That doesn't actually have anything to do with this discussion - that's rape and of course it's not right. Not only should he not have had to pay child support, she should have been convicted and sent to prison. That's a real double standard to complain about.
It has a lot to do with the discussion. This is how these child support laws are being applied in the real world in Australia. That's how gynocentric these laws have become. Unless you think that the interpretation of the law isn't important?
It sounds to me like he was raped, and I don't think he should have to pay support in this case.
Indeed, but this just got threw out because he couldn't prove it. How's that for a fair trial? o_O
It doesn't have anything to add to the discussion because it's not a problem with child support laws - it's a problem with female rape prosecution.
Except it's the child support laws and the infrastructure behind them that makes it impossible to convict a pregnant woman of rape in Australia- namely because:
1) Nobody seems to believe that men's rights in this matter are worth protecting to even a minimal level.
2) Everyone but the father gets a lot of money out of the child support.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
It depends on the details of the accident, but yes, most accidents are partial fault for both parties involved.
EDIT: The only exception I can think of is getting rear-ended while stopped. Which I guess would be analogous to rape.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
Because life sucks, of course.
Yeah, you're really going to convince a lot of people to foot for it with that argument.
Child support laws are made in the interest of the child. Why is taking that money away good for the child?
Because it gives the man the option, if he dosen't want the child, to show as much.
If the woman is that hellbent on having a child, then more power to her. Otherwise it just falls under the "hay sex leads to children so hay guyz that's life!!!1", so she has to be responsible when she has sex as well.
I'm not sure what your point is here other than "oh think of the children", which falls under special pleading.
I'm thinking of the children only because the law is about them, and because I don't want to live in a third world hellhole.
Well if that's not "appeal to fear", I don't know what is.
Again jclast, you don't like it, then come out against abortions. You want to have your cake and eat it to, but you can't. So which is it? Parental rights (or the absence of) trump the child's wellbeing, or is it the child we need to worry about.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
I believe he is implying that a woman has agreed to be a parent by having sex, and thus should not have the right to an abortion, since it would be a violation of that agreement, just like a man refusing child support would be a violation of that agreement.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
Because life sucks, of course.
Yeah, you're really going to convince a lot of people to foot for it with that argument.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
The same reason we pay for social services for all sorts of people unable to care to for themselves due to financial situations. It prevents us from becoming, in your words, a third-world hellhole.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
Assuming no insurance and equal fault, after the accident you would have to assume responsibility for the damaged cars, possibly file a police report, possibly pay a fine, possibly fix your car and/or buy another one. You could not however just walk away and leave the wrecked car sitting in the road.
And it's magically my fault that biology has supplied us with an unfair situation to which their is no perfectly fair solution?
Justice should be just. It shouldn't be some way to level the sexual playing field, or make up for a biological situation. People need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, even if they aren't equal in biological matters.
You are arguing about what is, I'm arguing about what should be.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
The same reason we pay for social services for all sorts of people unable to care to for themselves due to financial situations. It prevents us from becoming, in your words, a third-world hellhole.
But there is someone who could pay for it. Why would the taxpayer foot for it when that person is still around?
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
Assuming no insurance and equal fault, after the accident you would have to assume responsibility for the damaged cars, possibly file a police report, possibly pay a fine, possibly fix your car and/or buy another one. You could not however just walk away and leave the wrecked car sitting in the road.
Of course not. But if the other driver demanded I pay for both cars, and I had to with no fault of my own, and had no choice in the matter, that'd be a bit unfair, yeah?
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
Your argument doesn't follow. Abortion has no bearing on pregnancy being a consequence of sex.
Child support laws are made in the interest of the child. Why is taking that money away good for the child?
Because it gives the man the option, if he dosen't want the child, to show as much.
If the woman is that hellbent on having a child, then more power to her. Otherwise it just falls under the "hay sex leads to children so hay guyz that's life!!!1", so she has to be responsible when she has sex as well.
I'm not sure what your point is here other than "oh think of the children", which falls under special pleading.
I'm thinking of the children only because the law is about them, and because I don't want to live in a third world hellhole.
Well if that's not "appeal to fear", I don't know what is.
Again jclast, you don't like it, then come out against abortions. You want to have your cake and eat it to, but you can't. So which is it? Parental rights (or the absence of) trump the child's wellbeing, or is it the child we need to worry about.
Pick one.
My stance on abortion is irrelevant (although I am pro-choice).
Nature isn't fair. Combine it with our legal system and it's even less fair. As it stands right now, men agree to to possibility of becoming a parent every time they have sex because if the woman becomes pregnant she can choose to keep the baby.
Similarly, women agree to potentially become parents every time they have sex. They also take care of 100% of a child's carriage and it cases where the child is unwanted they take care of the lion's share of the care and raising.
Nature isn't fair. Laws can't make it fair.
In sum, everybody needs to be careful who they have sex with - men especially so.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
If by having the taxpayers foot the bills you mean programs like public schools and healthcare programs, then they should because those programs help improve the quality of life for all of us.
If by having the taxpayers foot the bills you mean the government should be shelling out to pay rent to some dumb woman who was barely getting by, then went and popped out a kid and can't work or do a halfway decent job of raising the kid, then they shouldn't. And neither should the father. In fact, she should pay for that kid. And if she can't, it dies. Oh well. She shouldn't have had it.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
And I'm just pointing out that it's bullshit.
Of course it is. It's sarcasm. I'm confused as to why we're still talking about this. I thought it was painfully obvious.
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
Because since we can't reach a fair solution anyway, we might as well spread around the harm so that the impact on any given person is minimal.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
Your argument doesn't follow. Abortion has no bearing on pregnancy being a consequence of sex.
Wait.
What the hell is your real point?
By having sex, you agree to be a parent. Full stop. This is what another poster said, albeit paraphrased.
So by that logic, a father must support his child, and a mother must have her baby as by having sex, she agreed to be a parent.
Child support laws are made in the interest of the child. Why is taking that money away good for the child?
Because it gives the man the option, if he dosen't want the child, to show as much.
If the woman is that hellbent on having a child, then more power to her. Otherwise it just falls under the "hay sex leads to children so hay guyz that's life!!!1", so she has to be responsible when she has sex as well.
I'm not sure what your point is here other than "oh think of the children", which falls under special pleading.
I'm thinking of the children only because the law is about them, and because I don't want to live in a third world hellhole.
Well if that's not "appeal to fear", I don't know what is.
Again jclast, you don't like it, then come out against abortions. You want to have your cake and eat it to, but you can't. So which is it? Parental rights (or the absence of) trump the child's wellbeing, or is it the child we need to worry about.
Pick one.
My stance on abortion is irrelevant (although I am pro-choice).
Nature isn't fair. Combine it with our legal system and it's even less fair. As it stands right now, men agree to to possibility of becoming a parent every time they have sex because if the woman becomes pregnant she can choose to keep the baby.
Similarly, women agree to potentially become parents every time they have sex. They also take care of 100% of a child's carriage and it cases where the child is unwanted they take care of the lion's share of the care and raising.
Nature isn't fair. Laws can't make it fair.
In sum, everybody needs to be careful who they have sex with - men especially so.
Yeah, and you know what? If there's the risk that the guy can opt out, the same shit applies to the woman, so she should be careful who she has sex with.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
I'm pro choice, but abortion isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows. Even without taking into account the pro-life side of it, it's easy to argue that there could be some benefit to disallowing abortions.
I can see his pedantic point, in that women are allowed to go back on their agreement to be parents, whereas men are at the mercy of the woman's choice, if it is true that sex constitutes an agreement to be a parent. Yes, this is unfair. How could we address the issue?
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
Assuming no insurance and equal fault, after the accident you would have to assume responsibility for the damaged cars, possibly file a police report, possibly pay a fine, possibly fix your car and/or buy another one. You could not however just walk away and leave the wrecked car sitting in the road.
Of course not. But if the other driver demanded I pay for both cars, and I had to with no fault of my own, and had no choice in the matter, that'd be a bit unfair, yeah?
In order to have no fault in making a child you'd have to have been raped. When you consensually have sex you're giving your sperm willingly.
But there is someone who could pay for it. Why would the taxpayer foot for it when that person is still around?
Because that person is not responsible, as that person had no say in whether or not the baby even existed at all.
Responsibility implies choice. Sex, however, does not necessarily imply pregnancy, and pregnancy does not necessarily imply "child", and child does not necessarily imply "parenthood" (adoption).
And, I'm done, unless something new comes up. Right now we're all just parroting our arguments at each other to nil effect.
And it's magically my fault that biology has supplied us with an unfair situation to which their is no perfectly fair solution?
Justice should be just. It shouldn't be some way to level the sexual playing field, or make up for a biological situation. People need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, even if they aren't equal in biological matters.
You are arguing about what is, I'm arguing about what should be.
so you're saying that should the father feel like not financially supporting the child he helped create, he should have that choice because obviously making that choice is just as easy as her choice in having an abortion?
I concede that the woman having another choice beyond the man is unfair but I haven't seen a good solution yet except for the binding contract prior to sex relieving the man from all legal responsibility should a child be reared.... which will likely never come about.
That doesn't actually have anything to do with this discussion - that's rape and of course it's not right. Not only should he not have had to pay child support, she should have been convicted and sent to prison. That's a real double standard to complain about.
It has a lot to do with the discussion. This is how these child support laws are being applied in the real world in Australia. That's how gynocentric these laws have become. Unless you think that the interpretation of the law isn't important?
It sounds to me like he was raped, and I don't think he should have to pay support in this case.
Indeed, but this just got threw out because he couldn't prove it. How's that for a fair trial? o_O
It doesn't have anything to add to the discussion because it's not a problem with child support laws - it's a problem with female rape prosecution.
Except it's the child support laws and the infrastructure behind them that makes it impossible to convict a pregnant woman of rape in Australia- namely because:
1) Nobody seems to believe that men's rights in this matter are worth protecting to even a minimal level.
2) Everyone but the father gets a lot of money out of the child support.
Gycenocentric, or child centric? (Flame me if they mean the same thing)
The womans a cunt. The few who would disagree have serious problems. But the government is acting in the best interest of the child, who had no choice in what his mother did.
And this is not an anti abortion argument. I admit that if the genders were switched it could be construed as such, but abortion laws and child consent laws are totally different. The first one has to do with whether the government can choose what goes inside a woman's uterus. The second chooses what happens inside a mans wallet. If what goes on in a mans wallet becomes a privacy issue, then I guess I'm wrong. But making the man pay is better than the child getting fucked up from a single parent, low income childhood and messing with me in the future.
If habeas corpus extends to the wallet, then let me know and I'll shut up.
In case you haven't checked, humans already number in the thousand millions. (Billions for you USA people )
The government is acting to promote childbirth in a world where we can't afford to keep the human population growing. The government is being irresponsible on that front. The government is also being irresponsible on the following fronts:
1) It will fund high-price lawyers for women through legal aid but not for men in comparable situations.
2) Paying child support does not guarentee you access rights to the child if you wish to be involved and the mother doesn't want you to.
3) Men are essentially considered "guilty until proven innocent" by the courts when considering child support.
4) The courts push child support on mothers even if they don't want/need it. I've heard stories of one split couple where the mother just returned the child support payments regularly to the father because she didn't need them, but the courts were so insistant that she did.
5) Child support also pays for the living costs of the mother as well as the children whenever the father's income permits, regardless of the employment or financial status of the mother.
I agree with you guys that the mother gets veto rights of what happens to her own body. I agree that, in situations where both parties agree to have the baby, the father is financially responsible- but that should guarentee him access to the child. I agree that if it's fairly and unbiasedly determined by a court that he's responsible for child support, keeping in mind that the decision by either party to have a baby implies the financial responsibility to support it, then he has to pay.
I don't agree to it happening in each and every situation, and to it essentially lining the pockets of lawyers and judges who push mothers into going for child support payments. I don't agree to unequal representation of mothers in these cases. And I don't agree to the burden of proof falling unevenly on the father.
The car analogy is bullshit, primarily because I don't care about it, and I don't have to pay for it.
But if you get to run away from your kid, which you had some responsibility for, then through statistics I, the taxpayer, will have to pay more for it.
Quite frankly, I'm trading the ability to walk out on my kid with a massive tax break, which I'll take.
I'm a greedy bastard, and I don't care whether or not you are crying in your beer because you have a kid because YOU FUCKED SOMEONE.
You aren't totally responsible, not even half responsible because of the kid, but, by sticking your penis and ejaculating then you are more responsible than me, the taxpayer, for this child, and I'll be damned if I'm paying as much for it as you are.
Though if you can prove you were raped then you shouldn't be responsible, and both parents should have the right to see the child, but thats another thread. So in regards to divorce and child rights the world is sexist, but not this way. Then again, I don't have to pay money in regards to a divorce proceeding.
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
Assuming no insurance and equal fault, after the accident you would have to assume responsibility for the damaged cars, possibly file a police report, possibly pay a fine, possibly fix your car and/or buy another one. You could not however just walk away and leave the wrecked car sitting in the road.
Of course not. But if the other driver demanded I pay for both cars, and I had to with no fault of my own, and had no choice in the matter, that'd be a bit unfair, yeah?
In order to have no fault in making a child you'd have to have been raped. When you consensually have sex you're giving your sperm willingly.
So in order to have no fault in getting in an accident, I'd need to be forced into a car at gunpoint and forced to drive?
I still like the idea of allowing the man to sign away all rights permanently, then subsequently increasing government support for any children whose fathers do so. Yeah, sucks for the average taxpayer...but again, "life sucks" seems to be the prevailing argument here.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
If by having the taxpayers foot the bills you mean programs like public schools and healthcare programs, then they should because those programs help improve the quality of life for all of us.
If by having the taxpayers foot the bills you mean the government should be shelling out to pay rent to some dumb woman who was barely getting by, then went and popped out a kid and can't work or do a halfway decent job of raising the kid, then they shouldn't. And neither should the father. In fact, she should pay for that kid. And if she can't, it dies. Oh well. She shouldn't have had it.
Or we could go with basic human compassion. And, for Americans, there's the whole "...that all men [people] are created equal,..." with a consequently equal right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
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.
OH RIGHT, and having to pay child support for 18 fucking years isn't a responsibility? The truth is a woman can decide if she wants to raise a baby via both adoption and abortion.
Basically, after sex:
A woman is allowed to choose if she wants to carry a child
A woman is allowed to choose if she wants to raise a child
The woman decides if the man gets to see the child
The woman gets to decide if the man has to pay a sizeable portion of his income for 18 years
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.
You're saying that the woman should be able to choose whether she carries the baby because it affects her body, and the man should not be part of the choice of whether he has to pay child support because it doesn't affect him?
Seriously, who among us doesn't understand that sex leads to babies?
No one, but apparently you don't understand what a double standard is.
Currently I think that forcing child support is the best plan of action for the welfare of the children, but you're a fucking tool if you cannot acknowledge that it is unjust to the man. (EDIT: although I realize that jclast oes not fal in that category)
Fine then. Having sex is agreeing to be a father/mother. Therefore, we shouldn't allow abortions and fathers should pony up dough for the next 18+ years. I concede my point, guys.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
I'm pro choice, but abortion isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows.
Child support laws are made in the interest of the child. Why is taking that money away good for the child?
Because it gives the man the option, if he dosen't want the child, to show as much.
If the woman is that hellbent on having a child, then more power to her. Otherwise it just falls under the "hay sex leads to children so hay guyz that's life!!!1", so she has to be responsible when she has sex as well.
I'm not sure what your point is here other than "oh think of the children", which falls under special pleading.
I'm thinking of the children only because the law is about them, and because I don't want to live in a third world hellhole.
Well if that's not "appeal to fear", I don't know what is.
Again jclast, you don't like it, then come out against abortions. You want to have your cake and eat it to, but you can't. So which is it? Parental rights (or the absence of) trump the child's wellbeing, or is it the child we need to worry about.
Pick one.
My stance on abortion is irrelevant (although I am pro-choice).
Nature isn't fair. Combine it with our legal system and it's even less fair. As it stands right now, men agree to to possibility of becoming a parent every time they have sex because if the woman becomes pregnant she can choose to keep the baby.
Similarly, women agree to potentially become parents every time they have sex. They also take care of 100% of a child's carriage and it cases where the child is unwanted they take care of the lion's share of the care and raising.
Nature isn't fair. Laws can't make it fair.
In sum, everybody needs to be careful who they have sex with - men especially so.
Yeah, and you know what? If there's the risk that the guy can opt out, the same shit applies to the woman, so she should be careful who she has sex with.
Again with the special pleading.
There is no risk that the guy can opt out. It's not like this is a surprise to him. He knows that women can have abortions. He knows that he can't force her to have one.
It's not like after finding out she's pregnant she says "HA HA HA, now I am pregnant and there is nothing you can do about it!" He knew beforehand that the choice was hers whether she kept the baby.
Posts
Except it's the child support laws and the infrastructure behind them that makes it impossible to convict a pregnant woman of rape in Australia- namely because:
1) Nobody seems to believe that men's rights in this matter are worth protecting to even a minimal level.
2) Everyone but the father gets a lot of money out of the child support.
Why should we take abortion away? Go into the abortion thread and argue that.
Why should the taxpayer pay for it?
So you know how I feel, then.
t Zalbinion: I regret the car analogy, but I'm gonna take it one step further. If I'm in an accident with another person, because I chose to drive that day, I'm automatically at fault for the accident?
Because life sucks, of course.
What's the benefit of disallowing abortions, besides making you feel better?
It depends on the details of the accident, but yes, most accidents are partial fault for both parties involved.
EDIT: The only exception I can think of is getting rear-ended while stopped. Which I guess would be analogous to rape.
Again, I hate car analogies.
Because by having sex, you agree to being a parent. So therefore, since you've agreed to be a parent by having sex, you can't go back on it.
*being pedantic if you can't tell*
Yeah, you're really going to convince a lot of people to foot for it with that argument.
Well if that's not "appeal to fear", I don't know what is.
Again jclast, you don't like it, then come out against abortions. You want to have your cake and eat it to, but you can't. So which is it? Parental rights (or the absence of) trump the child's wellbeing, or is it the child we need to worry about.
Pick one.
I believe he is implying that a woman has agreed to be a parent by having sex, and thus should not have the right to an abortion, since it would be a violation of that agreement, just like a man refusing child support would be a violation of that agreement.
*again pedantic*
Tell that to the life sucks guy.
The same reason we pay for social services for all sorts of people unable to care to for themselves due to financial situations. It prevents us from becoming, in your words, a third-world hellhole.
Which, of course, doesn't answer my question. Because there isn't any benefit to it.
Assuming no insurance and equal fault, after the accident you would have to assume responsibility for the damaged cars, possibly file a police report, possibly pay a fine, possibly fix your car and/or buy another one. You could not however just walk away and leave the wrecked car sitting in the road.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Justice should be just. It shouldn't be some way to level the sexual playing field, or make up for a biological situation. People need to be treated equally in the eyes of the law, even if they aren't equal in biological matters.
You are arguing about what is, I'm arguing about what should be.
Course it doesn't. I'm just trying to show the silliness of another poster's argument. You're arguing a point I made in sarcasm.
But there is someone who could pay for it. Why would the taxpayer foot for it when that person is still around?
And I'm just pointing out that it's bullshit.
Of course not. But if the other driver demanded I pay for both cars, and I had to with no fault of my own, and had no choice in the matter, that'd be a bit unfair, yeah?
Your argument doesn't follow. Abortion has no bearing on pregnancy being a consequence of sex.
Wait.
What the hell is your real point?
My stance on abortion is irrelevant (although I am pro-choice).
Nature isn't fair. Combine it with our legal system and it's even less fair. As it stands right now, men agree to to possibility of becoming a parent every time they have sex because if the woman becomes pregnant she can choose to keep the baby.
Similarly, women agree to potentially become parents every time they have sex. They also take care of 100% of a child's carriage and it cases where the child is unwanted they take care of the lion's share of the care and raising.
Nature isn't fair. Laws can't make it fair.
In sum, everybody needs to be careful who they have sex with - men especially so.
If by having the taxpayers foot the bills you mean the government should be shelling out to pay rent to some dumb woman who was barely getting by, then went and popped out a kid and can't work or do a halfway decent job of raising the kid, then they shouldn't. And neither should the father. In fact, she should pay for that kid. And if she can't, it dies. Oh well. She shouldn't have had it.
Of course it is. It's sarcasm. I'm confused as to why we're still talking about this. I thought it was painfully obvious.
Because since we can't reach a fair solution anyway, we might as well spread around the harm so that the impact on any given person is minimal.
By having sex, you agree to be a parent. Full stop. This is what another poster said, albeit paraphrased.
So by that logic, a father must support his child, and a mother must have her baby as by having sex, she agreed to be a parent.
The other guy got it in one.
Yeah, and you know what? If there's the risk that the guy can opt out, the same shit applies to the woman, so she should be careful who she has sex with.
Again with the special pleading.
I'm pro choice, but abortion isn't exactly sunshine and rainbows. Even without taking into account the pro-life side of it, it's easy to argue that there could be some benefit to disallowing abortions.
I can see his pedantic point, in that women are allowed to go back on their agreement to be parents, whereas men are at the mercy of the woman's choice, if it is true that sex constitutes an agreement to be a parent. Yes, this is unfair. How could we address the issue?
In order to have no fault in making a child you'd have to have been raped. When you consensually have sex you're giving your sperm willingly.
Because that person is not responsible, as that person had no say in whether or not the baby even existed at all.
Responsibility implies choice. Sex, however, does not necessarily imply pregnancy, and pregnancy does not necessarily imply "child", and child does not necessarily imply "parenthood" (adoption).
And, I'm done, unless something new comes up. Right now we're all just parroting our arguments at each other to nil effect.
so you're saying that should the father feel like not financially supporting the child he helped create, he should have that choice because obviously making that choice is just as easy as her choice in having an abortion?
I concede that the woman having another choice beyond the man is unfair but I haven't seen a good solution yet except for the binding contract prior to sex relieving the man from all legal responsibility should a child be reared.... which will likely never come about.
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Except it's the child support laws and the infrastructure behind them that makes it impossible to convict a pregnant woman of rape in Australia- namely because:
1) Nobody seems to believe that men's rights in this matter are worth protecting to even a minimal level.
2) Everyone but the father gets a lot of money out of the child support.
In case you haven't checked, humans already number in the thousand millions. (Billions for you USA people
The government is acting to promote childbirth in a world where we can't afford to keep the human population growing. The government is being irresponsible on that front. The government is also being irresponsible on the following fronts:
1) It will fund high-price lawyers for women through legal aid but not for men in comparable situations.
2) Paying child support does not guarentee you access rights to the child if you wish to be involved and the mother doesn't want you to.
3) Men are essentially considered "guilty until proven innocent" by the courts when considering child support.
4) The courts push child support on mothers even if they don't want/need it. I've heard stories of one split couple where the mother just returned the child support payments regularly to the father because she didn't need them, but the courts were so insistant that she did.
5) Child support also pays for the living costs of the mother as well as the children whenever the father's income permits, regardless of the employment or financial status of the mother.
I agree with you guys that the mother gets veto rights of what happens to her own body. I agree that, in situations where both parties agree to have the baby, the father is financially responsible- but that should guarentee him access to the child. I agree that if it's fairly and unbiasedly determined by a court that he's responsible for child support, keeping in mind that the decision by either party to have a baby implies the financial responsibility to support it, then he has to pay.
I don't agree to it happening in each and every situation, and to it essentially lining the pockets of lawyers and judges who push mothers into going for child support payments. I don't agree to unequal representation of mothers in these cases. And I don't agree to the burden of proof falling unevenly on the father.
But if you get to run away from your kid, which you had some responsibility for, then through statistics I, the taxpayer, will have to pay more for it.
Quite frankly, I'm trading the ability to walk out on my kid with a massive tax break, which I'll take.
I'm a greedy bastard, and I don't care whether or not you are crying in your beer because you have a kid because YOU FUCKED SOMEONE.
You aren't totally responsible, not even half responsible because of the kid, but, by sticking your penis and ejaculating then you are more responsible than me, the taxpayer, for this child, and I'll be damned if I'm paying as much for it as you are.
Though if you can prove you were raped then you shouldn't be responsible, and both parents should have the right to see the child, but thats another thread. So in regards to divorce and child rights the world is sexist, but not this way. Then again, I don't have to pay money in regards to a divorce proceeding.
So in order to have no fault in getting in an accident, I'd need to be forced into a car at gunpoint and forced to drive?
Or we could go with basic human compassion. And, for Americans, there's the whole "...that all men [people] are created equal,..." with a consequently equal right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Basically, after sex:
A woman is allowed to choose if she wants to carry a child
A woman is allowed to choose if she wants to raise a child
The woman decides if the man gets to see the child
The woman gets to decide if the man has to pay a sizeable portion of his income for 18 years
You're saying that the woman should be able to choose whether she carries the baby because it affects her body, and the man should not be part of the choice of whether he has to pay child support because it doesn't affect him?
No one, but apparently you don't understand what a double standard is.
Currently I think that forcing child support is the best plan of action for the welfare of the children, but you're a fucking tool if you cannot acknowledge that it is unjust to the man. (EDIT: although I realize that jclast oes not fal in that category)
Good thing I didn't say it was.
No it isn't. If it was, I would've seen one.
The tax payer is less responsible than the father.
There is no risk that the guy can opt out. It's not like this is a surprise to him. He knows that women can have abortions. He knows that he can't force her to have one.
It's not like after finding out she's pregnant she says "HA HA HA, now I am pregnant and there is nothing you can do about it!" He knew beforehand that the choice was hers whether she kept the baby.
...Or you could be hit by someone who obviously disobeyed traffic laws. You know, doing something that you had absolutely no role in.