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!
no, i think we're holding the man responsible for creating a child. Abortion is NOT the defacto, automatic result and keeping it the "crazy" choice because the woman couldn't handle it.
edit: yes, the "system" (biology) is biased towards the mother in that she get's another choice over the father but why would that warrent completely disregarding the father as being one of the two people who initiated the pregnancy?
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.
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
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.
I beg to differ. The two are intrinsically linked, so you can't really have one debate without the other there for comparison.
So, what? No abortions, or punishing the children? And why are either of those good?
Was talking about comparing women's responsibilities with man's responsibilities, and how you can't really talk about one without the other, especially in this context. Should've quoted better.
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
I don't see why carrying a baby for nine months entitles her to make financial decisions for the man for the next 18 years.
Again, if the woman can bail on the responsiblities of sex, the man should be able to as well.
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
You could also easily argue the child has a "right to life".
But hey, this is D&D. We never confront our double standards. :roll:
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?
No, just what they make, by consent.
We've been over this already:
1) choosing to have sex and choosing to be a father are two, logically independent decisions.
2) This is blatant sexism.
I don't see where you're coming from at all. I mean, I understand the don't-have-sex-unless-you're-prepared-to-be-a-parent argument, but what I don't understand is the basis for that. It's not necessary. You can have lots of sex and not be a parent. We've got all sorts of ways to prevent it!
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.
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
She doesn't have to, though.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
That bolded part? Yeah, that's pretty much the standard argument against allowing abortion.
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
That's overly terse. You'll have to explain a little bit better what you mean.
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
You could also easily argue the child has a "right to life".
But hey, this is D&D. We never confront our double standards. :roll:
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.
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
She doesn't have to, though.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
That bolded part? Yeah, that's pretty much the standard argument against allowing abortion.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
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?
No, just what they make, by consent.
We've been over this already:
1) choosing to have sex and choosing to be a father are two, logically independent decisions.
2) This is blatant sexism.
I don't see where you're coming from at all. I mean, I understand the don't-have-sex-unless-you're-prepared-to-be-a-parent argument, but what I don't understand is the basis for that. It's not necessary. You can have lots of sex and not be a parent. We've got all sorts of ways to prevent it!
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.
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
She doesn't have to, though.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
That bolded part? Yeah, that's pretty much the standard argument against allowing abortion.
Ummm... you do see the difference between abortion and a father helping his offspring, right? Different things, with different solutions and arguments. One argument is not necessarily applicable to the other.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
Did you ninja edit that bolded part in? Because I could swear when I hit the reply button it wasn't there.
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.
Interestingly enough, a loss of this sort of disposable income could brutalize a fledging career. Regardless of how fair it is, establishing solid networking contacts and business relationships involves playing a certain part - looking good, fresh clothes, being able to attend quasi-expensive social functions. It's subtle, but it's extremely important. Not keeping up with your peers will drop-kick you into a different catagory, which may not be as effective as what you could have established with all of your resources intact.
This probably isn't as significant at the 'trade' level of the game as it would be in a high acheviement environment, but still, interesting to consider. When a woman is threatened with potentially less career opportunities because of her gender or situation, everybody is pretty eager to hop aboard the 'that isn't right train', I doubt there'll be as much sympathy for the impact this has on men.
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
That's overly terse. You'll have to explain a little bit better what you mean.
We have child support for the benefit of the child. Just because the father doesn't want to see the child doesn't make child support any less important for the child. Do we, as a society, have a value in seeing children go without that support?
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
Because I am enjoying this debate, I will throw something at this.
It is not the child that is getting payed the child support, it is the mother. As far as I know, she is not legally obligated in any way to use the money directly on the child, it is just assumed that she will. In extreme cases where it is obvious she is not, she can and often does lose custody.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
Did you ninja edit that bolded part in? Because I could swear when I hit the reply button it wasn't there.
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
Because I am enjoying this debate, I will throw something at this.
It is not the child that is getting payed the child support, it is the mother. As far as I know, she is not legally obligated in any way to use the money directly on the child, it is just assumed that she will. In extreme cases where it is obvious she is not, she can and often does lose custody.
Well, considering she'd lose custody if she didn't spend the child support on the child (and thus losing child support payments since she no longer has a child), I would consider that rather legally obligating.
Ummm... you do see the difference between abortion and a father helping his offspring, right? Different things, with different solutions and arguments. One argument is not necessarily applicable to the other.
Having an abortion and a father not[/] helping his offspring are pretty much synonomous though.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
Did you ninja edit that bolded part in? Because I could swear when I hit the reply button it wasn't there.
I did.
I wonder why.... ;-)
Having an abortion and a father not helping his offspring are pretty much synonomous though.
Not entirely. I mean, there is the risk of serious medical complications with pregnancy. However, I think that in a large number of abortions it's actually pretty synonymous.
Luckily for women "it's her body!" goes a lot farther than "it's his paycheck!"
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.
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
Because I am enjoying this debate, I will throw something at this.
It is not the child that is getting payed the child support, it is the mother. As far as I know, she is not legally obligated in any way to use the money directly on the child, it is just assumed that she will. In extreme cases where it is obvious she is not, she can and often does lose custody.
Well, considering she'd lose custody if she didn't spend the child support on the child (and thus losing child support payments since she no longer has a child), I would consider that rather legally obligating.
That would be covered by my extreme case. So long as she spends just enough to provide for the child, she can legally use the majority of the money she receives to pay for whatever she wants. This can include surgery, expensive car, expensive house, etc.
Isn't this is the very basis of the term gold digger? If she finds a really well off man to get pregnant by, she can live the high life while not saving a dime for the child's future and sending him to whatever public school they live near.
My response to that guy who now has to pay for a child he didn't want is "Life's not fair. Get over it."
Why can't we just say that to the woman who's deciding to have the kid?
The life of a single mother is pretty difficult, even with the assistance of family and, in some places, the government. The man, equally responsible for the conception of the child, shouldn't get to shirk responsibility because he didn't want the child. Why? Because the person who suffers is the child. If you've a hand in the creation of the child you have a responsibility to help provide for that child, because no one aside from its parents are obligated to. The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.
I have plenty of sympathy of men, but I have yet to see a half-way decent proposal for change. Just a lot of bitching.
I see a lot of double standards and a lot of bitching that "that's life", until we apply the same standard to women.
What's your point?
Ok, let's assume there's a double standard. What do you propose we do?
Simple. The man has the option to give up all of his legal rights to the child in question.
This, combined with government support (or at least vastly increased government support) of such children. Only those to which the father has signed away all rights, that is.
Yeah, it sucks that responsible taxpayers would have to help foot the bill. Then again, the whole "life sucks, and isn't fair" argument seems to fly in this case so why not apply it to everybody.
EDIT: Regarding "gold diggers," it's highly possible that my perception of the matter is greatly colored by my time in the military. Seriously, in every shithole podunk town right outside a military base, I think they have Gold Digging classes taught at the local high schools.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
Did you ninja edit that bolded part in? Because I could swear when I hit the reply button it wasn't there.
I did.
I wonder why.... ;-)
Because I'm trying to ensure that we're arguing about men's responsibilities and women's choice. My point is better made with the additional text than without it. ;-)
For all you people who use the pregnancy risk = responsibility arguement, I have a case for you to consider based on a guy I know in Australia.
Said guy got drunk. So totally drunk he had no idea where he was. Sober woman comes up to him and literally starts having sex with him without his consent. He has no idea what's going on. She doesn't use any birth control.
And lo and behold, she WINS child support off him despite the fact that she was the only one consenting in this case. Tell me, is this right? Would it be any righter if they were both drunk? Or even if they were both sober? I don't think so.
My take on this is that you have a responsibility, all right. You have a responsibility to make sure you have the means to look after a child you bring into the world. Now, if you intend to do so together and have planned based on that, fine- then the man is liable even if he changes his mind- we can even assume legally that married couples or de facto couples who've been together for a certain time count as consenting to this sort of arrangement if they haven't signed a contract to say otherwise.
But if the pregnancy is accidental and there was no agreement to raise the thing? Tough shit. The right to abort or adopt away the child waives the opportunity to collect child support. You get one or the other. We already have enough children in this world and we shouldn't be encouraging more into it just for the sake of not hurting the mother's feelings.
My response to that guy who now has to pay for a child he didn't want is "Life's not fair. Get over it."
Why can't we just say that to the woman who's deciding to have the kid?
Okay, then she can have all the responsibility then.
The life of a single mother is pretty difficult, even with the assistance of family and, in some places, the government. The man, equally responsible for the conception of the child, shouldn't get to shirk responsibility because he didn't want the child. Why? Because the person who suffers is the child. If you've a hand in the creation of the child you have a responsibility to help provide for that child, because no one aside from its parents are obligated to. The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.[/QUOTE]
That kind of falls under the "that's life" bullshit some of you guys are espousing, isn't it? What's the difference between getting born in that situation and being born in Darfur right now?
As the law stands now, men are financially responsible. For those of you who think that it shouldn't be this way, how would you change it and justify that change?
The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.
Following with the whole "life is unfair, get over it" meme, many children already have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. It isn't like a kid who has a parent in jail somehow gets magical child support checks.
The problem is, if we only worry about the people who are here now, then we'll never solve the problem.
If the father doesn't have to support, then the number of broken homes increase, the number of broken kids increase, the number of broken people increase. (This isn't a causal relationship, its statistical).
Simply enough, the law currently helps the kids who are here the most. If you're poor then the allowance of abortion reduces the numbers of your cohorts, the law forces both of your parents to do something, and the law makes the government give money if your parent/parents can't handle taking care of you.
Any of the solutions to the sexism of this situation creates more fucked up people, and I'll take not being able to run away when compared to an urban apocalypse.
The life of a single mother is pretty difficult, even with the assistance of family and, in some places, the government. The man, equally responsible for the conception of the child, shouldn't get to shirk responsibility because he didn't want the child. Why? Because the person who suffers is the child. If you've a hand in the creation of the child you have a responsibility to help provide for that child, because no one aside from its parents are obligated to. The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.
That kind of falls under the "that's life" bullshit some of you guys are espousing, isn't it? What's the difference between getting born in that situation and being born in Darfur right now?
The difference is that we don't have a government that shitty.
Posts
So, what? No abortions, or punishing the children? And why are either of those good?
no, i think we're holding the man responsible for creating a child. Abortion is NOT the defacto, automatic result and keeping it the "crazy" choice because the woman couldn't handle it.
edit: yes, the "system" (biology) is biased towards the mother in that she get's another choice over the father but why would that warrent completely disregarding the father as being one of the two people who initiated the pregnancy?
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Because she's the one who has to carry the kid for 9 months.
Their roles aren't equal, and neither should their weight in the making of the decision. It's not like the man had no choice in regards to whether or not he'd have sex in the first place.
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
Okay.
Step 1: Close down all Planned Parenthoods.
Step 2: Replace with giant signs reading the above.
Are you okay with this? Y/N?
(As an aside, that's a terrible fucking argument. I'm going to assume you realised you just painted yourself into a corner.)
Child's right. Can't be signed away.
Was talking about comparing women's responsibilities with man's responsibilities, and how you can't really talk about one without the other, especially in this context. Should've quoted better.
I don't see why carrying a baby for nine months entitles her to make financial decisions for the man for the next 18 years.
Again, if the woman can bail on the responsiblities of sex, the man should be able to as well.
You could also easily argue the child has a "right to life".
But hey, this is D&D. We never confront our double standards. :roll:
I meant this in regards to "why do I have to pay for a child that I don't want when I chose to have consensual sex?"
My response to that guy who now has to pay for a child he didn't want is "Life's not fair. Get over it."
1) choosing to have sex and choosing to be a father are two, logically independent decisions.
2) This is blatant sexism.
I don't see where you're coming from at all. I mean, I understand the don't-have-sex-unless-you're-prepared-to-be-a-parent argument, but what I don't understand is the basis for that. It's not necessary. You can have lots of sex and not be a parent. We've got all sorts of ways to prevent it!
Why is it better if we don't?
Why can't we just say that to the woman who's deciding to have the kid?
She doesn't have to, though.
That bolded part? Yeah, that's pretty much the standard argument against allowing abortion.
That's overly terse. You'll have to explain a little bit better what you mean.
Right after you argue that the fetus is a child.
I'm not arguing against abortion. I'm arguing against men shirking responsibilities for a life they created as a dual consequence of them having sex and the mother choosing to keep the baby.
Okay, then she can have all the responsibility then.
Ummm... you do see the difference between abortion and a father helping his offspring, right? Different things, with different solutions and arguments. One argument is not necessarily applicable to the other.
Did you ninja edit that bolded part in? Because I could swear when I hit the reply button it wasn't there.
Interestingly enough, a loss of this sort of disposable income could brutalize a fledging career. Regardless of how fair it is, establishing solid networking contacts and business relationships involves playing a certain part - looking good, fresh clothes, being able to attend quasi-expensive social functions. It's subtle, but it's extremely important. Not keeping up with your peers will drop-kick you into a different catagory, which may not be as effective as what you could have established with all of your resources intact.
This probably isn't as significant at the 'trade' level of the game as it would be in a high acheviement environment, but still, interesting to consider. When a woman is threatened with potentially less career opportunities because of her gender or situation, everybody is pretty eager to hop aboard the 'that isn't right train', I doubt there'll be as much sympathy for the impact this has on men.
We have child support for the benefit of the child. Just because the father doesn't want to see the child doesn't make child support any less important for the child. Do we, as a society, have a value in seeing children go without that support?
Because I am enjoying this debate, I will throw something at this.
It is not the child that is getting payed the child support, it is the mother. As far as I know, she is not legally obligated in any way to use the money directly on the child, it is just assumed that she will. In extreme cases where it is obvious she is not, she can and often does lose custody.
I did.
I see a lot of double standards and a lot of bitching that "that's life", until we apply the same standard to women.
What's your point?
Well, considering she'd lose custody if she didn't spend the child support on the child (and thus losing child support payments since she no longer has a child), I would consider that rather legally obligating.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Having an abortion and a father not[/] helping his offspring are pretty much synonomous though.
Ok, let's assume there's a double standard. What do you propose we do?
I wonder why.... ;-)
Not entirely. I mean, there is the risk of serious medical complications with pregnancy. However, I think that in a large number of abortions it's actually pretty synonymous.
Luckily for women "it's her body!" goes a lot farther than "it's his paycheck!"
Simple. The man has the option to give up all of his legal rights to the child in question.
That would be covered by my extreme case. So long as she spends just enough to provide for the child, she can legally use the majority of the money she receives to pay for whatever she wants. This can include surgery, expensive car, expensive house, etc.
Isn't this is the very basis of the term gold digger? If she finds a really well off man to get pregnant by, she can live the high life while not saving a dime for the child's future and sending him to whatever public school they live near.
The life of a single mother is pretty difficult, even with the assistance of family and, in some places, the government. The man, equally responsible for the conception of the child, shouldn't get to shirk responsibility because he didn't want the child. Why? Because the person who suffers is the child. If you've a hand in the creation of the child you have a responsibility to help provide for that child, because no one aside from its parents are obligated to. The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.
This, combined with government support (or at least vastly increased government support) of such children. Only those to which the father has signed away all rights, that is.
Yeah, it sucks that responsible taxpayers would have to help foot the bill. Then again, the whole "life sucks, and isn't fair" argument seems to fly in this case so why not apply it to everybody.
EDIT: Regarding "gold diggers," it's highly possible that my perception of the matter is greatly colored by my time in the military. Seriously, in every shithole podunk town right outside a military base, I think they have Gold Digging classes taught at the local high schools.
Child support laws are made in the interest of the child. Why is taking that money away good for the child?
Because I'm trying to ensure that we're arguing about men's responsibilities and women's choice. My point is better made with the additional text than without it. ;-)
Said guy got drunk. So totally drunk he had no idea where he was. Sober woman comes up to him and literally starts having sex with him without his consent. He has no idea what's going on. She doesn't use any birth control.
And lo and behold, she WINS child support off him despite the fact that she was the only one consenting in this case. Tell me, is this right? Would it be any righter if they were both drunk? Or even if they were both sober? I don't think so.
My take on this is that you have a responsibility, all right. You have a responsibility to make sure you have the means to look after a child you bring into the world. Now, if you intend to do so together and have planned based on that, fine- then the man is liable even if he changes his mind- we can even assume legally that married couples or de facto couples who've been together for a certain time count as consenting to this sort of arrangement if they haven't signed a contract to say otherwise.
But if the pregnancy is accidental and there was no agreement to raise the thing? Tough shit. The right to abort or adopt away the child waives the opportunity to collect child support. You get one or the other. We already have enough children in this world and we shouldn't be encouraging more into it just for the sake of not hurting the mother's feelings.
The life of a single mother is pretty difficult, even with the assistance of family and, in some places, the government. The man, equally responsible for the conception of the child, shouldn't get to shirk responsibility because he didn't want the child. Why? Because the person who suffers is the child. If you've a hand in the creation of the child you have a responsibility to help provide for that child, because no one aside from its parents are obligated to. The child has no choice in the matter of who they're born to, so it is more than unfair to have it suffer because of something the father regrets.[/QUOTE]
That kind of falls under the "that's life" bullshit some of you guys are espousing, isn't it? What's the difference between getting born in that situation and being born in Darfur right now?
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
So should these laws be extended to make abortion mandatory if the parents have no viable means of financial support of the child?
Following with the whole "life is unfair, get over it" meme, many children already have to pay for the mistakes of their parents. It isn't like a kid who has a parent in jail somehow gets magical child support checks.
If the father doesn't have to support, then the number of broken homes increase, the number of broken kids increase, the number of broken people increase. (This isn't a causal relationship, its statistical).
Simply enough, the law currently helps the kids who are here the most. If you're poor then the allowance of abortion reduces the numbers of your cohorts, the law forces both of your parents to do something, and the law makes the government give money if your parent/parents can't handle taking care of you.
Any of the solutions to the sexism of this situation creates more fucked up people, and I'll take not being able to run away when compared to an urban apocalypse.
The difference is that we don't have a government that shitty.