our current system requires men to pay child support, some don't, but they are breaking the law, we arn't talking about them. Where is his choice again?
Let's make it fair and make women pay child support, too.
our current system requires men to pay child support, some don't, but they are breaking the law, we arn't talking about them. Where is his choice again?
Let's make it fair and make women pay child support, too.
Or pay for every child's support with tax-dollars. Because that's fair and economically viable.
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
This is what I'm saying:
- Men, due to their biology, have only one choice: don't have sex to completely avoid the responsibility of supporting a child, or have sex and risk a pregnancy that will result in a child that they have to support
- Women, due to their biology, have two choices: don't have sex and avoid the responsibility of pregnancy altogether, or have sex and risk pregnancy, and in the event of pregnancy, choose to allow the uterus to continue hosting that pregnancy and be responsible for any eventual child to result from that pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.
Just because men don't have say over what a woman chooses to do with her uterus doesn't mean that they aren't 50% "to blame" for the birth of their children.
As I've said earlier, if our society and economy were structured differently then there might not be any need for this kind of rigorous policing of parental responsibility.
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
how do we not give the mother the choice on wether or not to be responcible?
Look, for the bajillionth time:
- When a man chooses to have sex he also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- When a woman chooses to have sex she also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- Because any pregnancy resides only in the woman's uterus, she alone gets a second choice when she finds out she's pregnant: keep or terminate the pregnancy.
If men bore pregnancies inside their bodies, they would have the second round of choice as well.
Both men and women choose to be responsible for a possible pregnancy when they choose to have sex.
Choosing to be resoncible for any outcome of sex is hardly a tough choice when you decide the outcome. It's clearly unequal.
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
This is what I'm saying:
- Men, due to their biology, have only one choice: don't have sex to completely avoid the responsibility of supporting a child, or have sex and risk a pregnancy that will result in a child that they have to support
- Women, due to their biology, have two choices: don't have sex and avoid the responsibility of pregnancy altogether, or have sex and risk pregnancy, and in the event of pregnancy, choose to allow the uterus to continue hosting that pregnancy and be responsible for any eventual child to result from that pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.
Just because men don't have say over what a woman chooses to do with her uterus doesn't mean that they aren't 50% "to blame" for the birth of their children.
As I've said earlier, if our society and economy were structured differently then there might not be any need for this kind of rigorous policing of parental responsibility.
These bits in bold don't seem to follow. That fact that men will have to support a child that they father isn't due to biology; it's due to law. The law which is being debated in this thread. Everything else you've said is self-evident, but you seem to say nothing on the rights or wrongs of the laws as they stand, which is the entire point of this discussion.
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
This is what I'm saying:
- Men, due to their biology, have only one choice: don't have sex to completely avoid the responsibility of supporting a child, or have sex and risk a pregnancy that will result in a child that they have to support
- Women, due to their biology, have two choices: don't have sex and avoid the responsibility of pregnancy altogether, or have sex and risk pregnancy, and in the event of pregnancy, choose to allow the uterus to continue hosting that pregnancy and be responsible for any eventual child to result from that pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.
Just because men don't have say over what a woman chooses to do with her uterus doesn't mean that they aren't 50% "to blame" for the birth of their children.
As I've said earlier, if our society and economy were structured differently then there might not be any need for this kind of rigorous policing of parental responsibility.
These bits in bold don't seem to follow. That fact that men will have to support a child that they father isn't due to biology; it's due to law. The law which is being debated in this thread. Everything else you've said is self-evident, but you seem to say nothing on the rights or wrongs of the laws as they stand, which is the entire point of this discussion.
To elaborate, then:
The "biology" I'm talking about is genetic connection to the child. As in, a man's sperm are half of what it physically takes to start a pregnancy. Women supply the other half, the ovum and the uterus.
No pregnancy can occur unless the man takes part, just as no pregnancy can occur without the woman taking part. The biological fact of a man's sperm fertilizing an egg is the cause of the man's responsibility for the pregnancy and its eventual outcome (whether child or not).
Why do parents have a responsibility to care for their children?
We, as a society, agree that children deserve to be cared for because they can't care for themselves. Use whatever justification you like: religious sanction, the founding fathers, your favorite ethical philosopher, etc., but we still generally agree that those who can't take care of themselves deserve to be cared for.
Further, we assume that the parents of the children are those who are "first in line" to care for those children. Those two parents are the two closest adults to those children, both in a genetic and experiential sense, and it makes sense to us that they are the first people given the responsibility of rearing those children.
If our society were different, and we had an extensive support system of public funding and services to care for children when the parents were unwilling or unable to do so, then we might not need to hold parents responsible. Unfortunately we don't have that support system, and someone has to care for these children, and since both mother and father are equally culpable for causing this child to exist, the burden of responsibility falls on them before anyone else. It's not fair to let one parent off the hook when both parents played a part in bringing the kid(s) into existence.
But in what sense does the burden of responsibility in any way fall on the woman in the current setup? Surely she can give the child up for adoption and thereby be "let off the hook"?
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
This is what I'm saying:
- Men, due to their biology, have only one choice: don't have sex to completely avoid the responsibility of supporting a child, or have sex and risk a pregnancy that will result in a child that they have to support
- Women, due to their biology, have two choices: don't have sex and avoid the responsibility of pregnancy altogether, or have sex and risk pregnancy, and in the event of pregnancy, choose to allow the uterus to continue hosting that pregnancy and be responsible for any eventual child to result from that pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.
Just because men don't have say over what a woman chooses to do with her uterus doesn't mean that they aren't 50% "to blame" for the birth of their children.
As I've said earlier, if our society and economy were structured differently then there might not be any need for this kind of rigorous policing of parental responsibility.
These bits in bold don't seem to follow. That fact that men will have to support a child that they father isn't due to biology; it's due to law. The law which is being debated in this thread. Everything else you've said is self-evident, but you seem to say nothing on the rights or wrongs of the laws as they stand, which is the entire point of this discussion.
Women are legally required to support a child that they mother. Again, this is not because of biology, but because of law. The law, regarding child support and responsibility, is equal and fair. If a child's father is awarded custody then the mother has to pay child support and vice versa.
It doesn't make any sense to make the child support law (a fair and equal law) slanted in men's favor just because another law, which is also fair (that women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies; a right that men also have) means that men having less choice in a biological matter means they are more prone to face child support payments.
The two issues are separate.
It is fair for women to be allowed control over their bodies. Men also have this right.
It is fair for men to be made to pay child support for their offspring when they will not support them of their own volition. Women are also subject to this rule.
Nature isn't fair. The law can't make it fair. This in no way, shape, or form means that the laws in question are not fair. They may not be terribly convenient for you, but they are fair.
But in what sense does the burden of responsibility in any way fall on the woman in the current setup? Surely she can give the child up for adoption and thereby be "let off the hook"?
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
She can't put the baby up for adoption without the father's consent. If she does, he retains the right to challenge that adoption and get his child back.
But in what sense does the burden of responsibility in any way fall on the woman in the current setup? Surely she can give the child up for adoption and thereby be "let off the hook"?
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
She can't put the baby up for adoption without the father's consent. If she does, he retains the right to challenge that adoption and get his child back.
Righto. And I take it in this instance the woman is as liable for child support as a man would be? This is all I needed to know then. Sorry if my startling ignorance has unnecessarily protracted this thread.
But in what sense does the burden of responsibility in any way fall on the woman in the current setup? Surely she can give the child up for adoption and thereby be "let off the hook"?
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
Women can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) give children up for adoption unilaterally unless the father is completely out of the picture. I believe, but am not sure, that this is currently how the law works. If the woman gives birth to a child and doesn't want to care for it but the father does, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to have custody and she should pay him child support.
But in what sense does the burden of responsibility in any way fall on the woman in the current setup? Surely she can give the child up for adoption and thereby be "let off the hook"?
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
Women can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) give children up for adoption unilaterally unless the father is completely out of the picture. I believe, but am not sure, that this is currently how the law works. If the woman gives birth to a child and doesn't want to care for it but the father does, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to have custody and she should pay him child support.
Yes, as I said just above, this is what I was wondering about (I probably should just have asked directly. Sorry). If this is the case, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then I agree with you. Super.
I still maintain that the system could be more equal than it is. The woman can choose to abort the fetus, and thus not be responcible for the child, a man has no choice, he is bound to the choice of the woman.
I still maintain that the system could be more equal than it is. The woman can choose to abort the fetus, and thus not be responcible for the child, a man has no choice, he is bound to the choice of the woman.
Well, it's the basic fact of human reproduction that the woman controls the uterus, and it has nothing to do with "the system."
Okay, so that sounds more snarky than I mean it to, but I and others in this thread have stated over and over again that you can't make pregnancy "fair" when it comes to who has to do what.
This is a point that I think someone else made, but I didn't get it at the time, so I thought I'd throw it out there explicitly.
A woman, going into sex, may be absolutely assured of the outcome with regards to pregnancy. Because even if everything else fails, she always has the nuclear option of abortion. The man, however, cannot be assured of that. Even if, for the sake of the argument, it is explicitly stated, he cannot be assured that he will not end up being responsible for a child.
That's more of a reproductive freedom thing, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
I still maintain that the system could be more equal than it is. The woman can choose to abort the fetus, and thus not be responcible for the child, a man has no choice, he is bound to the choice of the woman.
Well, it's the basic fact of human reproduction that the woman controls the uterus, and it has nothing to do with "the system."
Okay, so that sounds more snarky than I mean it to, but I and others in this thread have stated over and over again that you can't make pregnancy "fair" when it comes to who has to do what.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that women should not be able to control their bodies. The inequality is that women get to have sex while remaining in control of their pocketbooks, men do not.
This is a separate issue from what is fair, fair is not always equal, and I am deliberately leaving the child out of the whole question.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that women should not be able to control their bodies. The inequality is that women get to have sex while remaining in control of their pocketbooks, men do not.
This is a separate issue from what is fair, fair is not always equal, and I am deliberately leaving the child out of the whole question.
Then why bring it up? Yes, it's unequal that women have uteruses (uterii?) and men don't. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not men are responsible for supporting the caretaking of children they help produce.
Everyone keeps whining about how "poor innocent men" are forced to pay for "that bitch's decision" against their will and shit, and it pisses you off when I treat the issue like it's a man versus woman thing. Sweet.
Probably late as hell, but I just wanted to say I wasn't trying to single you out. Most of my posts I've been trying to point out that child support is not necessarily a man against a woman. You were just the convenient one to quote this time. (I've missed the last few pages, though, so I'm leaving it at that. Looking forward to seeing the amusement on Monday.)
Then why bring it up? Yes, it's unequal that women have uteruses (uterii?) and men don't. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not men are responsible for supporting the caretaking of children they help produce.
If the man and the woman were the only parties involved, I would want the situation to be equal, but what is fair needs to be fair for the child first, the parents second.
Too many people won't admit that this situation screws men over. Granted, short of massive state intervention in childrearing, somebody had to be screwed, I just want people to agree with my assessment.
Then why bring it up? Yes, it's unequal that women have uteruses (uterii?) and men don't. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not men are responsible for supporting the caretaking of children they help produce.
If the man and the woman were the only parties involved, I would want the situation to be equal, but what is fair needs to be fair for the child first, the parents second.
Too many people won't admit that this situation screws men over. Granted, short of massive state intervention in childrearing, somebody had to be screwed, I just want people to agree with my assessment.
I don't think anyone could possibly argue (with a straight face) that this situation represents equality. It clearly does not (by any objective assessment).
Unfortunately (as has been mentioned several times), this state of affairs is the best that society can come up with given the biological imperatives.
Our society has never really been concerned with equality, so much as equal opportunity and equal standing under the law -- that is, things within our power, while maintaining a capitalisitc republic. One cannot achieve the much (and foolishly) lauded "Equality" without utter governmental control of all aspects of life. And of course such an arrangement would never produce actual equality -- it would only be theoretically capable of this.
So, fuck equality, is what I'm saying. People are not equal, for total equality requires total assimilation, total similarity. Equality cannot exist with ambition, choice, individuality, etc etc.
However, equality of opportunity and equality under the law are perfectly feasible goals.
Equality of opportunity doesn't have much of an application here, so we turn to the steadfast American value of equality under the law. And what do we find? That men and women have equality under the law.
And, just for the record? Pregnancy/abortion is not some happy, carefree experience. You don't throw a fucking party after you get a baby sucked out of you.
So, while admittedly women get the biological bonus of 100% effective birth control, they also get the burden of, well, pregnancy. I guess what I'm saying is, ah, shut the fuck up. If you want to complain about equality, fairness, etc etc, take it somewhere else. Women still face the greater burden, not men, but in either case, it's not the fucking law's place to render the outcome of both parties in perfect equality.
That's just not how American democracy works. It never has been, and hopefully, it never will be, because equality is Communist bullshit that rejects human ambition and progress and fucking inequality -- which is a facet of reality, in which people are fucking different.
In summation: Equality != American law. But, just for the hell of it, the fact still is that women's burden > men's burden.
So, basically all the arguments here re: men getting the shit end of the deal = ridiculous bullshit.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Without choice, accountability is impossible.
I disagree.
The child's right to the support of the parties that created it supercedes issues of consent on their part. The child had no say in its coming into existance. Its claim extends to both parties. Obligations toward the mother may hypothetically be negated by the mother's choice, but the obligation toward the child cannot be negated by the mother's choice and extends until the child reaches their legal majority.
So would lie = already guilty, then. That's some rational thinking there. And a survey of chavs in one country is certainly representative of the entire planet. Quick, someone get me a dumb boring male to give me money and a cute one to fuck on the side, I've clearly got some catching up to do.
So would lie = already guilty, then. That's some rational thinking there. And a survey of chavs in one country is certainly representative of the entire planet. Quick, someone get me a dumb boring male to give me money and a cute one to fuck on the side, I've clearly got some catching up to do.
So would lie = already guilty, then. That's some rational thinking there. And a survey of chavs in one country is certainly representative of the entire planet. Quick, someone get me a dumb boring male to give me money and a cute one to fuck on the side, I've clearly got some catching up to do.
I didn't. Most pair-bonding species have high false-paternity rates, although birds are the worst for it. Ecologist, remember? Wuv has almost never been the point of mawwiage until the last century or so.
But see, the nice thing is that we're not animals, we've figured out how DNA tracks families, and we're well content to work around that little tendency. Secondly, you've yet to post what you think should be done about this apparent plague of poor, poor menz happily raising children they love, unaware that OH MY THE LITTLE BASTARDS DON'T HAVE THEIR DNA HOW AWFUL. What do you want, stonings to come back? In cases where child support is an issue, DNA tests should be standard - thus, its a non-issue for the purposes of this thread. Amend a law or two, and nobody gets fucked over. Secondly, people who think its at all important that their spawn hold the same DNA as them creep me the fuck out, and I'm including IVF-chasing women who refuse to adopt as well as men who reject children they've happily loved for years and years when they find out paternity. They seem to have missed that "we're not dumb animals" memo that should be informing them that DNA doesn't fucking matter.
I don't really see what the statistic has to do with the issue. It's just sort of a mysogenistic smear.
Yup. And its not usually that blatant here anymore. Disappointing.
What really makes me laugh is the hidden notion behind these sentiments that CS is a ticket to riches. Yeah, fucking right it is. Its a ticket to staying out of the poorhouse. Its a ticket to offset the hundred-thousand-odd it costs to raise a child in a standard approaching comfortable over a couple of decades ($250,000 is the more common estimate for a middle-class child). Despite what Kanye tells you, she's not buying new tits and a gold-plated toilet seat with your $50 a week.
I don't think it's unreasonable for a person to want their child to be their own..
Ever seen photos of african or romanian ophanages? Until that's taken care of, I don't agree. It angers me more when I see a child rejected after the fact, though.
I don't really see what the statistic has to do with the issue. It's just sort of a mysogenistic smear.
Hahahaha.
I know where that stat came from. The American Association of Blood Banks says 30% of the paternity tests they did in 2000 came back negative. Obviously, that means 30% of men paying child support are not the biological fathers.
Posts
Let's make it fair and make women pay child support, too.
Or pay for every child's support with tax-dollars. Because that's fair and economically viable.
This is what I'm saying:
- Men, due to their biology, have only one choice: don't have sex to completely avoid the responsibility of supporting a child, or have sex and risk a pregnancy that will result in a child that they have to support
- Women, due to their biology, have two choices: don't have sex and avoid the responsibility of pregnancy altogether, or have sex and risk pregnancy, and in the event of pregnancy, choose to allow the uterus to continue hosting that pregnancy and be responsible for any eventual child to result from that pregnancy, or abort the pregnancy.
Just because men don't have say over what a woman chooses to do with her uterus doesn't mean that they aren't 50% "to blame" for the birth of their children.
As I've said earlier, if our society and economy were structured differently then there might not be any need for this kind of rigorous policing of parental responsibility.
Choosing to be resoncible for any outcome of sex is hardly a tough choice when you decide the outcome. It's clearly unequal.
Told ya so.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
To elaborate, then:
The "biology" I'm talking about is genetic connection to the child. As in, a man's sperm are half of what it physically takes to start a pregnancy. Women supply the other half, the ovum and the uterus.
No pregnancy can occur unless the man takes part, just as no pregnancy can occur without the woman taking part. The biological fact of a man's sperm fertilizing an egg is the cause of the man's responsibility for the pregnancy and its eventual outcome (whether child or not).
Why do parents have a responsibility to care for their children?
We, as a society, agree that children deserve to be cared for because they can't care for themselves. Use whatever justification you like: religious sanction, the founding fathers, your favorite ethical philosopher, etc., but we still generally agree that those who can't take care of themselves deserve to be cared for.
Further, we assume that the parents of the children are those who are "first in line" to care for those children. Those two parents are the two closest adults to those children, both in a genetic and experiential sense, and it makes sense to us that they are the first people given the responsibility of rearing those children.
If our society were different, and we had an extensive support system of public funding and services to care for children when the parents were unwilling or unable to do so, then we might not need to hold parents responsible. Unfortunately we don't have that support system, and someone has to care for these children, and since both mother and father are equally culpable for causing this child to exist, the burden of responsibility falls on them before anyone else. It's not fair to let one parent off the hook when both parents played a part in bringing the kid(s) into existence.
(I realise I'm not sounding very nice exactly here. I should point out that by now I'm no longer exactly trying to defend opinions that I specifically hold, just trying to draw the discussion along its logical path.)
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
Women are legally required to support a child that they mother. Again, this is not because of biology, but because of law. The law, regarding child support and responsibility, is equal and fair. If a child's father is awarded custody then the mother has to pay child support and vice versa.
It doesn't make any sense to make the child support law (a fair and equal law) slanted in men's favor just because another law, which is also fair (that women have the right to choose what happens to their bodies; a right that men also have) means that men having less choice in a biological matter means they are more prone to face child support payments.
The two issues are separate.
It is fair for women to be allowed control over their bodies. Men also have this right.
It is fair for men to be made to pay child support for their offspring when they will not support them of their own volition. Women are also subject to this rule.
Nature isn't fair. The law can't make it fair. This in no way, shape, or form means that the laws in question are not fair. They may not be terribly convenient for you, but they are fair.
She can't put the baby up for adoption without the father's consent. If she does, he retains the right to challenge that adoption and get his child back.
Righto. And I take it in this instance the woman is as liable for child support as a man would be? This is all I needed to know then. Sorry if my startling ignorance has unnecessarily protracted this thread.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
Women can't (or at least shouldn't be able to) give children up for adoption unilaterally unless the father is completely out of the picture. I believe, but am not sure, that this is currently how the law works. If the woman gives birth to a child and doesn't want to care for it but the father does, I don't see any reason why he shouldn't be able to have custody and she should pay him child support.
Yes, as I said just above, this is what I was wondering about (I probably should just have asked directly. Sorry). If this is the case, and I have no reason to believe it isn't, then I agree with you. Super.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
I still maintain that the system could be more equal than it is. The woman can choose to abort the fetus, and thus not be responcible for the child, a man has no choice, he is bound to the choice of the woman.
Well, it's the basic fact of human reproduction that the woman controls the uterus, and it has nothing to do with "the system."
Okay, so that sounds more snarky than I mean it to, but I and others in this thread have stated over and over again that you can't make pregnancy "fair" when it comes to who has to do what.
A woman, going into sex, may be absolutely assured of the outcome with regards to pregnancy. Because even if everything else fails, she always has the nuclear option of abortion. The man, however, cannot be assured of that. Even if, for the sake of the argument, it is explicitly stated, he cannot be assured that he will not end up being responsible for a child.
That's more of a reproductive freedom thing, but I thought I'd throw it out there.
Nobody in this thread has suggested that women should not be able to control their bodies. The inequality is that women get to have sex while remaining in control of their pocketbooks, men do not.
This is a separate issue from what is fair, fair is not always equal, and I am deliberately leaving the child out of the whole question.
Then why bring it up? Yes, it's unequal that women have uteruses (uterii?) and men don't. That has absolutely no bearing on whether or not men are responsible for supporting the caretaking of children they help produce.
Probably late as hell, but I just wanted to say I wasn't trying to single you out. Most of my posts I've been trying to point out that child support is not necessarily a man against a woman. You were just the convenient one to quote this time.
If the man and the woman were the only parties involved, I would want the situation to be equal, but what is fair needs to be fair for the child first, the parents second.
Too many people won't admit that this situation screws men over. Granted, short of massive state intervention in childrearing, somebody had to be screwed, I just want people to agree with my assessment.
I don't think anyone could possibly argue (with a straight face) that this situation represents equality. It clearly does not (by any objective assessment).
Unfortunately (as has been mentioned several times), this state of affairs is the best that society can come up with given the biological imperatives.
So, fuck equality, is what I'm saying. People are not equal, for total equality requires total assimilation, total similarity. Equality cannot exist with ambition, choice, individuality, etc etc.
However, equality of opportunity and equality under the law are perfectly feasible goals.
Equality of opportunity doesn't have much of an application here, so we turn to the steadfast American value of equality under the law. And what do we find? That men and women have equality under the law.
And, just for the record? Pregnancy/abortion is not some happy, carefree experience. You don't throw a fucking party after you get a baby sucked out of you.
So, while admittedly women get the biological bonus of 100% effective birth control, they also get the burden of, well, pregnancy. I guess what I'm saying is, ah, shut the fuck up. If you want to complain about equality, fairness, etc etc, take it somewhere else. Women still face the greater burden, not men, but in either case, it's not the fucking law's place to render the outcome of both parties in perfect equality.
That's just not how American democracy works. It never has been, and hopefully, it never will be, because equality is Communist bullshit that rejects human ambition and progress and fucking inequality -- which is a facet of reality, in which people are fucking different.
In summation: Equality != American law. But, just for the hell of it, the fact still is that women's burden > men's burden.
So, basically all the arguments here re: men getting the shit end of the deal = ridiculous bullshit.
I disagree.
The child's right to the support of the parties that created it supercedes issues of consent on their part. The child had no say in its coming into existance. Its claim extends to both parties. Obligations toward the mother may hypothetically be negated by the mother's choice, but the obligation toward the child cannot be negated by the mother's choice and extends until the child reaches their legal majority.
Half of women are filthy liars.
Discuss.
Wow.
Three simple words come to mind:
DNA paternity test.
Nothing says reputable like That's Life!
Also, irrelevant. Paternity tests.
The actual statistics are closer to 30%
Takes away the uncertainty of who the father is.
The problem seems to be the outdated laws. Not the oh mah god lying womens.
I'll quote this again on the off chance you missed it.
I'm going to quote something else, in case you missed it. That means that just because they could lie, they aren't necessarily guilty of it.
But see, the nice thing is that we're not animals, we've figured out how DNA tracks families, and we're well content to work around that little tendency. Secondly, you've yet to post what you think should be done about this apparent plague of poor, poor menz happily raising children they love, unaware that OH MY THE LITTLE BASTARDS DON'T HAVE THEIR DNA HOW AWFUL. What do you want, stonings to come back? In cases where child support is an issue, DNA tests should be standard - thus, its a non-issue for the purposes of this thread. Amend a law or two, and nobody gets fucked over. Secondly, people who think its at all important that their spawn hold the same DNA as them creep me the fuck out, and I'm including IVF-chasing women who refuse to adopt as well as men who reject children they've happily loved for years and years when they find out paternity. They seem to have missed that "we're not dumb animals" memo that should be informing them that DNA doesn't fucking matter.
Yup. And its not usually that blatant here anymore. Disappointing.
What really makes me laugh is the hidden notion behind these sentiments that CS is a ticket to riches. Yeah, fucking right it is. Its a ticket to staying out of the poorhouse. Its a ticket to offset the hundred-thousand-odd it costs to raise a child in a standard approaching comfortable over a couple of decades ($250,000 is the more common estimate for a middle-class child). Despite what Kanye tells you, she's not buying new tits and a gold-plated toilet seat with your $50 a week.
Why Cat?
Hahahaha.
I know where that stat came from. The American Association of Blood Banks says 30% of the paternity tests they did in 2000 came back negative. Obviously, that means 30% of men paying child support are not the biological fathers.
Ahahahahaha.