "child is innocent" argument to force men into financial obligation, shouldn't you first use the argument to stop women from killing innocent children? i agree that forcing women to abort due to the father's wishes should not be considered, but what about the financial obligations? An abortion inst "killing" anything per say a fetus is not a sentient object, could I "kill" a potato? You Have No respect for human life. The term fetus includes a fully functional human. To say thats a potato shows psychosis. You and the Hussein Obama could hang out. He recommends letting babies out of the womb die. His words were "Don't want to burden the original decision to kill" Well we obviously have different opinion on what constitutes "human life", and while in not saying yours is inherently wrong, you should really examine the way you respond to people because you sound like either a brainwashed right wing nutjob or a giant troll. Do you agree with Obama that a healthy baby that was accidentally fully birthed during a partial birth abortion should be killed because that was the original choice? You calling a fetus a potato shows you to be a giant brainwashed left wing nutjob or psychosis, so you need to think about your views.
Well now I KNOW you are trolling, excuse me if i stop responding to you.
|
Slightly off-topic, but please don't go out and make abortion this horribly unsafe and physically damaging procedure. Childbirth is infinitely times more dangerous, yet people still manage to have children, so I imagine abortion can't be all that bad from that perspective. Obviously there are moral and emotional issues, but those depend a lot more on cultural context. (there's people from all over the world arguing here who will probably all differ)
|
On September 19 2011 12:52 vol_ wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:16 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support? i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs? He moved and we don't know his address. The CSA (Child support Agency) keeps asking us for his address and we don't know it, and they say they can't find him. His side of the family knows where he is but won't tell us. We can't afford to talk to a lawyer who is any good so I dont know wtf to do. I was on a waiting list for housing the whole 3 months I was living on the street, I was 17. I applied for my own welfare but they didn't give me shit because I needed both parents to sign some bullshit. I stole food and clothing and eventually got a job.
Cases like yours where a father does not pay child support while hoarding millions of dollars are exceedingly rare. Almost all "dead beats" do not pay because they don't have the money.
It is also a fact that women who are ordered to pay support are much more likely to not pay the support than men. You will never hear about anything other than "dead beat dads" though because politicians score points when they demonize men, they lose points when they demonize women.
|
On September 19 2011 14:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
A bunch of British scientists got together in the 1900s and concluded "scientifically" that the earth was overpopulated as well. It was called the science of eugenics. It was oligarchal Malthusian thinking when Giammaria Ortes set the "carrying capacity" of the planet at 3 billion people in 1790, it was Malthusian when it was called eugenics, and it is Malthusian today. If you're seriously arguing that the joint statement of the worldwide academies of science is somehow a eugenics conspiracy, then you're an idiot and we have nothing more to talk about. Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:32 Perdac Curall wrote:
Nevermind the fact that mankind can use his creative mind to overcome resource constraints, the population statistics themselves prove the fallacy of overpopulation. There is no major country or region on earth today that is predicted to have a birth rate of 2.1 or above by 2050, and that includes India and China. Europe's birthrate is as low as 1.3 in some countries already, and averages around 1.7. World population is estimated to stabilize around 9 billion and then begin to decline over the next 5 decades. There is absolutely no population crisis.
You don't get it. The reason that the population will stabilize at around 9 billion and then decline because that is the point at which the planet will no longer have enough resources to sustain additional population growth. The thing is, reaching that point results in a dramatic decrease in the quality of life.
I don't know why this is getting so off topic, but I have to ask, a decrease in the quality of life for which people?
The native populations of Europe are falling, and the non recent immigrant populations of the United States and Canada are stable. The population of Japan is falling, and I'm not sure about South Korea and Australia but I'll guess that they are either stable or falling.
You are saying that if China, India, Africa and Brazil continue to have a population explosion that the whole world will be on the hook? This is why I still stick to nationalism and reject globalism.
And how does abortion come into play in a global population debate anyways? Does anyone think that some rich white women having an abortion in order to avoid cramping her lifestyle will do anything to offset the increasing population in the third world and currently industrializing nations?
|
If men could give birth, we'd have drive-by abortions.
"Hi, can I have a Big Mac and a coat hanger please."
Well, we're not discussing abortion right. But that's so much easier to have an opinion on.
This subject is actually difficult. In Sweden everyone pays for all the kids (Taxes) so the father is not obligated (by law) to pay anything. The only thing I know for sure is that no child should ever have to suffer because of stupid, irresponsible parents.
Also, does the child support vary with the father's income in the US? If the father's income drops, does the child support as well? You'd think that there could be a standardized amount, regardless of social status/income. I don't see how you can justify some childing needing more/less money to get by.
|
I can only speak from a Danish point of view but reading the thread here it feels like there are plenty of similarities between the different western countries.
I'm gonna tell my personal story that doesn't directly relates to the OP, but still shows in part what is wrong with the legislation.
I have a daughter with my ex. Now, we get along just fine, not much arguing and we see eachother now and then. Our daughter is living equally between us, usually spending one weeks each place (we live very close for this exact reason). Even so not only am I forced to pay to the mother of my child, she also receives different kinds of funding from the government. Now, we both agreed this was silly, and so I transfer her the money every month, deduct it from my taxes, she pays me back the full amount. I pay less tax, she gets money from the government because she is a "single parent". Of course that works out just fine in our case but it's obvious how the laws are completely miscontructed and fit for 1950's instead of 2011.
I can't for the life of me figure out why a young girl shoudl have os much power over a guy. They both chose to have sex. It's either no one's fault that the condom broke, the pill didn't work etc or it's the girls fault for lying to the guy. Yet when it comes to deciding what to do the girl has all the say. She can right there and then say, that even though he is only gonna be spending limited time with the child he will have to pay for it the next 20 years.
Now, no one is suggesting forced abortion, but if the guy clearly states before hand he's not interterested in having the baby he shouldn't be forced to pay for it. The girl is fine to have the baby by herself but then she has to be the one looking out for it and paying for it (or the government can do that, if that's your country's thing)
It basicly comes down to this simple problem: A girl can have sex with anyone she wants at any time she wants in any fashion she wants and still don't have to worry about becomming a mom if she don't want to. A guy cannot.
I think that is a problem in a modern equal-rights, sexually liberated society.
|
My 0.02$ comes here. Keep in mind I am just a foolish teenager and probably have no opinion of value.
Anyway, I have a girlfriend and we have sex. We have sex because we enjoy the feeling of intimacy that comes with it, and it feels really good of course.
Having sex != wanting to have kids
Sex is just much more than trying to have kids, so you can't use that as an argument. What if I want to express love to my girlfriend? Should I have to risk getting a kid every time? That is just stupid in my opinion.
Also, if you think about it objectively, you realize you can NEVER, EVER, EVER trust another human being 100% because you don't know what the hell is going on in their minds. Even if you think a person wouldn't/would do something, all that you have to support that opinion is your impression of the person and what they say. You never know what the person has inside their heads and how people will react to different situations (sometimes we don't even know ourselves until we are in that position).
So, are men, as soon as we decide to have sex with a female, supposed to take the risk of paying child support and being burdened with a child for ~20 years?
This makes even less sense as you realize that a woman has an equal say in the matter (if she wants to have sex or not) but she can decide to abort the fetus (I say fetus because it's not a human being in this stage yet) no matter the reason?
So the woman is pretty much safe, while the man has to gamble with 20 years of his life every time he has sex? Does not sound fair to me.
Anyway, what I propose is simple:
The male should be able to decide if he wants to pay child support in case of an eventual child. Should he decide not to pay, he will have nothing to do with the child, it will not even exist in his eyes.
This decision has to be made while in the time where the woman still can abort the child (preferably even before it has happened) and there has to be some kind of proof, like a written contract or something.
If this doesn't sound fair to you, you're probably a feminist (not the ones fighting for equality, but the ones trying to make a matriarchy), right-wing nutjob or just plain evil.
|
the laws around child costudy and child support are fucking retarded and completely redicoulous. but that is actually fine women -> dogs -> men !
|
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
OK, so first if this change was made it would essentially lead to a "your problem now!" issue occurring probably not infrequently. That would cause far more problems than there are current situations that maybe don't make complete sense.
Second, why are people having irresponsible sex and not considering the after effects? I'm not saying no one has ever made a mistake but there's always just not having sex unprotected and there are morning after pills if something does go wrong.
To address the issue at the core of this, no you shouldn't have a right to just risk creating another life cuz it felt nice and then have no responsibility for it. If you're in a relationship you should both know where you stand on the issue ahead of time so you can make an informed decision and if you're having a one night stand, first that's your problem and second in 99% of cases she's going to make sure you're wearing a condom.
Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
Now with the negativity out of the way, there are some things that are currently wrong.
First, if a woman impregnates herself without your knowledge (I'm sure this is an urban legend, the logistics are just mind boggling, but still) then that should be considered a crime and at that point the man shouldn't be held responsible. Equally if it was in any way forced (in some way rape) then that should also be considered a crime for which the man is not responsible.
Second, the more important case about child support should be who takes care of the child generally, the current situation at least here is a terrible mother is preferential to a loving father by default and you go from there. That's wrong in my opinion.
Finally blanket payment requirements are a little too rigid and they should be carefully considered for everyone's individual cases.
|
On September 19 2011 22:16 macil222 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 12:52 vol_ wrote:On September 19 2011 12:16 PrideNeverDie wrote:On September 19 2011 12:05 vol_ wrote:
There needs to be more strict laws and ways to enforce child support payments.
You brought a life into the world you better fucking take care of it. It is too easy for people to get out of child support.
I know from self experience and lived on the street for 3 months because on our version of wellfare my mother couldn't afford to take care of 2 kids while multi millionaire father was getting remarried and buying a mansion on the waterfront.
My younger brother had to drop out of school and start work at the age of 14 illegally to survive.
The selfishness of some people when it comes to their own children fucking disgust me.
Obviously it is a completely different story if the woman somehow got a hold of your semen and impregnated herself, but if you fucked her without a rubber too bad.
E: wow got a bit worked up with that but its something that hits home with me. If anyone knows of any ways I can contribute to the cause of child support please pm me what are the child support laws in australia? why wasn't your father forced to pay child support payments? how did he get out of child support? i'd like to learn more about your situation. i thought australia had good welfare programs. how come you weren't being taken care of by government programs? He moved and we don't know his address. The CSA (Child support Agency) keeps asking us for his address and we don't know it, and they say they can't find him. His side of the family knows where he is but won't tell us. We can't afford to talk to a lawyer who is any good so I dont know wtf to do. I was on a waiting list for housing the whole 3 months I was living on the street, I was 17. I applied for my own welfare but they didn't give me shit because I needed both parents to sign some bullshit. I stole food and clothing and eventually got a job. Cases like yours where a father does not pay child support while hoarding millions of dollars are exceedingly rare. Almost all "dead beats" do not pay because they don't have the money. It is also a fact that women who are ordered to pay support are much more likely to not pay the support than men. You will never hear about anything other than "dead beat dads" though because politicians score points when they demonize men, they lose points when they demonize women.
Hmm, interesting. Do you have any material on deadbeat moms?
|
Men should only be exempt from dealing with their children if the woman deceived the man to get pregnant or refused to use birth control. Otherwise, it is a man's responsibility to contribute financially to the child's life. For example, if a woman refused to use a condom it would absolve the man's responsibility.
The problem is that it is very rare that we can be certain that pregnancy is impossible. Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean she gives her consent to raise a child any more than the man did. Neither does it mean she gives her consent to an abortion. The chance nature of pregnancy means that in having sex, both the man and the woman must accept that pregnancy (and contributing to a child financially) is a possibility and a responsibility. With that said, it is also both party's right to demand thorough birth control.
I don't think I need to address the idea of mandated abortion.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
OK, so first if this change was made it would essentially lead to a "your problem now!" issue occurring probably not infrequently. That would cause far more problems than there are current situations that maybe don't make complete sense.
Second, why are people having irresponsible sex and not considering the after effects? I'm not saying no one has ever made a mistake but there's always just not having sex unprotected and there are morning after pills if something does go wrong.
To address the issue at the core of this, no you shouldn't have a right to just risk creating another life cuz it felt nice and then have no responsibility for it. If you're in a relationship you should both know where you stand on the issue ahead of time so you can make an informed decision and if you're having a one night stand, first that's your problem and second in 99% of cases she's going to make sure you're wearing a condom.
Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
Now with the negativity out of the way, there are some things that are currently wrong.
First, if a woman impregnates herself without your knowledge (I'm sure this is an urban legend, the logistics are just mind boggling, but still) then that should be considered a crime and at that point the man shouldn't be held responsible. Equally if it was in any way forced (in some way rape) then that should also be considered a crime for which the man is not responsible.
Second, the more important case about child support should be who takes care of the child generally, the current situation at least here is a terrible mother is preferential to a loving father by default and you go from there. That's wrong in my opinion.
Finally blanket payment requirements are a little too rigid and they should be carefully considered for everyone's individual cases.
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem.
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
|
On September 20 2011 00:19 CCitrus wrote:
Otherwise, it is a man's responsibility to contribute financially to the child's life.
Why?
|
On September 19 2011 11:42 MattBarry wrote:
In a 100% logical environment this makes sense.
But abortions really get people worked up for some reason.
Somebodies life being executed/dismembered should be taken seriously. If you made the mistake of opening up your legs without protection or knew the condom broke and did not take Plan B directly after then it is nobodies fault but your own (I am talking to the the ladies). Abortion should be illegal if you really look at the clear cut picture and disect the definition of what abortion is.
|
On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
Seeing as we're talking about a case in which the man doesn't want the child, we must assume protection was used. Therefore I'd say it's more like:
Yes it was my gun, and yes I checked that it wasn't loaded but one round just happen to have stuck at the back of the gun, where I couldn't have seen it without physically opening the entire weapon(as a side note, this can actually happen in some assault weapons, and there have been a few such cases in which the weapon unintentionally exploded/shot the bullet). And it's true I didn't aim it to his face, but he placed the gun on the corner of the table and when I fell I knocked it over, completely breaking the safety mechanism and the weapon shot even though the safety was on! How can I be responsible for murder???
That's how I see it - you took the proper precautions, and yet a few months later you're left standing around, looking up and saying "good one".
|
Oh by the way, if you are a supporter of the "keep things the way they are now" or "man up and deal with it".
Type "how do i secretly" into google searchbar and see the first option that comes up.
THESE PEOPLE EXIST.
|
I might be considered old-fashioned and this has nothing to do with religion either but if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to deal with a potential kid - end of (my) story.
|
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this.
OK, so first if this change was made it would essentially lead to a "your problem now!" issue occurring probably not infrequently. That would cause far more problems than there are current situations that maybe don't make complete sense.
Second, why are people having irresponsible sex and not considering the after effects? I'm not saying no one has ever made a mistake but there's always just not having sex unprotected and there are morning after pills if something does go wrong.
To address the issue at the core of this, no you shouldn't have a right to just risk creating another life cuz it felt nice and then have no responsibility for it. If you're in a relationship you should both know where you stand on the issue ahead of time so you can make an informed decision and if you're having a one night stand, first that's your problem and second in 99% of cases she's going to make sure you're wearing a condom.
Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
Now with the negativity out of the way, there are some things that are currently wrong.
First, if a woman impregnates herself without your knowledge (I'm sure this is an urban legend, the logistics are just mind boggling, but still) then that should be considered a crime and at that point the man shouldn't be held responsible. Equally if it was in any way forced (in some way rape) then that should also be considered a crime for which the man is not responsible.
Second, the more important case about child support should be who takes care of the child generally, the current situation at least here is a terrible mother is preferential to a loving father by default and you go from there. That's wrong in my opinion.
Finally blanket payment requirements are a little too rigid and they should be carefully considered for everyone's individual cases. So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem. Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane Bullshit and completely unfair.
lol bro, the only way a man could "opt out" of raising a child is to have some foolish woman sign a contract indicating that if she becomes pregnant by your semen, you are exempt from providing child support. I don't even know if that would work. It seems like the only legitimate way of getting out of such a financial crisis (if possible).
|
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with?
Yeah, that's pretty much it. You don't have to carry it for nine months or undergo a medical procedure or risk complications and death, so I think being responsible with when and who you have sex with isn't really asking much.
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem.
There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible.
Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no.
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
It's a risk for both, it's not like a woman doesn't have to put anything at all in to getting an abortion, having the child or raising it. Any solution that involves forcing someone else through surgery or forcing someone in to a possibly fatal incident can be no one's decision but their own, regardless of if someone has to pay a fair amount towards the upkeep of what was at least 50% their decision at one point.
Sex is a risk, you don't get to transfer all of it to the woman just because she can undergo surgery to make your life easier later on.
|
On September 20 2011 00:32 Calliopee wrote:
I might be considered old-fashioned and this has nothing to do with religion either but if you're old enough to have sex you're old enough to deal with a potential kid - end of (my) story.
And that's all she wrote. Good stuff
|
On September 20 2011 00:29 BlazeFury01 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 11:42 MattBarry wrote:
In a 100% logical environment this makes sense.
But abortions really get people worked up for some reason. Somebodies life being executed/dismembered should be taken seriously. If you made the mistake of opening up your legs without protection or knew the condom broke and did not take Plan B directly after then it is nobodies fault but your own (I am talking to the the ladies). Abortion should be illegal if you really look at the clear cut picture and disect the definition of what abortion is.
So basically, because you believe that abortion should be illegal, then it means that women should go through pregnancy and make economic and physical hardship while being pregnant. Abortion is allowed because the Supreme Court correctly decided that a woman has control over her own body and by banning abortion, you make the woman a slave to some other human being. A human baby and human fetus are instinctual creatures. There's no memory inside of them. I never had awareness inside the womb and you didn't have awareness either.
|
On September 20 2011 00:36 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? Yeah, that's pretty much it. You don't have to carry it for nine months or undergo a medical procedure or risk complications and death, so I think being responsible with when and who you have sex with isn't really asking much. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem. There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible. Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
It's a risk for both, it's not like a woman doesn't have to put anything at all in to getting an abortion, having the child or raising it. Any solution that involves forcing someone else through surgery or forcing someone in to a possibly fatal incident can be no one's decision but their own, regardless of if someone has to pay a fair amount towards the upkeep of what was at least 50% their decision at one point. Sex is a risk, you don't get to transfer all of it to the woman just because she can undergo surgery to make your life easier later on.
You are right about sex being a risk, not only for pregnancy but also for STDs.
Children and adults alike, if you are reading this "USE PROTECTION" it will save you a world of headaches and life altering experiences.
|
On September 20 2011 00:19 CCitrus wrote:
Men should only be exempt from dealing with their children if the woman deceived the man to get pregnant or refused to use birth control. Otherwise, it is a man's responsibility to contribute financially to the child's life. For example, if a woman refused to use a condom it would absolve the man's responsibility.
The problem is that it is very rare that we can be certain that pregnancy is impossible. Just because a woman has sex doesn't mean she gives her consent to raise a child any more than the man did. Neither does it mean she gives her consent to an abortion. The chance nature of pregnancy means that in having sex, both the man and the woman must accept that pregnancy (and contributing to a child financially) is a possibility and a responsibility. With that said, it is also both party's right to demand thorough birth control.
I don't think I need to address the idea of mandated abortion.
you are pretty hardcore retarded, WHY? why should it ever be a task statued to man. and stupid punks like you annoy me for real. U guys delibertly claim that feminism is good and that everyone should have equal rights in all terms such as laber prosperity, and so on with the bullshit. how does what u claim fit in with the feminisms arguement? it does not and is always dodged and this is the reason i hate feminism because it isnt about equal rights its about women having double standards that only reize theyre profitable potentional. u cant have it both ways, or should not be able to. And it is because of men like u women can have it theyre way anyway anytime and anyhow cuz u are a little pussy ur self. perfect example of the redudant tool.
and despite all of this u still claim that feminism is working towards equallity how often do u see signs, taughts or even desideratum of with answer the following questions?
Do you work to abolish alimony?
Do you encourage equality in regards of child custody togheter with abort?
Do you even work agaisnt feminists who are men haters?
lets put it into a sc2 formed post, versatilty existed amongst zerg and got removed (infestor nerf), but in this case the double standard is stronger than ever and is not gonna change no matter what.
what is even more fun is that im gonna be called a misogynist for this
/excuse the poor english and typos im in a hurry
|
Men have a choice, use a condom
|
On September 20 2011 00:38 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:29 BlazeFury01 wrote:On September 19 2011 11:42 MattBarry wrote:
In a 100% logical environment this makes sense.
But abortions really get people worked up for some reason. Somebodies life being executed/dismembered should be taken seriously. If you made the mistake of opening up your legs without protection or knew the condom broke and did not take Plan B directly after then it is nobodies fault but your own (I am talking to the the ladies). Abortion should be illegal if you really look at the clear cut picture and disect the definition of what abortion is. So basically, because you believe that abortion should be illegal, then it means that women should go through pregnancy and make economic and physical hardship while being pregnant. Abortion is allowed because the Supreme Court correctly decided that a woman has control over her own body and by banning abortion, you make the woman a slave to some other human being. A human baby and human fetus are instinctual creatures. There's no memory inside of them. I never had awareness inside the womb and you didn't have awareness either.
[/QUOTE]you make the woman a slave to some other human being.[QUOTE]
The woman made herself a slave the second she decided to open her legs without protection. It's he own fault.
[Quote]A human baby and human fetus are instinctual creatures. There's no memory inside of them. I never had awareness inside the womb and you didn't have awareness either.[/QUOTE]
Science is proven wrong daily. Just because nobody remembers being inside the fetus doesn't mean the memory of it never existed. If humans could retain a vivid memory of everything they have experienced, I would believe you. But Humans forget things and well, that's what makes us human. So, your saying a fetus is less human?
|
On September 20 2011 00:36 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? Yeah, that's pretty much it. You don't have to carry it for nine months or undergo a medical procedure or risk complications and death, so I think being responsible with when and who you have sex with isn't really asking much. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem. There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible. Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no.
So let me get this straight.
Men have to abstain from having sex and the only option they deserve is, Yes, I'll have sex and care for our child should you get pregnant and you want to keep the baby or No, we cannot have sex. Yet, women get to say yes/no to sex and then again, gets to decide all completely on her own accord yes/no to keep the baby and make you pay for it?
You say it's the man's responsibility to say NO if he doesn't want to risk a committed relationship with kids, but by doing so are acknowledging it's not the woman's responsibility to say no, because SHE can end the pregnancy, plan B, abortion, whatever. So women get the 'right' to have sex whenever, and where ever they want because they get to be the sole deciders in keeping/raising a kid?
Little bit silly.
:boggle:
*unrelated to your post but however found that google fill in, well done. Search... 'How do i secretly.. 'get pregnant' first most common request into google. And people wonder why this issue is so debated. hah.
|
On September 20 2011 00:36 Iyerbeth wrote:
There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible.
Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no.
There is a way for women to have sex with anyone they want and still opt out of raising a child.
Reading your posts really makes my brain hurt because you exagerate everything to the extremes to try and show a point that isn't there. No, impregnating someone isn't the same as shooting someone with a riffle in the face, sorry. If you really think that yourself, please make it clear that that is actually your standpoint so people can rightfully ignore you. Otherwise stop making stupid exagerations and try to address the points raised instead.
Daimai said it much better than me:
The male should be able to decide if he wants to pay child support in case of an eventual child. Should he decide not to pay, he will have nothing to do with the child, it will not even exist in his eyes.
This decision has to be made while in the time where the woman still can abort the child (preferably even before it has happened) and there has to be some kind of proof, like a written contract or something.
I can't see how this can be bad in any scenario. Please tell me what could possibly be bad about this?
On a side note: If peope are against abortion I can understand why they are against this. That makes perfect sense. But I'm assuming that we are talking about this in the context of modern western society and not the 1300 Dark Ages so that shouldn't be a problem. Don't turn this into a discussion about abortion, that has no place here.
|
It makes sense to be so but then again is still forcing someone to undergo a surgery ( unless there is another safe method to abort that im no aware of )... i believe many countries might be against that.
Secondly i haven't saw this argument to much but there are a lot of religious ppl or even non-religious ppl who would agree that a fetus is a "person", i personally disagree with that but they are entitled to there option and they for a majority in some countries.
So in the next 50-70 years while there is still a risk to undergo that surgery ( even if its proly top 10 lowest risk anesthetic requiring surgery .... its still a risk ) and while ppl like the above still form such a large portion of each countries population i believe its simply impractical.
Also props to whoever found the " How do i secretly... " thing.... never thought id see that o.o
|
On September 20 2011 00:36 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? Yeah, that's pretty much it. You don't have to carry it for nine months or undergo a medical procedure or risk complications and death, so I think being responsible with when and who you have sex with isn't really asking much.
How many girls that you've slept with would you be comfortable raising a child with? Maybe you were dating differently in high-school, but I didn't exactly look for the most motherly women on the cheer leading squad.
Sorry but I disagree. I don't understand how you can force someone who doesn't want a child to be a father? It's bad for the child and for the dad. This obsession we have with this nonsensical notion of "sanctity of life" is insane! Uncared for children are only a problem if they're allowed to be born.
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem.
There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible.
Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no.
Again this comes down to, don't have sex with women you wouldn't want kids with. So I should never have sex because I don't want kids? I'm forced to get a vasectomy "just in case" she's a raving lunatic who's on some god binge and is convinced raising a child while working part time at Fridays is a good idea?
Guys, let's be realistic. A forced father is almost never as good as an intentional one. This is about the child ultimately, why should they be forced to live a shitty life as a burden because their mom decided it be a good idea to wing it and hope dad would foot the bill? I honestly think the ability to breed freely should be removed somehow form humans. The ability to create life is simply too powerful for most people to handle.
On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
It's a risk for both, it's not like a woman doesn't have to put anything at all in to getting an abortion, having the child or raising it. Any solution that involves forcing someone else through surgery or forcing someone in to a possibly fatal incident can be no one's decision but their own, regardless of if someone has to pay a fair amount towards the upkeep of what was at least 50% their decision at one point.
Sex is a risk, you don't get to transfer all of it to the woman just because she can undergo surgery to make your life easier later on.
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
|
On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions.
Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
|
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
Did your parents never teach you life isn't usually fair according to your personal definition of what fair is?
Here is a question: Let's assume that you get laid and the girl gets pregnant and this arrangement absolving you of all responsibility exists, and you both sign up to this arrangement.
A year after the baby is born you discover that the mother is neglecting it, or that despite doing all she can she and the baby are not doing so well. It grows up in a life of poverty.
If you were that baby, what view would you take as an adult as to what your father did?
|
On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:36 Iyerbeth wrote:On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
So I should prepare to have a child with every women I have sex with? Yeah, that's pretty much it. You don't have to carry it for nine months or undergo a medical procedure or risk complications and death, so I think being responsible with when and who you have sex with isn't really asking much. How many girls that you've slept with would you be comfortable raising a child with? Maybe you were dating differently in high-school, but I didn't exactly look for the most motherly women on the cheer leading squad. Sorry but I disagree. I don't understand how you can force someone who doesn't want a child to be a father? It's bad for the child and for the dad. This obsession we have with this nonsensical notion of "sanctity of life" is insane! Uncared for children are only a problem if they're allowed to be born. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
That's insane. The entire point of this thread is that women don't have to accept that same limitation because they can have an abortion, whereas men are stuck regardless of their own interests. There needs to be a way for men to opt-out of raising a child. The bottom line is it happens anyway, so I really don't see what the big deal is. If a women has a random one night stand and gets pregnant and wants to keep it, that's her problem. Show nested quote +
There is a way for men to opt out of raising a child, they either don't have sex, or they pay child support. They still don't have to do 99% of the work then. You also speak of abortion like it's some "oh I'm just popping in to get an abortion on my way home, so sort yourself dinner tonight, thanks" kinda thing. No woman in her right mind is going to want to have an abortion and as both a man and a couple you have the easiest method of avoiding them possible.
Without meaning to be crude, you'd be surprised how easy it is to not stick your thing in to a woman. If you don't want to be in a committed relationship that might involve kids it's your responsibility to say no.
Again this comes down to, don't have sex with women you wouldn't want kids with. So I should never have sex because I don't want kids? I'm forced to get a vasectomy "just in case" she's a raving lunatic who's on some god binge and is convinced raising a child while working part time at Fridays is a good idea? Guys, let's be realistic. A forced father is almost never as good as an intentional one. This is about the child ultimately, why should they be forced to live a shitty life as a burden because their mom decided it be a good idea to wing it and hope dad would foot the bill? I honestly think the ability to breed freely should be removed somehow form humans. The ability to create life is simply too powerful for most people to handle. Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 00:26 Klipsys wrote:
Let's say the opposite is true. (Women doesn't want a kid, man does) Can I force her to not have an abortion? So men are basically fucked either way? So Sex for men is an inherent risk whereas for women it's merely an inconvenience? I've know women who've gotten DOZENS of abortions, but no one tells them to stop having sex. A guy knocks a girl up and is smart enough to know he isn't ready for something like that, and everyone claims he's a deadbeat. Insane
Bullshit and completely unfair.
Show nested quote +
It's a risk for both, it's not like a woman doesn't have to put anything at all in to getting an abortion, having the child or raising it. Any solution that involves forcing someone else through surgery or forcing someone in to a possibly fatal incident can be no one's decision but their own, regardless of if someone has to pay a fair amount towards the upkeep of what was at least 50% their decision at one point.
Sex is a risk, you don't get to transfer all of it to the woman just because she can undergo surgery to make your life easier later on.
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
lol dude bad decisions are the risk not sex.
|
On September 20 2011 02:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Did your parents never teach you life isn't usually fair according to your personal definition of what fair is?
Birds and the beeeeeeeees
|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
But that's where you have it wrong though. The choice isn't between abortion or having safer sex. Of course if that was the case everyone would choose safer sex. Do you think people get a kick out of abortions?!
The choice is between a pregnant women having a baby she either doesn't want or can't provide for or aborting it. Yeah, ideally they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Ideally people wouldn't rob eachother. Ideally there would be no poor/rich people only happy people everywhere, dancing as they hold eachother hands. This is the real world though. Girls/women are going to get pregnant at times when they don't want a baby, whether by accident or stupidity. In that situation aborting the pregnancy seems to be the best solution.
Anyway this thread isn't even about abortion. It's about whether or not women should be able to decided if a man should become a father or not
|
On September 20 2011 02:12 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances. But that's where you have it wrong though. The choice isn't between abortion or having safer sex. Of course if that was the case everyone would choose safer sex. Do you think people get a kick out of abortions?! The choice is between a pregnant women having a baby she either doesn't want or can't provide for or aborting it. Yeah, ideally they wouldn't get pregnant in the first place. Ideally people wouldn't rob eachother. Ideally there would be no poor/rich people only happy people everywhere, dancing as they hold eachother hands. This is the real world though. Girls/women are going to get pregnant at times when they don't want a baby, whether by accident or stupidity. In that situation aborting the pregnancy seems to be the best solution. Anyway this thread isn't even about abortion. It's about whether or not women should be able to decided if a man should become a father or not
...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own.
|
On September 20 2011 02:10 DeepElemBlues wrote:Did your parents never teach you life isn't usually fair according to your personal definition of what fair is? Here is a question: Let's assume that you get laid and the girl gets pregnant and this arrangement absolving you of all responsibility exists, and you both sign up to this arrangement. A year after the baby is born you discover that the mother is neglecting it, or that despite doing all she can she and the baby are not doing so well. It grows up in a life of poverty. If you were that baby, what view would you take as an adult as to what your father did?
If a mother who didn't have the finances to provide for a baby somehow manage to get sperm from a donor would you blame the donor when the child was mistreated?
I don't get why, if the guy isn't interested in becommming a father, but the girl then choose to have it anyway even though she can't provide for it and look after it, and suddenly the father is the bad guy? He was the one realistic enough to know it was a rubbish idea to have a child. There is even a good chance he knew the girl well enough to know whe wouldn't be a good mother at that stage in her life.
In relation to that, what if the guy wants to have a baby but the girl don't? Well the answer to that seems obvious to anyone so I can't see why it's not obvious the other way around.
EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists.
|
I think people are getting too convoluted and mixed up in words like 'abortion' (since its such a hot button issue) and women's rights etc.
Nobody is advocating (with a real point in this thread) that men should be able to force any type of medical procedure or abortion on the woman.
All we are saying is there needs to be a time, for sake of consistency the time limit could be the same for a woman's decision to abort, that a man could opt-out, just as the woman can.
I fail to see anyone in this thread argue effectively that both parties shouldn't have a choice once conception has occured. It's bogus to think it's ok for only one sex to decide 'yes' or 'no' to being a parent.
Imagine if the gender roles were reversed and men carried the child, would there still be this huge commotion? Both sexes deserve a chance to terminate (through contract, abortion, whatever) a pregnancy, or parental rights.
If you disagree please show why both sexes shouldn't have this choice, show why only women get to make the decision for both individuals. DONT get caught up with extreme scenarios and scary words like abortion, you do nothing for the conversation.
|
On September 19 2011 11:02 mcmartini wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2011 10:03 BlazeFury01 wrote:The moment a man decides to engage in sexual intercourse with a woman is the exact same moment he puts himself at risk to face the consequences. If he (the man) so chooses to engage in such an action without protection or insight of where his semen goes then it is no ones fault but his own. Personally, I use a condom. After sex, I fill the condom up with water to see if it leaks (which means I am at risk). Afterwards, I flush the condom down the toilet. This provides security and assures me that I am safe to continue my daily life without any sort of worries. Victory loves preparation; if you want to prevent this from ever happening, then you have to eliminate all of the possibilities for it to happen. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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. Also, women get to decide when they want to become a parent because they carry the baby in their stomach and face excruciating pain during labor. All the man has to do is ejaculate. The moment he doesn't monitor the situations (As I mentioned above) is the moment he gives up the right on if he wants to become a parent or not. I don't see it as gender discrimination. I see calling it "gender discrimination" as an excuse to defend irresponsible men from a mistake that could have been prevented. On September 18 2011 19:59 PrideNeverDie wrote:
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? Is the woman freed from financial obligations of child support? Your answer is, no. It was a sexual agreement. Both chose to reap the consequences by engaging in intercourse to begin with. Child support is a consequence of a bad relationship (a relationship that didn't work out) or a lustful engagement (one night stand, friend with benefits, etc.) therefore once you decide to have sex with that person your freedom to dodge child support has just been denied. I only have view of this from a child's point of view, (my parents split when i was quite young due to my mother being with someone else) I spent equal time with both my mother and father for the next 10 years. Yet my father was the one paying child support for all that time. That still seems hardly fair to me, he looked after us 50% of the time. Both my parents had jobs, what reason was there for child support to be paid, my father hadn't done anything wrong yet was left paying money out for over 10 years (I have younger siblings) leaving him financially crippled. I have always thought that the system for such things in my country was flawed and still do. If one parent ups and leaves they are making the choice right there saying they don't need nor want their partners support (most times they take the children for 100% of the time). Yet they still wish to reap the benefits of their partners success. I hate reading all this you choose to have sex so you have to deal with the consequences. Well one apparently responsible adult chose to leave another for whatever reason, if they can't afford to look after their child alone because of financial woes maybe the child should go into foster care. Most times I have seen friends and family split up child support has been wanted just because they can, not because it is needed.
This is a problem with the legal system, it does not invalidate that both parents are equally responsible. For some reason, in your case, the father paid child support even though there was a shared custody arrangement. In canada: "If each parent has the child at least 40% of the time, the Guidelines say there is “shared custody”. When there is shared custody, the amount of support paid to the parent with custody might be less than the amount set out in the table." This is just one of the many guidelines (including joint custody options and varying childsupport payments depending on certain needs or time spent with the child) that are designed to prevent your parents particular situation from occuring.
|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
The real problem with America is people like you unwilling to live in the real world, and unwilling to use the multitude of technology available to us. Abortion isn't birth control, it's birth prevention and it's the best one we have since its 100%. Only charlie can survive abortions.
How about this, I'll have a kid and then put it into cryogenic stasis until I'm stable and able to provide for it.
I hope everyone realizes, children are a prime reason for so many of the issues going on right now in this country, The reason we have rampant crime and a devaluation of morals in this society is because kids are being born that their patents don't want! This has an enormous cascading effect on these children's psyche and if no one gives a shit about them, they're not going to care about any of us. My father has worked with children who have terrible parents (who should NEVER have been allowed to breed) these kids are angry, aggressive, and suffer from extreme depression, and they don't even understand why. It's because the love from their parents is forced, and they know deep down they're unwanted! Imagine growing up and having your father look at you, and blame you for all of the things he couldn't do because of one night he had with the women he now can't stand.
There should be a license to have children, both parents need to have graduated college, both be employed, pass drug test, physc evaluation, no criminal history, and should have to be at least 35. I can't believe there are people here who think teen mom and 21 yearold grand parents is somehow a better solution that just more abortions. It should be illegal for high schoolers to have kids, same goes for anyone who isn't 100% ready to commit to it.
|
On September 19 2011 22:26 macil222 wrote:
I don't know why this is getting so off topic, but I have to ask, a decrease in the quality of life for which people?
The native populations of Europe are falling, and the non recent immigrant populations of the United States and Canada are stable. The population of Japan is falling, and I'm not sure about South Korea and Australia but I'll guess that they are either stable or falling.
You are saying that if China, India, Africa and Brazil continue to have a population explosion that the whole world will be on the hook? This is why I still stick to nationalism and reject globalism.
It's a decrease in the quality of life for everyone. While technology allows us to produce enough food for everyone, the costs of increased food production include massive environmental damage, including biodiversity loss (look up the ongoing Holocene extinction), global warming, deforestation, and loss of topsoil.
We also don't have enough water and energy resources for everyone already, which is why conflicts and genocides are carried out all over the world to battle for these precious commodities.
No matter how nationalistic you are, you will be affected.
On September 19 2011 22:26 macil222 wrote:
And how does abortion come into play in a global population debate anyways? Does anyone think that some rich white women having an abortion in order to avoid cramping her lifestyle will do anything to offset the increasing population in the third world and currently industrializing nations?
Because right-wingers inevitably come up with shoddy arguments to support their anti-abortion views, which includes the idea that we need more babies even though that completely goes against the scientific consensus on overpopulation.
|
On September 20 2011 02:20 xDaunt wrote:
...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own.
Accidents happen. Condoms don't have 100% success rates, nor do any other form of birth control. Women sometimes lie about being on birth control, and deliberately impregnate themselves without that man's consent. Women rape men.
In all of these scenarios, the law holds men financially 'responsible' for something beyond their control. It's very easy to google up the horror stories where women drug and rape men or rape minors and then force the men to pay child support. How 'bout let's stop pretending that this is a black and white issue where all men who don't want to pay child support are 'deadbeat dads'?
On September 20 2011 02:29 crms wrote:
I think people are getting too convoluted and mixed up in words like 'abortion' (since its such a hot button issue) and women's rights etc.
Nobody is advocating (with a real point in this thread) that men should be able to force any type of medical procedure or abortion on the woman.
All we are saying is there needs to be a time, for sake of consistency the time limit could be the same for a woman's decision to abort, that a man could opt-out, just as the woman can.
I fail to see anyone in this thread argue effectively that both parties shouldn't have a choice once conception has occured. It's bogus to think it's ok for only one sex to decide 'yes' or 'no' to being a parent.
Imagine if the gender roles were reversed and men carried the child, would there still be this huge commotion? Both sexes deserve a chance to terminate (through contract, abortion, whatever) a pregnancy, or parental rights.
If you disagree please show why both sexes shouldn't have this choice, show why only women get to make the decision for both individuals. DONT get caught up with extreme scenarios and scary words like abortion, you do nothing for the conversation.
It's also worth mentioning that women don't have to choose abortion to opt-out, as they also have the unilateral option to choose putting up the baby for adoption.
Abortion has absolutely nothing to do with this issue and is being deliberately used to cloud it up.
|
On September 20 2011 01:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 01:28 Klipsys wrote:
The point is sex shouldn't be a risk!
And here we come to it.... This one little sentence encompasses everything that is wrong with American society today: a lack of self-accountability and a steadfast refusal to accept the consequences of our actions. Seriously, just put on a fucking condom and be done with it. Using abortion as a means of birth control is reprehensible, and should only be done in exigent circumstances.
Can you cite eras where there was more self-accountability?
|
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that?
|
On September 20 2011 00:04 Iyerbeth wrote:
OK so this argument is fairly silly in my opinion. I try to pay attention to male rights issues as and when they come up (though often working through the crazies is hard) but this one is just plain absurd.
Well you see your honour, yes it was my gun, and yes I did load it and it's true I aimed it in to his face and I even pulled the trigger but I didn't mean for him to die! How can I be responsible for murder??? Surely he's partially to blame for not having a skull made out of solid steel installed! I can't be expected to have my next 20 years ruined because of something he *chose* not to do.
The above is pretty much how I see this...
... Finally you should have no right to mandate an abortion for a woman, nor should you have a right to leave her with a kid because you decide it's not for you. Neither should you be able to force another kid in to the state's care so you can continue having care free sex. You made the decision, it was your responsibility to know the risks and so supporting that child is your responsibility. Pay up, or grow up.
You point about the gun is such an incredible strawman logical fallacy that it's barely appropriate to even speak to the point. It literally has nothing to do with what we're discussing. Intentional premeditated murder and accidental impregnation from a consensual and mutually casual sexual encounter are not on an even keel.
Your point about mandating abortions for women is also basically a strawman, because not only is that not what anyone is espousing, it is reducing the complexities of this debate into one wherein only the issue of female reproductive freedom is valued, and everyone else needs to "grow up" for their own childish values. Apparently discussing male reproductive freedom is immature. It's interesting that you think that, because most of the posts here that are in favor of more male reproductive freedom have also denounced forced abortions as repugnant.
I will add one more thing to my response. "Pay up, or grow up," or put another way FIFO (fit in or fuck off), is never a satisfactory philosophy if you're interested in society continuing to evolve into a more inclusive setting for everyone. We can't marginalize some people in favor of others, then say just go along with it or gtfo. I won't repeat the other points I made, if you're interested in them they are on page 9.
|
On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: Show nested quote +...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists.
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you.
Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
|
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used...
|
Lord_J
Kenya1085 Posts
On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used...
What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
The health risks of being pregnant? What is this the middle ages? The maternal death rate PLUMMETED in the twentieth century to something insane like 11 out of every 100 thousand. Dude that's such a LAME excuses considering men get financial incarcerated for at least 18 years. If I'm 14 and I knock a girl up, that's it, my life is OVER if she keeps it.
And you're either trolling, or incredibly naive if you don't think an unscrupulous women would be above garbage picking for baby batter. Dude there are women who fake BEING pregnant, and who fake having cancer, aids or whatever. Point is there are COPIOUS amounts of scumbag women.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will?
Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple:
* Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy.
* Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years.
You don't see an inconsistency here?
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 Klipsys wrote:
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that?
Also, the pill is most effective form of birth control other than not doing it.
|
On September 20 2011 02:47 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. The health risks of being pregnant? What is this the middle ages? The maternal death rate PLUMMETED in the twentieth century to something insane like 11 out of every 100 thousand. Dude that's such a LAME excuses considering men get financial incarcerated for at least 18 years. If I'm 14 and I knock a girl up, that's it, my life is OVER if she keeps it.
Like it or not, that's a large part of legal basis for legalized abortion. I don't think even think that financial considerations even appear in any of the court opinions.
|
On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here?
Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted:
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
|
On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl.
Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why.
|
On September 20 2011 02:50 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 Klipsys wrote:
And for the love of starcraft, stop saying "JUST USE KONDOMS KAY?" They're only marginally more effective than withdrawing as far as preventing pregnancy. In other words, you could use a condom every time and STILL slip one past the goalie. Well what the fuck is that? Also, the pill is most effective form of birth control other than not doing it.
The pill is only effective if properly used. Let's face it, there are A LOT of women who don't properly use the pill. Let's do a quick poll: Raise your hand if you know a chick who got pregnant despite being on the pill? My guess is that most everyone in here knows at least one such girl (I know two).
|
On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why.
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
|
Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions.
Awful excuse, birth complications resulting in death of the mother are so low in the developed world, it's not even a viable concern. There's more of a risk of the child dieing than the mother in most cases. Plus 9 months vs 18 years of financial incarceration, in some cases without any incentive or benefit (visitation etc).
Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
True, but there is NO option for ensuring she doesn't give birth.
Look this is a really rough subject for some, but the fact remains.... NOT EVERY EJACULATION DESERVES A NAME
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Provide me with one single argument for the case other than "he knew that it could happen and he should've been more careful (despite already using protection)". Not having sex is simply not an attainable option, we are biologically addicted to having sex. You can't say "if you don't want to pay 100,000 dollars over 20 years you just shouldn't have sex". It's ridiculous.
Seriously, the only arguments against this so far have been "man up" and "you should accept the risks". Why should you? Imagine how ridiculous it would be the other way around, you have sex with a woman and your protection doesn't work (pretty common, 1% chance of failure is A LOT when you account for the large group of people that use it) and you suddenly have a choice of forcing her to pay 400$ a month to you.
While you obviously shouldn't force abortion on women, if they want to have and raise your kid while you don't want to, you shouldn't be forced to pay for them. They have the choice to opt out, why shouldn't you? If the men can proof that the woman doesn't want to abort despite being capable of aborting (abortion is available to her and it doesn't endanger her physically) it would be logical to have an option where you could sign a document while the woman is pregnant giving up all custody rights of the child in exchange for not having to pay for child support.
Why should a woman you slept with once have such a huge say over the rest of your life? How is that fair?
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
|
On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
Been there, done that (or more accurately, "am there, doing that). I have a seven-month-old daughter.
|
On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant.
Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility.
And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth.
EDIT: Source
|
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
This problem should really be seen as a three-party argument, including the kid, instead of just the man and woman. This is invalid when the woman chooses an abortion. However if a man chose to have a "financial abortion" and withdrew from future child-support payments, the third party (the kid) is likely to suffer, assuming he/she is still born.
Aside, I imagine male porn-stars have contracts that exempt them from financial payments in the case of the woman getting pregnant. Maybe men should have contracts in the bedside table that exempt them from financial support? I mean, it would work, they'd probably never get any.
|
On September 20 2011 03:05 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids. Been there, done that (or more accurately, "am there, doing that). I have a seven-month-old daughter.
Congratulations!
But ask yourself this. Did you want a child with this women? If yes than more power to you. If this was an accident, given the option to opt out, would you? Again assuming you didn't want kids, when you met this girl and the first time you were together, did you think it be okay to have a kid with this one? If you're nodding your head yes, they we have drastically different tastes in what makes a women attractive. I want zero motherly qualities.
Also, what were you goals prior to her birth? Are they still possible?
|
On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why. Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
It feels like I'm arguing with a child. Your view is absolutist and too simplistic to provide a fair working map of the complex myriad of human existence. Two pornstars are shooting a sex scene for the purposes of monetary gain. It is unfair and unreasonable then to hold the man responsible as a father if the woman decides the purpose is other than that which was agreed upon. The fact is there are many reasons to have sex, and your view is to deny and ignore the majority of them so that you can continue to espouse a view that doesn't work. The best way to move forward as a society is to have everyone have choices as individuals. If you have a model that traps people it's a poor model. I don't know what the solution is, and I'm not offering one. I'm simply saying that you are wrong.
|
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort). It would also be impossible for men to force abortions because with doing so would be endorsing abortions by politicians, but more importantly require a large increase in funding for abortion clinics and the hiring of doctors who are willing to do abortions.
If we assume that you consent to the RISK of impregnating your partner everytime you have sex, if it is clear within the laws that the act of having sex means you are assuming your part of the responsibility for conception, then there is no doubt as to what your responsibilites are should an accidental pregnancy occur.
All arguments against men being held responsible are actually just arguments for abortion as a form of birth control (or birth prevention if you're worried about the semantics). If you honestly believe that an abortion is as easy as strapping on a condom then you definitely have a problem with perspective. If you think that sex is risk free then you are being terribly naive.
I understand that it is logical to say something like "Well what if I just pay 50% of the costs of the abortion?" unfortunately money does not properly quantify the costs of an abortion. As a man you will never be able to comprehend what that abortion means to a woman. Because of this, the only way to protect women from carrying the full burden of accidental pregnancy is to assume men are consenting to the risk of pregnancy upon the act of sex.
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
Indeed, by putting all the risks and burden on the woman, you create a scenario that legitimizes irresponsible behaviour by men. Behaviour such as sabatoging condoms, or seducing inebriated women whos judgement might not always be sound etc. By creating a situation where the man can simply opt out of pregnancy, and thus behave irresponsibly without consequences, you create a situation that is inherently dangerous to the woman, but provides no repercussions against the irresponsible man. Because, as a matter of fact, abortion cannot be considered a legitimate "opt out" of pregnancy lest it lead to dangerous behaviour by men in addition to the other reasons I stated above. It is in the interest of fairness and of safety for the woman, that men be held accountable for their part in impregnating a woman, accidental or not, and thus, should the child be born, he pay his fair share of the costs.
|
On September 20 2011 03:04 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +
Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
Just wait till you get a girl pregnant bro. All of those "dreams" you had, they get exchanged for diapers and minivans. Children are DEATH SENTENCES to freedom and happiness for most men. Can't really argue against that, you're not allowed to be selfish if you have kids.
But who else should pay the child support? It is the child of that man.
I could imagine the German government paying the child support with the taxes of everyone else, because Germany has a birth rate of 1.4 children per woman or something like that, meaning the population is shrinking, and the child is useful for everyone as a future tax payer (and social security and health insurance). This would be the only way I could imagine ditching the current laws for child support payments.
|
On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source
The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception.
There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid.
No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:13 Tor wrote:
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort). It would also be impossible for men to force abortions because with doing so would be endorsing abortions by politicians, but more importantly require a large increase in funding for abortion clinics and the hiring of doctors who are willing to do abortions.
If we assume that you consent to the RISK of impregnating your partner everytime you have sex, if it is clear within the laws that the act of having sex means you are assuming your part of the responsibility for conception, then there is no doubt as to what your responsibilites are should an accidental pregnancy occur.
All arguments against men being held responsible are actually just arguments for abortion as a form of birth control (or birth prevention if you're worried about the semantics). If you honestly believe that an abortion is as easy as strapping on a condom then you definitely have a problem with perspective. If you think that sex is risk free then you are being terribly naive.
I understand that it is logical to say something like "Well what if I just pay 50% of the costs of the abortion?" unfortunately money does not properly quantify the costs of an abortion. As a man you will never be able to comprehend what that abortion means to a woman. Because of this, the only way to protect women from carrying the full burden of accidental pregnancy is to assume men are consenting to the risk of pregnancy upon the act of sex.
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
Indeed, by putting all the risks and burden on the woman, you create a scenario that legitimizes irresponsible behaviour by men. Behaviour such as sabatoging condoms, or seducing inebriated women whos judgement might not always be sound etc. By creating a situation where the man can simply opt out of pregnancy, and thus behave irresponsibly without consequences, you create a situation that is inherently dangerous to the woman, but provides no repercussions against the irresponsible man. Because, as a matter of fact, abortion cannot be considered a legitimate "opt out" of pregnancy lest it lead to dangerous behaviour by men in addition to the other reasons I stated above. It is in the interest of fairness and of safety for the woman, that men be held accountable for their part in impregnating a woman, accidental or not, and thus, should the child be born, he pay his fair share of the costs.
No one wants to force women to get abortions (except the Chinese)
|
yeah, nowadays death because of pregnancy is quite rare, same as some issues because of abortion. Nevertheless I guess women still have more issues dealing mentally with an abortion than guys have. Just a guess and I don't have sources for that one but seems "normal". So I'd say it's ok if she got the final word.
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Basicly, if you don't want this "unfairness" to happen, make society pay instead. So neither the girl nor the boy got to pay for the baby. but I seriously doubt that that's going to happen. The guy being able to get out of this just by saying "sry, I'm out" is just ridiculous if the girl still got to pay (or even got to pay all on her own without help from the state) and would be way worse than what we got right now.
Besides I'm pretty sure you're not even allowed to set up a contract which says that you're not going to pay for a kid if there's going to be one, neither as a man nor as a women just because you're not paying the mother (or the father) but the kid. A contract signed by your mom that states that your dad does not have to pay for you is probably not legal as she can't set up such a thing on your behalf and the other way around.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is.
Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want?
|
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Some people argue that the chance of health risks in pregnancy and abortion are so small, they are irrelevant. While others say, the small chance of getting someone pregnant while using a condom/pill is a significant problem. And there is emotional trauma involved with abortion or having to give your child which was growing inside you for 9 months to adoption.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc.
There is no way to be 100% "safe" in life. Sex, like everything else in life, is not risk free. Deal with it.
|
I also understand that it is logical to say "The woman has the choice to abort but the man does not, therefore to choose not to abort is to consent to carrying the burden on her own." Unfortunately, as I stated before, the woman cannot be assumed to have the choice to abort. It also does not take into account that the woman will suffer side affects either from the abortion OR from the pregnancy that you as a man played an equal part in causing.
So you're saying exceptions cannot possibly be made if this kind of law were to be implemented, and the man would always have the option to opt out? What if the law states that if the woman can get an abortion and it is physically safe for her to do so, but still wants to keep the child despite the man not wanting to, he should not be forced to pay for it (in exchange for any custody rights, obviously)?
There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea is atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid.
The second idea is to let the woman make the decision whether to keep the baby or not with the knowledge that she will not receive money from the man if she decides to keep it. If she cannot financially afford the baby, yet still makes the decision to keep it, then the baby will suffer. But this happens already in low income families or with fathers running away/not being able to pay the child support, and I doubt that, if this law were to be implemented, it would increase the amount of cases wherein this happens, it will probably decrease it because women will be more aware of whether or not they can afford the child because they don't rely on the men to pay their bills and therefore have a better oversight of the situation.
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Yea, except nobody said that. The argument we're making is that men don't have a choice in the issue while woman do. If we want to pursue equal rights, we have to pursue them both ways, and both sexes should have a choice in what they want to do in situations, granted that choice is present (it is in this case).
|
On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why. Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially.
I'm no expert on porn stars, but I have a feeling there is some legal precautions taken in the contracts beforehand that might address this issue.
Also, is this thread basically a discussion of what is and isn't fair ? Here's my contribution: Life's not fair. Over the years, I've learned the less I fight against this fundamental truth, the less frustrated I am.
|
On September 20 2011 03:22 Klipsys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is. Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want?
Presuming she got pregnant, yes, it would be my daughter's choice as to how she wants to handle the situation. I'd counsel her, and I'd provide her as much as support as I deemed fit, but it would still be her choice. As for the boy, it depends. If he is a dirtbag, then I wouldn't want him in the life of my grandchild. If he's a wonderkid with a full scholarship, then I'd probably want him involved in the kid's life to some extent, and, at the very least, I'd tag him for child support payments when he came of age and got a job. I definitely am not going to let him off scott-free.
|
On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 Kaitlin wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:59 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:57 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Let me ask you the following question, and no it isn't a joke, I want a serious answer. If two pornstars are shooting a film and the woman gets pregnant and for whatever reason decides to keep the baby, should the male be financially indebted to her in the role of father for 18 years. Yes or no and why. Yes, and for the exact same reasons as any other guy should be financially indebted to a girl he knocks up. It doesn't matter that the guy is a pornstar and was paid to have sex with another pornstar. He knowingly made a choice that entails some risk. Presuming that the kid isn't aborted, the kid shouldn't suffer materially from the guy being let off the hook financially. I'm no expert on porn stars, but I have a feeling there is some legal precautions taken in the contracts beforehand that might address this issue. Also, is this thread basically a discussion of what is and isn't fair ? Here's my contribution: Life's not fair. Over the years, I've learned the less I fight against this fundamental truth, the less frustrated I am.
As a lawyer, I promise you that any contract that waived rights to child support or compelled the woman to get an abortion would be stricken down as unenforceable on public policy grounds. I'm the sure that the women are all on the pill and get abortions if things go badly. It's probably just an unspoken rule within the industry.
|
On September 20 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:22 Klipsys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is. Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want? Presuming she got pregnant, yes, it would be my daughter's choice as to how she wants to handle the situation. I'd counsel her, and I'd provide her as much as support as I deemed fit, but it would still be her choice. As for the boy, it depends. If he is a dirtbag, then I wouldn't want him in the life of my grandchild. If he's a wonderkid with a full scholarship, then I'd probably want him involved in the kid's life to some extent, and, at the very least, I'd tag him for child support payments when he came of age and got a job. I definitely am not going to let him off scott-free.
Can't really argue with that I guess. Good luck with your daughter.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time. Yea, except nobody said that. The argument we're making is that men don't have a choice in the issue while woman do. If we want to pursue equal rights, we have to pursue them both ways, and both sexes should have a choice in what they want to do in situations, granted that choice is present (it is in this case).
well but there IS NO choice present. There's basicly 2 options:
1) abortion and you don't have to pay for it. Do you want to force an abortion?
2) pay for the kid. It's not legal for a reason to do those contracts you're proposing.
There is just no option to get out of this without abortion unless states are covering the costs 100%!
|
On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car.
I don't understand how people continue to argue like this.
Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
|
On September 20 2011 03:34 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:28 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 03:22 Klipsys wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 20 2011 03:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:05 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:55 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:48 Vorenius wrote:On September 20 2011 02:36 xDaunt wrote:On September 20 2011 02:20 Vorenius wrote:EDIT: ...which begs the question, "why should we have any sympathy for some dumbass guy who refuses to wrap his dick up?" Let's stop pretending that guys play no part in this process, and they are "victims" who become fathers through no fault of their own. How is this different from a girl who can't keep her knees together and gets pregnant because shes a dumb slut? She still has the right to get an abortion. It just doesn't make sense to only potentially punish one part. Last time I checked sex was a 2(or more) person job. And still you assume no accidents ever happen and that a girl would never lie about taking birthcontrol pills or even hide the condom and try and use it to get pregnant. If you've read the thread you know people like that exists. Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. And I really don't want to hear about "accidents." If you're a guy and you're relying upon your girlfriend's insistence that she's on the pill and using it properly as justification for not wearing a condom, then you're a dumbass and you deserve whatever is coming to you. Hiding the condom? Wtf? Really? Just flush it down the toilet or throw it away. Wtf kind of girl is going to dig through the garbage to get a used condom with which to impregnate herself? If you're in a sexual relationship with that kind of girl, then you also deserve whatever is coming to you. Here's the point: guys practically have absolute control over whether they're going to impregnate a girl through proper condom use or, as Adam Carolla likes point out, "cumming on her tits." Guys neither need nor deserve the right to avoid the legal consequences of impregnating a girl. Are you saying girls often get impregnated against their will? Girls have exactly the same opportunities of avoiding getting pregnant unless they are gettnig raped, yet they are free to abort a pregnancy if they do get unlucky anyway. I don't see why you'd give women that choice but not men. There really is no difference. Here I'l make it simple: * Can a girl avoid getting pregnant? Yup. If it happens anyway? No matter, just abort the pregnancy. * Can a guy avoid getting a girl pregnant? Yup. If it happen anyway? Tough luck. You are paying for that the next 18 years. You don't see an inconsistency here? Since you apparently missed it the first time, let me repeat, this time with the most important provisions highlighted: Here's the difference and the reason why girls get the choice and guys don't: girls, as the bearers of the baby, face the health risks associated with pregnancy and child birth. Guys don't. Similarly, girls bear the health risks of abortions. Guys don't. If the guy has no interest in becoming a father, then he can take a variety of actions to ensure that he doesn't get his girlfriend pregnant. Even the safest contraceptions aren't 100%. It doesn't matter if she has a IUD inserted, is on the pill and you are wearing a condom, there is still the slightest chance she'll get pregnant. Yeah, there are things you can do to lower the chances but you can't eliminate the possiblility. And the whole health issue is just a strawman. It has nothing to do with the women being able to demand payments for 18 straight years for a child the guy never planned nor wanted. Besides in the US, the risk of maternal death from abortion is 0.567 per 100,000 procedures, while there are 7.06 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. That means abortion is approximately 12.5 times safer than childbirth. EDIT: Source The stats are irrelevant. If a guy chooses to have sex with someone, then he should live with the consequences of that decision, period. It's not like he's unaware of the risks -- even if using contraception. There are only two options if the guy to be let off the hook, and neither is fair. The first is to provide a legal mechanism for forcing a girl to have an abortion. I don't think anyone is going to argue that this idea isn't atrocious (it's also clearly unconstitutional in America). The second option is to let the woman keep the baby but the guy gets to opt out of financially supporting the child. This essentially screws over the kid. No one is arguing that it's a good situation when a girl accidentally gets pregnant; it clearly isn't. The issue is what should be done when it happens. When you start considering the interests of each party involved (the girl, the guy, and the child), it's pretty obvious what the right course of action is. Another question for you, in 15 years or so, your daughter will become sexually active. Are you saying you'd allow your 16 year-old daughter to give birth if she got pregnant? What if the kid is a literal scumbag with no money and no prospects, and his parents are worse off? Or even the flip side, what if he's on his way to college on a full scholarship to save the world. Would you want that person to give up his life for one he doesn't want? Presuming she got pregnant, yes, it would be my daughter's choice as to how she wants to handle the situation. I'd counsel her, and I'd provide her as much as support as I deemed fit, but it would still be her choice. As for the boy, it depends. If he is a dirtbag, then I wouldn't want him in the life of my grandchild. If he's a wonderkid with a full scholarship, then I'd probably want him involved in the kid's life to some extent, and, at the very least, I'd tag him for child support payments when he came of age and got a job. I definitely am not going to let him off scott-free. Can't really argue with that I guess. Good luck with your daughter.
Thanks!
|
On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
|
This is horrible, if you make a kid, pay for it.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
Do you have anything supporting this, besides your _personal_ experiences?
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
so you're basicly telling us that guys having to live with the decision of the girl isn't actually a problem but the fact that bad parenting is bad?
That's just another problem and you want to increase the urge to abort if you're having problems right now.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
LMFAO.
This is the exact same kind of logic racists use. You can't be for real.
From wiki :
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization
Converse fallacy of accident or hasty generalization: argues from a special case to a general rule.
Example
Argument: Every person I've met speaks English, so it must be true that all people speak english.
Problem: Those who have been met are a subset of the entire set.
Also called reverse accident, destroying the exception, a dicto secundum quid ad dictum simpliciter
|
On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc.
The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed.
Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
|
On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible.
There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal.
|
A lot of flaming tempers. This might be a lost cause, but can we all take this debate a little less personally?
Question: Exactly how much are child support payments? I have no idea.
|
On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it.
The women has the higher risks to take, the higher price to pay, so she makes the choice.
Yes thats not fair to the man, but is the "lesser evil" choice, if you compare it with all the other solutions in this thread.
Life is not fair.
|
On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument.
So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal."
I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common.
|
On September 20 2011 03:46 Klipsys wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. Sorry man but you're not seeing it there are more bad parents than good ones. Maybe you live/work in an affluent area, but I am unlucky enough to live in a nice place, but work in a dreadful one. I'm not embellishing any of this. Most of the women I encounter daily at work are criminals one way or another, and awful awful parents. I had a mother actually tell her son to stop reading a book because it was "faggy". It's kinda good that you're a little naive, because I think the truth about this country and it's people would shock you.
So your argument is not that child support is flawed as a concept on any basis of unfairness to men, but instead that the women receiving it simply cannot be trusted to spend it "well"?
And yes, I was born into a relatively wealthy family. And yes, for years I was completely oblivious to my privileged life and assumed that everyone else lived that way as well. Myself in middle school would have not really understood that some people can't afford to see a doctor, fr example. Since then however, I've lived in some nice areas, and some absolutely shitty ones.
I assume you also dislike welfare? Because honestly who can trust those scheming poor people to spend that money well? Nevermind the actual statistics, I'm sure they're all as lazy as the people I've seen, (and I'm sure my interpretations of what I saw had nothing to do with my own preconceptions to boot)
|
On September 20 2011 02:44 Lord_J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used... What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's.
Then why aren't women obligated to spend child-support payments on the child? I mean, the money is "for the child's sake".
|
On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common.
My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them.
"I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support"
or:
"I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them."
You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point.
|
On September 20 2011 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it. as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible. There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal.
Adoption and abortion are both legal....
|
On September 20 2011 04:13 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 02:44 Lord_J wrote:On September 20 2011 02:37 scorch- wrote:
Abolish child support outside of divorce situations. A woman has no right to expect anyone not wed to her to support her financially, why can she expect to have support for a child she births? If she chooses to have an abortion, and can prove who was responsible, she can get 50% of the cost out of him. There are methods that reliably prevent pregnancy from occurring before it happens, and only she can control whether those methods get used... What you--and those making similar arguments in this thread--seem to fail to realise is that the expectation of support that the law provides for is not for the woman's sake, but for the child's. Then why aren't women obligated to spend child-support payments on the child? I mean, the money is "for the child's sake".
I really don't know what it's like in Canada, but in germany women have to spend child-support as well if the man turns out to raise the children. So if it really isn't that way in canada that sucks, but is again, a different problem.
On September 20 2011 04:15 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:01 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 03:58 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc. The difference is whatever the woman pays she has the privilege of living according to her own choices. The man loses this privilege. If you believe that sacrificing your own hopes and ambitions due to a woman making your life choice on your behalf and expecting 18 years of financial servitude can be compared to 9 months of possibly (and very probably) happy pregnancy and motherhood, you are mistaken indeed. Validating this with a statement like "you shouldn't have had sex if you weren't ready to be a father" is ludicrous and ridiculous. Pointing to the difficulties of pregnancy or even abortion is irrelevant because the issue here is choice, and in either case the woman has it. as someone said earlier, we're not living in utopia and sometimes life's a bitch and you got to stand up responsible. There are just no alternatives to what we got. Yeah it's not nice that a man and a woman got to pay for a baby although they don't have the money if it happened to early but again, the alternatives are far worse and illegal. Adoption and abortion are both legal....
yes they are, but forced adoption and abortion aren't
|
On September 20 2011 04:04 CCitrus wrote:
A lot of flaming tempers. This might be a lost cause, but can we all take this debate a little less personally?
Question: Exactly how much are child support payments? I have no idea.
The average amount of child support owed in this country boils down to about $300 a month. Similarly, on average, country wide, only 67% of that is actually paid.
It's not like these women are living large off this "free money", nor are their lives super easy whilst raising a child. It's clearly a small enough sum of money that another income source is needed, and raising a child takes a fucking LOT of time/effort.
|
On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point.
I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%.
|
yes they are, but forced adoption and abortion aren't
Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be?
The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
It's not like these women are living large off this "free money", nor are their lives super easy whilst raising a child. It's clearly a small enough sum of money that another income source is needed, and raising a child takes a fucking LOT of time/effort.
Their choice. Has nothing to do with the argument. Nobody is arguing raising a child is easy, the issue here is that woman do have the choice of whether or not to have the child, yet the man has no choice in whether or not he has to pay for it.
|
|
|
On September 20 2011 04:21 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be? The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
That's just my point. You ARE NOT taking the money away from the man and giving it a woman. If this would be the case a contract like you guys would like would be legal. You are giving that money to your kid! The parents just end up organizing it since it's kinda hard to buy yourself a meal at the age of 1.
I see the point that it's not nice and I totally agree with it. However the alternatives are way worse.
You can't force abortion, no matter if the reason is the guy not willing to pay or the government telling the parents they're to poor to have a child.
So if you guys come up with a solution that'd be awesome but everything we got so far is whining about how unfair life is with a few ideas that end up way worse if you think it through.
|
On September 20 2011 04:21 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Yet forcibly taking money away from a man for the woman should be? The issue here is the "choice" part. Why is it acceptable to you that the woman has the choice, and the man just "has to live with it"?
This exactly. I was going to respond along this line of thought and you have done it for me. Also, "life is not fair" is not the logical basis for the statement that "The women has the higher risks to take, the higher price to pay, so she makes the choice." Noone is denying a woman the right to choose, I'm fully in favor of it. We are suggesting those choices shouldn't speak for the man to the extent that they do. "Life is not fair" can be equally erroneously used as a logical basis for anyone's point. As an example, if you can't support the child on your own, then perhaps you should consider one of the alternatives available to you -- putting it up for adoption for example, and if this isn't satisfactory to you, then I'll remind you that life isn't fair.
|
I think that if that the woman should have the right to decide if she wants to keep the child or abort it. If she decides she wants to give birth but doesn't want to keep it the father should have the option to take the child as his child alone and the mother should have no financial responsibility to it. The other part of this is; I believe if the mother wants to give birth and keep the child then the father can decide if he wants to give up his rights to the child and give the child completely over to the mother w/o any financial responsibility to the child. If neither of them want the child but want to give birth they can put the child up for adoption to a third party and neither parent will have any financial responsibility to the child. The strange thing is all of these possibilities are in law today except for the one where the father doesn't want the child and the mother does. Its just fair and to those of you talking about supernatural laws over the laws of men please take your religion and keep it in your church. There is no higher law than the law of man. Even nature bends to our will.
|
On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%.
And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into.
|
On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into.
His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%.
|
On September 20 2011 04:33 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into. His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%.
No, it doesn't.
You can argue almost anything in the world if all you need is .05% occurrence to support an argument. I'm sure something like 1 in 1,000,000 people who buy rope, or a ladder, or a ceiling fan, are doing so in order to kill themselves. I'm sure that 1 in 1,000,000 people who purchase a knife are planning to stab someone.
You can't base an argument to limit their availability on such minute numbers.
|
I think the only fair thing is to make abortion illegal. Then both men and women don't have a choice.
|
or you could make the state pay 100%. In that case both could have a free choice but it would mean society has to pay for them. That's pretty much the only 2 options that aren't worse than what we got :/
(Edit: considering the fairness between men and women, I'm not pro abortion = illegal)
|
On September 20 2011 04:37 Haemonculus wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 04:33 sevencck wrote:On September 20 2011 04:31 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:18 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 04:14 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 04:10 seppolevne wrote:On September 20 2011 03:41 Haemonculus wrote:On September 20 2011 03:32 Klipsys wrote:On September 20 2011 03:19 Toadesstern wrote:
And stop crying about men having to pay for the rest of their lives... it's not like women are sitting at home, laughing while the guy pays 100% and the woman enjoys good life with everything being paid. They got to feel the consequences, too. Yeah they can decide to abort, but still you guys make it sound like it's only "unfair" for men while women have a nice time.
Okay, there are alot of single moms who are struggling and there providing for there kids and that's fine. However, there are also alot of women who treat their kids as dolls and get paid money to dress them up. You have no idea how often I've seen mothers in designer clothing while there kid is in a burlap sack. And they buy shit with a unemployment debit card. And their kids usually can't read or write, and is probably going to end up stealing my car. I don't understand how people continue to argue like this. Random, highly uncommon, (and occasionally on these boards, entirely imagined) examples do not constitute a sound argument. So uncommon circumstances should not be considered by law? "Oh that doesn't happen very often so don't worry about it, they can just deal." I think laws should be in place to protect people in all circumstances, not just the most common. My point is that you can't bring up super ridiculous and uncommon examples and base an argument on them. "I once heard a story about some crazy broad who scraped semen and jammed it in herself, therefore women cheat the system often and can't be trusted to receive child support" or: "I read an article about some guy who accidentally shot himself, therefore gun accidents are super common, and no one should be allowed to have them." You've got to look at a much wider range of numbers before taking fringe outliers and holding them up as examples to represent your point. I would think that looking at fringe outliers would give you the greatest possible range of numbers, which is why they are outliers. If you can design a system to handle the wackiness at the ends of the spectrum, it will handle the inner stuff no problem. Making rules to handle the middle 95% is nice, but you still screw over that 5%. And if a full 5% of unwanted pregnancies occurred because crazy people were impregnating themselves on discarded rags, maybe it would be worth looking into. His reasoning holds whether you define the extreme ends of the spectrum as 5% or 0.05%. No, it doesn't. You can argue almost anything in the world if all you need is .05% occurrence to support an argument. I'm sure something like 1 in 1,000,000 people who buy rope, or a ladder, or a ceiling fan, are doing so in order to kill themselves. I'm sure that 1 in 1,000,000 people who purchase a knife are planning to stab someone. You can't base an argument to limit their availability on such minute numbers.
I think his point was that you know you have a really inclusive and well-designed system if it satisfactorily addresses both what we call normal behavior as well as the extreme ends of the spectrum. His point was not to base policy for everyone around what works for the extremes.
|
The state should pay for unwanted kids, since they end up doing it anyway with PRISONS.
|
It's an obvious double standard.
|
On September 20 2011 03:13 Tor wrote:
To everyone who believes that women have the choice to abort is incredibly naive. It only takes a fear of side affects or a religious belief to prevent that choice from being real. As well, abortions aren't always available in time or in place (there are sometimes waiting lists so long that women can't get abortions within their 1st trimester and there aren't always doctors willing to abort).
As stated earlier on the same page, giving birth has more significant side effects and 12x the fatality rate. And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that? If a man had similar beliefs he would not opt out of raising the child (and possibly not even use protection in the first place). Also, why should the law restrict everyone because some people have beliefs that don't allow them to take advantage of that? And as for availability of abortions, that's a logistical problem, and in the US, also a religious problem. If a woman cannot get an abortion she still has the option to give the child up for adoption.
|
On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?.
Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished.
|
On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished.
And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
|
On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
|
On September 20 2011 03:23 Adolith wrote:
I think there are some misconceptions in this thread.
Some people argue that the chance of health risks in pregnancy and abortion are so small, they are irrelevant. While others say, the small chance of getting someone pregnant while using a condom/pill is a significant problem. And there is emotional trauma involved with abortion or having to give your child which was growing inside you for 9 months to adoption.
Then, people compare 9 months of pregnancy with paying 18 years of support. The mother in this case still has to raise the child, buy food/clothes etc. That is no small feat. If the mother decides to keep the child, she has a higher "price" to pay imho. If you feel your money is misused, there a still child services, court etc.
There is no way to be 100% "safe" in life. Sex, like everything else in life, is not risk free. Deal with it.
I think you're missing the main point.
Nobody is saying that the woman has no burden even if the man is paying child support. The problem is the woman gets 100% full choice into accepting this burden or not. The man has no say, other than never having sex again. Which is the entire point of the thread.
As an aside, I don't like the 'life's not fair, deal with it.' While that's sound advice for many things.. it's kind of silly. What kind of society would we live in if we didn't make fundamental changes to improve fairness when applicable..
|
On September 20 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him? It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
|
On September 20 2011 05:19 Mentalizor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:11 Toadesstern wrote:On September 20 2011 05:06 Demonhunter04 wrote:
And if the woman holds religious beliefs that stop her from getting an abortion, why should the man be punished for that?. Because, you know, both are responsible for it and noone is getting punished. And what about the 70,000$ bill she is passing onto him?
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).
|
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights.
The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman.
One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden.
The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden.
That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.
It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up because State Farm had to pay the other driver $60,000, that is very unfair I was not responsible!
Try that one, see how far it goes.
There's a legal concept of liability where you are liable for the consequences of your actions regardless of how many precautions you take or whether it 'wasn't your fault.' It's called strict liability. Your culpability in the consequences is more or less irrelevant. As Wikipedia says:
In tort law, strict liability is the imposition of liability on a party without a finding of fault (such as negligence or tortious intent). The plaintiff need only prove that the tort occurred and that the defendant was responsible.
You are, fortunately or unfortunately, considered strictly liable for the well-being of a baby if your act of sex results in that baby. There is no fault to be found. It happened, here's the result, it doesn't matter that you wrapped it four times or jammed ten Plan B pills down her throat the next morning. You had sex, a baby resulted, please deal with it instead of whining k?
|
On September 20 2011 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:Show nested quote +
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights. The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman. One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden. The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden. That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up, that is very unfair I was not responsible! Try that one, see how far it goes.
Actually, it's inaccurate to say that I believe one side should bear 100% of the burden of child rearing. It's also totally irrelevant to this discussion, since the entire purpose of this thread is to critique the current philosophy of choice associated with human reproductive rights. What you're talking about (who has to face the burden of child rearing) is subsequent to the initial decision that is made entirely on the part of the woman. In other words, I don't see how your point is relevant to the current discussion.
Nowhere have I said I believe women should be 100% responsible, and nowhere have I said I have anything but support for women having choices in their lives. Also, here's why your critique of my example is unsatisfactory. What you're suggesting has nothing to do with the reasoning that responsibility begins by entering your car, and has everything to do with a situation in which you are, in fact, responsible.
Anyway, I guess I'm done with this thread unless anyone has anything new to add.
|
On September 20 2011 05:48 sevencck wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 05:40 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Here's why your reasoning is unsatisfactory. The logical basis for what you're saying is analogous to saying that someone who gets into a car is responsible for the (possibly) poor choices of the other drivers on the road as soon as he makes the decision to get in his car. You're then using this logical basis to say that any accident that occurs is his fault and his responsibility regardless of the nature of the accident because he decided to get into a car.
What's hilarious about you attacking someone's reasoning is that the reasoning of your position is that it is fair for one side to bear 100% of the burden of child-rearing, because that is necessary for "equal" rights. The woman can have an abortion and nobody has any burden, so this means to be equal and fair the man can absolve himself of responsibility and put 100% of it on the burden on the woman. One side exercising its rights - no one has a burden. The other side exercising what you say should be its rights - one side gets 100% of the burden. That certainly is very equal and fair, indeed. The reasoning is great.It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up, that is very unfair I was not responsible! Try that one, see how far it goes. Actually, it's inaccurate to say that I believe one side should bear 100% of the burden of child rearing. It's also totally irrelevant to this discussion, since the entire purpose of this thread is to critique the current philosophy of choice associated with human reproductive rights. What you're talking about (who has to face the burden of child rearing) is subsequent to the initial decision that is made entirely on the part of the woman. In other words, I don't see how your point is relevant to the current discussion.Anyway, I guess I'm done with this thread unless anyone has anything new to add.
It's not. He's been trolling this thread with nonsense from the very start. You'd be wise to move on and address a more legitimate poster.
This thread has turned to garbage because nobody can focus on the actual issue and either refuse or are just daft. The extreme posts are getting all of the attention that focus on issues completely unrelated like forced abortions (what), women having 100% burden! (huh) etc.
Pretty sad but what should I expect, people are stupid.
|
On September 20 2011 03:27 Kaitlin wrote:
I'm no expert on porn stars, but I have a feeling there is some legal precautions taken in the contracts beforehand that might address this issue.
There actually aren't.
Child support is an obligation owed to the child, and therefore the mother cannot sign that away in a contract.
This is why it's also extremely dangerous to donate sperm in a non-anonymous capacity; the woman can turn around and sue you for child support (on behalf of the child) regardless of what you agreed upon.
On September 20 2011 05:20 xDaunt wrote:
It's his fault and his responsibility, too.
Then you have an insanely warped view of "fault".
As the law currently stands, a woman can drug and rape a teenage boy, get pregnant, and then sue for child support. That's how child support law looks at "fault" and "responsibility".
If you support that as it stands, then you have no idea what the word "fault" means.
|
society is based on double standards, the women has a say in everything and it always is her word that is the right one. to put this into complex lets say a women does NOT want to take care of her child but desides to put it up for adopt, WHY is she then not obligated to child support? it is basiclly the exact samething, but the problem does not lie where justice is drawn it is todays society as we live it. a bunch of hypocrites every single one of them
feminism has outdrawn the rights of women, removed those rules who was not pleasing, and keeping those who still are horribly wrong and bullet proof holes of injustice because they enlighten the choices.. this is what feminism is.
Every 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. yea keeping that in todays laber prosperity based society is also clear proof. men have to work for every single fragment in theyre life, a women gets it handed to her and even tough that men are called pigs. if u ask me, it is actually the mens fault for being such cowards
|
On September 20 2011 05:56 sunprince wrote:
Then you have an insanely warped view of "fault".
As the law currently stands, a woman can drug and rape a teenage boy, get pregnant, and then sue for child support. That's how child support law looks at "fault" and "responsibility".
If you support that as it stands, then you have no idea what the word "fault" means.
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening.
|
On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening.
For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this:
http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdf
For men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one:
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
|
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
That's fucking garbage. Could you imagine telling your kid how you and the father met and telling the child that you raped some stranger that's now your father or that you fucked some random drunk guy at a party. It's disgusting how broken some of the laws are out there. Child support is retarded right now, men should unite and get the laws changed regarding how it works. Maybe go on strike and don't pay at all similar to the black rights movement.
|
On September 20 2011 07:41 Sovern wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
That's fucking garbage. Could you imagine telling your kid how you and the father met and telling the child that you raped some stranger that's now your father or that you fucked some random drunk guy at a party. It's disgusting how broken some of the laws are out there. Child support is retarded right now, men should unite and get the laws changed regarding how it works. Maybe go on strike and don't pay at all similar to the black rights movement.
haha mate take it easy, this is only one of the shity laws that are engaged by politicians on purpose no matter how outragous they are. u shouldnt claim around laws to much cuz every law has many weakpoints and are easily diversed. You should just accept that the world is fucked up and move on with it. (anyway that is what most people do) most stuff is just a cloud of bullshit anyway. going in a strike would result as nothing, the best men could do is probably go berzerk cut of some politicians heads before they actually take those matters into theyre hands(trollface), also if u do not know there has alredy been multiply waves of such acts where men have striked and all that, but it just backfires even worse and they get into bigger problems
though the best option is accepting shit and move on :D
remember the lesson kids, if u get raped make sure u pull it out and drink up ur own cum so it does not come into the ladys pussy and u will be able to fix it ! :D im fine with it and so is the rest of the world
|
You guys need to man up. Sexism in gaming? Fathers right to abort? Men and women arent the same get over it and no law is gonna change that.
|
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.
|
On September 18 2011 20:08 Ropid wrote:The child is innocent in all of this, and he/she is who the payments are for. Use a condom or vasectomy.
On September 18 2011 20:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I think imposing to a woman to abort is just monstrous. Not an option.
If a woman lies to get pregnant or anything like that, then maybe we can discuss whether it is the right to the father not to give a pension. But the abortion really is something that should be between the mother's hands, in my opinion.
Most cases you will have an unwanted child, a father who asks for abortion and a mother who refuses. And then, I think if it is not malicious from the mother, the guy just takes his responsibility.
from the moment a woman uses lies, deceit, treachery or other tools to get pregant without the sperm donors explicit consent, She is NOT thinking about the childs needs when she gets pregnant. Therefore, how can she be said to deserve anything. Some women do it in order to legally extort money from men.
From the moment neither the male or female is making sure birth control is in place, neither are thinking about the welfare of a possible child. therefore, how can either of them be fit to raise it, let alone make one or the other culpable for money while they are not?
On September 18 2011 20:17 iMarshall wrote:Although those are fair points in theory, it's not as simple in practice imo. Women have the responsibility for their own bodies, just like you need to take responsibility for your own semen (don't laugh, you started it ). Wear a condom and dispose of it yourself, or take a risk and pay the price if she gets pregnant and decides to keep the baby.
because its only the man's responsibility to make sure protection is involved. good to know, sexist.
|
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.
because its always an emotional nightmare, because women always have the same thoughts and reactions. Don't know if serious...
Its a nice stereotype, however, you must realize there are plenty of self serving women who couldn't really give two shits about their fetii.
Antisocial personality disorder and narcissism and sociopathy aren't male only diseases. there are people in the world born without conscience, without regret, and without empathy. These same people are wildly successful in faking it because they understand the social contract rules and want to get what they want out of society.
Again, not sure if serious...
Edit:
Anyway, this whole issue is derived from the classical culture idealism that women are not creators of their own destiny like men, and are just along for the ride; that they are not responsible, and are weaker less capable of making decisions on their own, and need to be protected, and men are the only abusers, and women are always victims, and blah blah blah blah blah.
Sexism is why there is no culpability for the woman in any case like this. Don't like this fact? Tough.
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
yep, women CANT be rapists, women CANT be just as dirty and sex driven as men.
It CANT be...
gtfover yourselves. Women are just as horny as men.
The thing is, if we taught females they had just as much power and self determination as men, and therefore are just as liable and responsible for their actions, they wouldn't be helpless, or feel like shit if they "get raped' cause they're drunk. I doubt the guy felt like shit, it probably bothered him but he would have moved on, if not for the skank being a selfish bastard.
|
On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/Show nested quote +
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that.
One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
|
It's also pretty hilarious how apparently if someone takes proper precautions they are absolved of responsibility. Hey man, I took 110% proper precautions but I still wrecked my car into yours because there was black ice on the road, this means my insurance company and I are absolved of responsibility! If my car insurance bill goes up because State Farm had to pay the other driver $60,000, that is very unfair I was not responsible!
Try this example: you both wrecked your cars into eachother despite taking precautions (not only your fault) and the other driver can either choose to pay 70,000$ to fix the car, or get rid of the damages for free if he sees a car dealer before the time's up.
|
On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that. One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
k facepalm pretty hard
|
On September 20 2011 08:42 Maxtor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 06:51 sunprince wrote:On September 20 2011 06:17 xDaunt wrote:
Please, go find me ONE instance of this actually happening. For the specific case of a 14-year-old boy forced to pay child support to the woman who drugged and raped him, see this: http://www.michbar.org/opinions/appeals/2004/021904/22183.pdfFor men being forced to pay child support to their rapists/statutory rapists in general, there's plenty more than one: http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=2639http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/legally-obscene/
Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
wow, just wow... i thought your statement was hypothetical, but those decisions are horrendous, I would have assumed it would be looked on a case by case basis with exceptions for exceptional circumstances, im totally speechless regarding that. One tiny thing though, women CAN NOT rape men, the statutory definition is penetration with a penis, so afaik its sexual assault (sorry offtopic)
sexism and ameliorating and diminishing the responsibility of women strikes again!
Wear a cape that has a picture of a man under a circle-line NO insignia.
|
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
|
On September 21 2011 05:31 ToxNub wrote:
^^ the internet login form need an iq test
i read your post above, and i can assure you that u would not even make it into speical forums for special people.
ur post is completely ignorant for todays society, You are right and i agree but within terms of social life, yes men and women can never be treated the same by one another and such and that there always will be a double standard hole in societys comunication line. but when it comes down to the law it is incredibly ignorant to assume that is the same case. Let me ask you, should(alredy is) a woman comit a crime and be judged otherwise than the man wouldve been? if u say yes, then let me ask u if a woman kills someone in your family do you still consist of such bullcrap mentality?
eitherway nothing u said in ur post has bounds with the fundamental arguement of this topic.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
@ownyaah: ToxNub's post is about abortion, and why only women have that option. It is nothing off-topic in my opinion.
After rambling about feminism the post on the previous page, in the last two sentences you actually explain why feminism still has a place in today's world. It is not done with the job it set out to do.
Your crime example is not something that is only about men vs. women, but about the offenders reputation, and basically prejudice. It helps to be white for example.
|
@ownyaah
I have removed my post because I feel it was in poor taste. But let me say that your second post is even more incomprehensible than the first.
The first post, however, is especially bad. All I see is misguided and petty indignation, and nonsensical charges of illusory persecution at the hands of your female overlords.
|
On September 20 2011 10:22 Tor wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2011 09:36 Dark_Chill wrote: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.
irresponible sex forcing all the burden of fear on the woman
irresponible sex
because women can't keep their legs closed as self willed individuals with their own control.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
