Nobody is asking the mother to carry a child to term. In fact, often we're asking her not to.
That's my entire point. I'm saying that reproductive rights extend beyond the right to abort. They also extend to the right to keep a child. If we eliminate any choice in this matter even through false choices, we are no longer protecting full reproductive rights and are instead reducing them.
Funny, because what I'm hearing a lot of is essentially "PUNISH THOSE SLUTS," only this time the "sluts" are men. And its seems to be perfectly acceptable.
Not really because the "punishment" isn't really a punishment at all. You can't really compare pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing to child support payments since the scope of sacrifice isn't even in the same realm. In any case, we have to make a choice between two systems, one in which men can choose to give up all obligations to their children or one in which they are required to support their children. All externalities taken into account, I would go with the second one because it is the only way to ensure reproductive rights for women, provide adequate care for children, and avoid burdening uninvolved 3rd parties (everyone else, through taxation) with the bill.
Just because you didn't mean to make her pregnant doesn't mean that you shouldn't be partially responsible.
But I've already advocated paying for $procedure.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to terminate. The man doesn't have that choice ... What's your point?
That a man shouldn't be responsible for a choice he doesn't have?
Do you want me to explain to you how sex could lead to pregnancy, and how pregnancy could lead to babies?
Actually, I want you to explain how the words "could" get replaced with the words "have to", and why you think that a man should help that process along.
The terms "sue for damages" and "avoid paying child support" are being compared.
Except they aren't. Suing for damages is analagous to suing for child support in this example - becasue the two actions (getting money for your hardship) are what is alike here.
So I don't see how slight economic hardship is being argued here to be put on equal footing with possible real physical consequences.
Because those "real physical consequences" do not inherently include raising a new person. They should only include delivery by whatever method.
But everyone knows that parenthood is a potential outcome of sex. That's not the debate.
Conception is a possible outcome of sex. Parenthood is a choice one makes regarding conception.
Are you saying that because people would be angry if the reverse was true, then the people's arguments right now are baseless?
Well, that is the textbook definition of "Double Standard". So, yes.
Funny, because what I'm hearing a lot of is essentially "PUNISH THOSE SLUTS," only this time the "sluts" are men. And its seems to be perfectly acceptable.
Bingo.
We say no in the interest of the child.
If there is a concern that the child will not be adequatly provided for, that should be considered before one goes ahead and decides to have it. In the interest of not being a sexist fuckhead, I think that decision and its consequences should lie entirely with the woman. Because that's what I'd want if it were my own body.
I'm saying that reproductive rights extend beyond the right to abort. They also extend to the right to keep a child.
I say they only extend to the point of delivery, live or not. The decision to keep and raise something is a separate choice entirely.
I'm going to take a break from this discussion, if that's okay. I don't plan on leaving entirely, but I'd like to keep a cool head in my responses and I need the break to maintain that.
Pretty much the entire argument for why men should have to pay child support for the next 18 years for a baby they'd prefer to see aborted is, "they should just have not had sex."
In other words, sluts.
Being punished.
And no, there really isn't another viable option that doesn't involve greatly increasing taxes on responsible citizens, punishing children, or forcing women to abort when they don't want to. I'm just greatly amused at the way people act as though the current situation is somehow reasonable, when in reality it's only marginally less fucked up than a system in which either abortions are banned or the "false choice" system sanstodo rightly points out.
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me.
So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
Do you want me to explain to you how sex could lead to pregnancy, and how pregnancy could lead to babies?
Actually, I want you to explain how the words "could" get replaced with the words "have to", and why you think that a man should help that process along.
Because he had a hand in it, and in the interest of the child.
If there is a concern that the child will not be adequatly provided for, that should be considered before one goes ahead and has it. In the interest of not being a sexist fuckhead, I think that decision and its consequences should lie entirely with the woman. Because that's what I'd want if it were my own body.
I'm going to take a break from this discussion, if that's okay. I don't plan on leaving entirely, but I'd like to keep a cool head in my responses and I need the break to maintain that.
What do you propose? Forced abortions for the poor?
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me. So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
In retrospect, I think this says it all way better than I could.
Do you want me to explain to you how sex could lead to pregnancy, and how pregnancy could lead to babies?
Actually, I want you to explain how the words "could" get replaced with the words "have to", and why you think that a man should help that process along.
Because he had a hand in it, and in the interest of the child.
If there is a concern that the child will not be adequatly provided for, that should be considered before one goes ahead and has it. In the interest of not being a sexist fuckhead, I think that decision and its consequences should lie entirely with the woman. Because that's what I'd want if it were my own body.
I'm going to take a break from this discussion, if that's okay. I don't plan on leaving entirely, but I'd like to keep a cool head in my responses and I need the break to maintain that.
What do you propose? Forced abortions for the poor?
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me. So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
In retrospect, I think this says it all way better than I could.
See this is the kinda of debate I wanted to spark in the other thread. Reverse sexism at it's finest. Not saying I wouldn't gladly support any child I had a hand in creating, but I'm just saying that there appears to be a double standard in play here that has been put much more eloquently than I could've put forth.
Pretty much the entire argument for why men should have to pay child support for the next 18 years for a baby they'd prefer to see aborted is, "they should just have not had sex."
In other words, sluts.
Being punished.
And no, there really isn't another viable option that doesn't involve greatly increasing taxes on responsible citizens, punishing children, or forcing women to abort when they don't want to. I'm just greatly amused at the way people act as though the current situation is somehow reasonable, when in reality it's only marginally less fucked up than a system in which either abortions are banned or the "false choice" system sanstodo rightly points out.
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me.
So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. It's a necessary evil type thing.
woman chooses to keep the child regardless of man's concerns
man and woman are legally responsible for raising the child
I agree, this sucks but which is worse? If we remove responsibility from the father, we harm an innocent child being brought into the world. If we leave it as-is, we harm an assumed adult who had enough maturity to have sex and potentially the responsibility and ability to raise a child.
I still advocate taking responsibility for the risk you took when having sex in the first place. Is child rearing assumed when having sex? Of course not... but the "purpose" of sex is... based upon biology, procreating.
This is absolutely false. You can sue an amusement park regardless of whether or not there was gross negligence or not. In fact, even if you sign an agreement saying you understand all the risks involved beforehand, you can still sue - though you're unlikely to win.
'Consenting' to a risk is entirely different from consent - I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to argue that consenting to the possibility of being raped by going to a nightclub is the same as consenting to sex with the rapist, because it flies in the face of what the word consent even means.
This whole "women who have sex are sluts and deserve the consequences" analog for men is both disturbing and idiotic. If you want to argue that men should be forced to pay child support but women should not be forced to have abortions, either make the distinction based on the Supreme Court's reasoning for legalising abortion - the right to privacy - or by focusing on the negative social consequences of letting men refuse to pay child support (and of stopping abortion). Don't even try this ludicrous "it logically follows from you sticking your penis into a vagina that you are absolutely willing to spend the next 18 years of your life supporting a child thing" - or even worse, the "this is the way I want consent and relations and sex to work so this is way they actually do."
EDIT: Late, maybe.
I worded it badly, I apologize. "Can't" should have been "are not going to win." You're not going to win a typical case of someone getting hurt at an amusement park, just like pursuing legal action to get off the hook for child support wil usually fail. Normally, it's possible to win in extreme cases and lose in others.
For example, a model asked for child support from Boris Becker after she had his baby. Except that she obtained the semen by giving him a BJ in a restaurant bathroom then putting it in a sealed container, rushing to a clinic, and getting pregnant through IV. The court found him to not be responsible for his actions since his semen was used in a way that he could not have foreseen, and that would not have resulted in pregnancy without extreme actions.
If they had had sex in the bathroom stall, I bet the court would have found differently.
I and others have already mentioned the social negatives (infringements on women's rights through establishment of false choice). You can reply to those if you wish.
See this is the kinda of debate I wanted to spark in the other thread. Reverse sexism at it's finest. Not saying I wouldn't gladly support any child I had a hand in creating, but I'm just saying that there appears to be a double standard in play here that has been put much more eloquently than I could've put forth.
The problem, imo, is that the debate centered around women is a question of whether they have the right to control decisions about their body...whereas the debate regarding men is just a question of money.
Actions have consequences. Conception is a consequence of sex, unprotected or otherwise.
Yes. CONCEPTION. Not child-rearing. That's a separate decision.
Not for you it's not.
Biologically the man gets to decide whether he's going to have sex. This directly contributes to whether he and his partner will conceive and potentially become parents. After the sex act, he is not physically involved in the baby's maturation.
Biologically the woman gets to decide whether she's going to have sex. This directly contributes to whether she and her partner will conceive and potentially become parents. After the sex act, she is physically involved in the baby's maturation for nine months after which she endures hours of painful labor or a painful and invasive surgery to deliver the child.
There's a difference here. I trust that you can spot it. Since the woman is carrying the child inside of her body she gets to decide whether or not it's born. You already had your chance and the system currently exists in such a way that the ultimate responsibility lies with the woman and a diminished responsibility lies with the man. If you don't want the baby all you're obligate to do is write checks to ensure that the mother can care for it. You don't have to feed it, change its diapers, or go to its baseball games and choir performances.
Actions have consequences. The consequence of a man having sex is that he may potentially become a parent because what a woman can do with and to her body is nobody's choice but hers. You already got to decide what you could and would do with your body when you inserted your penis into her vagina.
Do you seriously think that you should have to shoulder even less responsibility than writing checks for a child that were instrumental in creating? Nobody's asking you to raise it; they're asking you to allow the mother the financial means with which to raise it. A fair trade, I think. She had to carry it, you just had to throw it money.
It would seem that this thread has changed my mind. My number 2 is gone. If you helped make it, you'd damn well better help raise it. Helping to financially support it is the absolute least you can do. You don't want to be a daddy? Quit sticking you dick in people.
Pretty much the entire argument for why men should have to pay child support for the next 18 years for a baby they'd prefer to see aborted is, "they should just have not had sex."
In other words, sluts.
Being punished.
And no, there really isn't another viable option that doesn't involve greatly increasing taxes on responsible citizens, punishing children, or forcing women to abort when they don't want to. I'm just greatly amused at the way people act as though the current situation is somehow reasonable, when in reality it's only marginally less fucked up than a system in which either abortions are banned or the "false choice" system sanstodo rightly points out.
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me.
So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. It's a necessary evil type thing.
I also agree. I'm not happy about the system either but I see how it works better than the alternatives. The only reason I see these arguments as reasonable is because the opposing side is even worse.
It would seem that this thread has changed my mind. My number 2 is gone. If you helped make it, you'd damn well better help raise it. Helping to financially support it is the absolute least you can do. You don't want to be a daddy? Quit sticking you dick in people.
Sanstodo: I think we agree. I'm certainly not in favor of letting someone refuse to pay child support either.
Yeah, I realized that after I re-read your response. A lot can be done to clean up the system as it currently stands (which became obvious about 2 seconds into helping my dad with some fun family law stuff as a teenager) but the principles are the least worst choice (as he used to say).
See this is the kinda of debate I wanted to spark in the other thread. Reverse sexism at it's finest. Not saying I wouldn't gladly support any child I had a hand in creating, but I'm just saying that there appears to be a double standard in play here that has been put much more eloquently than I could've put forth.
The problem, imo, is that the debate centered around women is a question of whether they have the right to control decisions about their body...whereas the debate regarding men is just a question of money.
You'll never see me marginalize the impact that carrying a pregnancy to term has on a woman's body. It's a huge deal, can have life-threatening repercussions, and is definitely something that should never be forced.
That said, I think you and others are drastically understating the impact that having to support, even only financially, an unwanted child can have on the father. Both financial impact, impact on relationships, etc. I mean, acting like it's "just a question of money" is about two notches above the old "it's just nine months" argument.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of. And that's just the monetary aspect.
It would seem that this thread has changed my mind. My number 2 is gone. If you helped make it, you'd damn well better help raise it. Helping to financially support it is the absolute least you can do. You don't want to be a daddy? Quit sticking you dick in people.
I'd like to point out again that this argument is only about one notch above the "if you don't want to be a mom stop being such a slut" argument used in favor of banning abortion. Seriously, it's the best system that's feasible but arguments like this are absolute bullshit.
Do you seriously think that you should have to shoulder even less responsibility than writing checks for a child that were instrumental in creating? Nobody's asking you to raise it; they're asking you to allow the mother the financial means with which to raise it. A fair trade, I think. She had to carry it, you just had to throw it money.
There needs to be a lot more pressure to not have a fucking kid if you don't have more than adequate means to raise it.
Why do we treat it like bringing a kid into the world is such a great thing? We don't need more people. We have enough.
This is one of those things that the government needs to keep its fucking nose out of. Build us roads. For cryin' out loud, do something about the telcos and the power grid. Socialize medicine. Make abortions and contraception available. Fine. But this shit is a moral decision, and if some mother wants to bring a kid into the world without the means to support it, and it suffers and dies, it's her fucking fault, not anyone else's. And frankly, the world's no worse for the wear.
Yeah, yeah, I'm a terrible person. Whatever. If you're that concerned about people, worry about the ones that're already here and suffering.
EDIT: This isn't entirely in response to you jclast. It started that way, but turned into a rant.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
That still reads like an argument against abortion.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
So if I were to say "you chose to have sex, therefore you should carry that child to term", that'd be totally acceptable, yeah?
Cuz I don't think that'd be acceptable to most people here.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
That still reads like an argument against abortion.
If the woman wants to abort then that's her choice, but that's not the issue here. Unless we want to take away a woman's right to what happens to her own body then men get to choose whether or not they'll become parents prior to the sex act, not after.
Women have longer to decide, but they also endure additional suffering as a result.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
So if I were to say "you chose to have sex, therefore you should carry that child to term", that'd be totally acceptable, yeah?
Cuz I don't think that'd be acceptable to most people here.
*edit* Beat by Adrien
I'm not arguing about abortion. A man stands a chance of becoming a father every time he has sex because whether she has an abortion is the mother's choice and no one else's.
Similarly, a woman stands a chance of becoming a mother every time she has sex if she is morally opposed to abortion. I'm not saying "nobody can have abortions." I'm saying that I know people that have children for no reason other than that they couldn't bring themselves to terminate the pregnancy.
Well, we're talking about taking away a man's right to what he spends his paycheque on.
And I think if I had a part in impregnating a woman, and she/we decided to abort, obviously she'd have some physical/mental scars, but I'd still feel like shit as well.
It's not like men go off drinking, celebrating their lack of fatherhood (though I imagine some do).
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
Yeah, the more I read it, the more it easily sounds like an anti-abortion argument.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
So if I were to say "you chose to have sex, therefore you should carry that child to term", that'd be totally acceptable, yeah?
Cuz I don't think that'd be acceptable to most people here.
*edit* Beat by Adrien
you can't apply the same argument to both sides - it isn't sexist because the roles are not the same. Biologically, they're different - it doesn't make sense to treat them, in this circumstance, the same. besides, the "mother's responsibility after getting pregnant thread" is over yonder
See this is the kinda of debate I wanted to spark in the other thread. Reverse sexism at it's finest. Not saying I wouldn't gladly support any child I had a hand in creating, but I'm just saying that there appears to be a double standard in play here that has been put much more eloquently than I could've put forth.
The problem, imo, is that the debate centered around women is a question of whether they have the right to control decisions about their body...whereas the debate regarding men is just a question of money.
You'll never see me marginalize the impact that carrying a pregnancy to term has on a woman's body. It's a huge deal, can have life-threatening repercussions, and is definitely something that should never be forced.
That said, I think you and others are drastically understating the impact that having to support, even only financially, an unwanted child can have on the father. Both financial impact, impact on relationships, etc. I mean, acting like it's "just a question of money" is about two notches above the old "it's just nine months" argument.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of. And that's just the monetary aspect.
Ok, which is worse: one person losing a quarter of their income or a child (who obviously has no say in the matter) having a worse childhood? It unfair that shit happens, but that doesn't allow anyone to shirk their responsibility, especially if an innocent child suffers as a result.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
Yeah, the more I read it, the more it easily sounds like an anti-abortion argument.
I'm pro-choice. It's not my place to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body.
I'm saying that I know people that have children for no reason other than that they couldn't bring themselves to terminate the pregnancy.
So we should hold the man responsible for the woman's psychological hang-ups?
I mean, I can't think of a much worse reason to have a kid. It's bad for the kid. It's bad for the mom. It's bad for the father. But mom's a bloody idiot, so hey - let's fuck everyone in the name of fairness!
One day soon there'll be a great trade: reproductive technologies are going to kill child support, but the death will be slow and painful. Women can't be coerced into having abortions and men can't be coerced into paying for children they don't want. The pay scale between women and men will finally even out and we'll always be able to put a pregnancy 'on ice' until the legalities are settled.
So, for now: a man's responsibilities are to pay for a child, even after a divorce initiated by a woman. In the future? Nobody'll be subsidizing anyone's child rearing unless it's 100% consensual by both parties.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
Yeah, the more I read it, the more it easily sounds like an anti-abortion argument.
I'm pro-choice. It's not my place to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body.
The point I'm making is that you can easily apply that same argument to banning abortion (have sex and get pregnant, oh well). The fact that it happens to be a man who's going to be on the hook here is revealing your bias.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
Yeah, the more I read it, the more it easily sounds like an anti-abortion argument.
While abortion is legal, women have the right to not deal with the consequences of unplanned pregnancies. Men should have the exact same right. If they don't get a say in abortion, as they shouldn't, they should get a say in whether or not they are financially obligated to the offspring. They both made the choice to have sex; I don't see why the woman is allowed to make all the decisions from there on out.
The best solution is probably to require a a legal document to be signed by the father prior to birth waiving all legal rights and responsibilities to the child. If no such document is signed, the father is on the hook until the kid is 18.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
That still reads like an argument against abortion.
I believe the issue is that there is an issue of choice involved. On the one hand, if a woman gets pregnant she can (not whether she should or not, just the basic fact that she is able to), if she so chooses, terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term. In the case of the man, once he's impregnated his wife/girlfriend/etc. there's no physical way for him to reverse the process/stop it by doing anything to his own body. Thus, it would be a Non sequitur to compare the two separate arguments listed because in the case of the one against abortion, you're dealing with a choice that exists, whereas in the one in relation to men's options, there is no choice that exists.
Though I understand that the system as is, is biased in favour of the mother, but I see that more as a balance to women's rights issues in that it does more good in its current situation to provide for the best interests of the child rather than taking away that guarantee and having cases whereby either coercion or neglect causes the mother unable to support her child and the child suffering as a result.
Posts
That's my entire point. I'm saying that reproductive rights extend beyond the right to abort. They also extend to the right to keep a child. If we eliminate any choice in this matter even through false choices, we are no longer protecting full reproductive rights and are instead reducing them.
Not really because the "punishment" isn't really a punishment at all. You can't really compare pregnancy, childbirth, and childrearing to child support payments since the scope of sacrifice isn't even in the same realm. In any case, we have to make a choice between two systems, one in which men can choose to give up all obligations to their children or one in which they are required to support their children. All externalities taken into account, I would go with the second one because it is the only way to ensure reproductive rights for women, provide adequate care for children, and avoid burdening uninvolved 3rd parties (everyone else, through taxation) with the bill.
Yes. CONCEPTION. Not child-rearing. That's a separate decision.
But I've already advocated paying for $procedure.
That a man shouldn't be responsible for a choice he doesn't have?
Actually, I want you to explain how the words "could" get replaced with the words "have to", and why you think that a man should help that process along.
Except they aren't. Suing for damages is analagous to suing for child support in this example - becasue the two actions (getting money for your hardship) are what is alike here.
Because those "real physical consequences" do not inherently include raising a new person. They should only include delivery by whatever method.
Conception is a possible outcome of sex. Parenthood is a choice one makes regarding conception.
Well, that is the textbook definition of "Double Standard". So, yes.
Bingo.
If there is a concern that the child will not be adequatly provided for, that should be considered before one goes ahead and decides to have it. In the interest of not being a sexist fuckhead, I think that decision and its consequences should lie entirely with the woman. Because that's what I'd want if it were my own body.
I say they only extend to the point of delivery, live or not. The decision to keep and raise something is a separate choice entirely.
I'm going to take a break from this discussion, if that's okay. I don't plan on leaving entirely, but I'd like to keep a cool head in my responses and I need the break to maintain that.
Pretty much the entire argument for why men should have to pay child support for the next 18 years for a baby they'd prefer to see aborted is, "they should just have not had sex."
In other words, sluts.
Being punished.
And no, there really isn't another viable option that doesn't involve greatly increasing taxes on responsible citizens, punishing children, or forcing women to abort when they don't want to. I'm just greatly amused at the way people act as though the current situation is somehow reasonable, when in reality it's only marginally less fucked up than a system in which either abortions are banned or the "false choice" system sanstodo rightly points out.
Again, people are using arguments in this thread regarding men and acting as though they are reasonable, when the same arguments regarding women make you a misogynist. It amuses me.
So yeah, as I've already said, the current system is unfortunately the least horrible option. But you won't see me going out of my way to defend it, and I have no problem pointing out the flaws and double standards involved.
He does have one.
Because he had a hand in it, and in the interest of the child.
What do you propose? Forced abortions for the poor?
A child which isn't a child until its born, and there's a lot of time to change that tune after conception.
Honestly? I'm not proposing anything, I'm pointing out that the current system is fucking lopsided and sexist. It isn't legally just.
I don't know what to change it to. I don't know how to fix it. All I know is that currently, it is unjust.
In retrospect, I think this says it all way better than I could.
Maybe a tax break for sterilization?
Ditto.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. It's a necessary evil type thing.
man and woman choose to protect against pregnancy
woman becomes pregnant
woman chooses to keep the child regardless of man's concerns
man and woman are legally responsible for raising the child
I agree, this sucks but which is worse? If we remove responsibility from the father, we harm an innocent child being brought into the world. If we leave it as-is, we harm an assumed adult who had enough maturity to have sex and potentially the responsibility and ability to raise a child.
I still advocate taking responsibility for the risk you took when having sex in the first place. Is child rearing assumed when having sex? Of course not... but the "purpose" of sex is... based upon biology, procreating.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
I worded it badly, I apologize. "Can't" should have been "are not going to win." You're not going to win a typical case of someone getting hurt at an amusement park, just like pursuing legal action to get off the hook for child support wil usually fail. Normally, it's possible to win in extreme cases and lose in others.
For example, a model asked for child support from Boris Becker after she had his baby. Except that she obtained the semen by giving him a BJ in a restaurant bathroom then putting it in a sealed container, rushing to a clinic, and getting pregnant through IV. The court found him to not be responsible for his actions since his semen was used in a way that he could not have foreseen, and that would not have resulted in pregnancy without extreme actions.
If they had had sex in the bathroom stall, I bet the court would have found differently.
I and others have already mentioned the social negatives (infringements on women's rights through establishment of false choice). You can reply to those if you wish.
The problem, imo, is that the debate centered around women is a question of whether they have the right to control decisions about their body...whereas the debate regarding men is just a question of money.
Not for you it's not.
Biologically the man gets to decide whether he's going to have sex. This directly contributes to whether he and his partner will conceive and potentially become parents. After the sex act, he is not physically involved in the baby's maturation.
Biologically the woman gets to decide whether she's going to have sex. This directly contributes to whether she and her partner will conceive and potentially become parents. After the sex act, she is physically involved in the baby's maturation for nine months after which she endures hours of painful labor or a painful and invasive surgery to deliver the child.
There's a difference here. I trust that you can spot it. Since the woman is carrying the child inside of her body she gets to decide whether or not it's born. You already had your chance and the system currently exists in such a way that the ultimate responsibility lies with the woman and a diminished responsibility lies with the man. If you don't want the baby all you're obligate to do is write checks to ensure that the mother can care for it. You don't have to feed it, change its diapers, or go to its baseball games and choir performances.
Actions have consequences. The consequence of a man having sex is that he may potentially become a parent because what a woman can do with and to her body is nobody's choice but hers. You already got to decide what you could and would do with your body when you inserted your penis into her vagina.
Do you seriously think that you should have to shoulder even less responsibility than writing checks for a child that were instrumental in creating? Nobody's asking you to raise it; they're asking you to allow the mother the financial means with which to raise it. A fair trade, I think. She had to carry it, you just had to throw it money.
It would seem that this thread has changed my mind. My number 2 is gone. If you helped make it, you'd damn well better help raise it. Helping to financially support it is the absolute least you can do. You don't want to be a daddy? Quit sticking you dick in people.
I also agree. I'm not happy about the system either but I see how it works better than the alternatives. The only reason I see these arguments as reasonable is because the opposing side is even worse.
/agree
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Yeah, I realized that after I re-read your response. A lot can be done to clean up the system as it currently stands (which became obvious about 2 seconds into helping my dad with some fun family law stuff as a teenager) but the principles are the least worst choice (as he used to say).
You'll never see me marginalize the impact that carrying a pregnancy to term has on a woman's body. It's a huge deal, can have life-threatening repercussions, and is definitely something that should never be forced.
That said, I think you and others are drastically understating the impact that having to support, even only financially, an unwanted child can have on the father. Both financial impact, impact on relationships, etc. I mean, acting like it's "just a question of money" is about two notches above the old "it's just nine months" argument.
We're talking about losing upwards of a quarter to half your income for the next 18 years because a condom broke and a woman made a decision you had no part of. And that's just the monetary aspect.
I'd like to point out again that this argument is only about one notch above the "if you don't want to be a mom stop being such a slut" argument used in favor of banning abortion. Seriously, it's the best system that's feasible but arguments like this are absolute bullshit.
Why do we treat it like bringing a kid into the world is such a great thing? We don't need more people. We have enough.
This is one of those things that the government needs to keep its fucking nose out of. Build us roads. For cryin' out loud, do something about the telcos and the power grid. Socialize medicine. Make abortions and contraception available. Fine. But this shit is a moral decision, and if some mother wants to bring a kid into the world without the means to support it, and it suffers and dies, it's her fucking fault, not anyone else's. And frankly, the world's no worse for the wear.
Yeah, yeah, I'm a terrible person. Whatever. If you're that concerned about people, worry about the ones that're already here and suffering.
EDIT: This isn't entirely in response to you jclast. It started that way, but turned into a rant.
You keep saying this, but that doesn't make it less wrong. You chose to have sex. It's nobody's fault but yours that you didn't fully appreciate that sometimes things don't go according to plan (a condom breaks, a vasectomy isn't 100% effective, or a woman uses her birth control pills improperly).
To be fair, the same applies to women. Many women have children before they're ready because they can't bring themselves to abort or put a baby up for adoption. It's their fault that they have a child because they chose to have sex. It's not the man's fault because, in theory, if she had said "no" then he would have stopped.
Again, if you want to be 100% assured that you won't get pregnant or make your partner pregnant then don't have sex with them. There's plenty else to do in the bedroom if you're that scared of the pitter-patter of little feet.
You chose to drive your car onto the ice; it's nobody's fault but your own when you're upset that it fell through.
That still reads like an argument against abortion.
I agree with much of what you're saying, but why can't I worry about all of them? Especially if I believe that life starts at conception?
So if I were to say "you chose to have sex, therefore you should carry that child to term", that'd be totally acceptable, yeah?
Cuz I don't think that'd be acceptable to most people here.
*edit* Beat by Adrien
If the woman wants to abort then that's her choice, but that's not the issue here. Unless we want to take away a woman's right to what happens to her own body then men get to choose whether or not they'll become parents prior to the sex act, not after.
Women have longer to decide, but they also endure additional suffering as a result.
I'm not arguing about abortion. A man stands a chance of becoming a father every time he has sex because whether she has an abortion is the mother's choice and no one else's.
Similarly, a woman stands a chance of becoming a mother every time she has sex if she is morally opposed to abortion. I'm not saying "nobody can have abortions." I'm saying that I know people that have children for no reason other than that they couldn't bring themselves to terminate the pregnancy.
And I think if I had a part in impregnating a woman, and she/we decided to abort, obviously she'd have some physical/mental scars, but I'd still feel like shit as well.
It's not like men go off drinking, celebrating their lack of fatherhood (though I imagine some do).
Yeah, the more I read it, the more it easily sounds like an anti-abortion argument.
you can't apply the same argument to both sides - it isn't sexist because the roles are not the same. Biologically, they're different - it doesn't make sense to treat them, in this circumstance, the same. besides, the "mother's responsibility after getting pregnant thread" is over yonder
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Ok, which is worse: one person losing a quarter of their income or a child (who obviously has no say in the matter) having a worse childhood? It unfair that shit happens, but that doesn't allow anyone to shirk their responsibility, especially if an innocent child suffers as a result.
I'm pro-choice. It's not my place to tell a woman what she can and can't do to her own body.
I mean, I can't think of a much worse reason to have a kid. It's bad for the kid. It's bad for the mom. It's bad for the father. But mom's a bloody idiot, so hey - let's fuck everyone in the name of fairness!
So, for now: a man's responsibilities are to pay for a child, even after a divorce initiated by a woman. In the future? Nobody'll be subsidizing anyone's child rearing unless it's 100% consensual by both parties.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
"Life's not fair. Get over it."
The point I'm making is that you can easily apply that same argument to banning abortion (have sex and get pregnant, oh well). The fact that it happens to be a man who's going to be on the hook here is revealing your bias.
The best solution is probably to require a a legal document to be signed by the father prior to birth waiving all legal rights and responsibilities to the child. If no such document is signed, the father is on the hook until the kid is 18.
Well, if everyone subscribed to that logic, this subforum would be barren.
I believe the issue is that there is an issue of choice involved. On the one hand, if a woman gets pregnant she can (not whether she should or not, just the basic fact that she is able to), if she so chooses, terminate the pregnancy or carry it to term. In the case of the man, once he's impregnated his wife/girlfriend/etc. there's no physical way for him to reverse the process/stop it by doing anything to his own body. Thus, it would be a Non sequitur to compare the two separate arguments listed because in the case of the one against abortion, you're dealing with a choice that exists, whereas in the one in relation to men's options, there is no choice that exists.
Though I understand that the system as is, is biased in favour of the mother, but I see that more as a balance to women's rights issues in that it does more good in its current situation to provide for the best interests of the child rather than taking away that guarantee and having cases whereby either coercion or neglect causes the mother unable to support her child and the child suffering as a result.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12