Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. You need to tell us why the state (tax dollars) should be providing for it, and not the people who made it.
I'd phrase it more like this:
Basically, a couple made a baby, and it's being raised by one of them. This child needs to be provided for. The person who had the final say in having the child was not financially capable of supporting it. You need to tell us why the father should be on the hook for providing for it, and not the mother who chose to have it.
The final say doesn't mean you had no say.
No, but greatly diminished authority ought to bring about greatly diminished responsibility.
It's not like it's any great secret that, biologically, women are more on-the-hook for pregnancy. They go into it knowing that. So we need to legislate undue burden on the man?
I look at it like this: she makes the ultimate call, she ought to bear the ultimate responsibility. If she decides to have a kid despite not being able to afford it, that's her responsibility to deal with.
That said, I'm all for having men pay their part for the abortion procedure, and ancillary medical expenses. But ultimate authority ought to come with ultimate responsibility. And that's the woman's pervue.
You do have a greatly diminished responsibility. You don't have to spend any time raising the child, and only make payments. What you mean to say is no responsibility, and I'm not down with that.
And explain to me why legally, not biologically, it makes sense for one party to hold all of the decision-making power when both parties are equally involved.
Legally, it is so because of biology. Sure it's unfair but that is the risk you take in having sex. Verbal agreements aren't worth the paper they're signed on. You want a legal way out of it? Get something drafted by a lawyer and sign it.
I don't personally want a legal way out of it, I'm just defending my second thought on the matter. If you'll recall I personally think that if you helped make it then you'll help raise it.
Failing that, I think that both parties should have an equal say in whether the child is born. If only the mother wants it then she can pay for it. If only the father wants it and the mother is willing to carry it then he can pay for it and come to an agreement wherein he compensates the mother for her time.
Ideally, though, we'd all think long and hard before we had sex with anybody because no matter how much protection you use, making a baby is a possibility. It may not be why you're having sex, but until somebody holds a gun to you head and says "ejaculate inside her" that baby ought to be your responsibility.
Um...the bolded part there does nothing to mitigate it. At all. Because one partner in any such "agreement" has the full right to, after the fact, change their mind without any say from the other partner. I can't even imagine a written agreement being binding in this case, because of the implications it would hold.
And it could be eliminated. Make it the mother's choice whether or not to abort, and the father's whether or not to support it. Done. Then neither party has to deal with raising/supporting a child if they don't want to.
Also I find it interesting that a common theme in this seems to be the whole, "he could just choose not to have sex," thing. As if that's a reasonable standard to apply in any way. Which obviously it isn't, since we don't apply the same to women.
Because, as I said before, it would create a false choice in many situations without significant state intervention. There are too many situations where giving the father a choice about whether or not to support the child is functionally equivalent to giving him say over whether the child is born or not.
Also, children don't magically disappear once they go into the foster care/orphanage system either. There are large costs to the state there as well, not to mention the child's psychological and emotional development.
Right. It's her body. Aside from rape, she has the full right to keep penises out of it. Why is this not a reasonable standard to apply to both parties?
I'm confused........men also have a right to keep penises out of their bodies and their own penises out of others' bodies. When a man chooses to stick his penis in a way that might create babies, he's taking the risk that he might end up fathering a child. Like the amusement park I mentioned before, it is a foreseeable risk that he can avoid if he so chooses. Asking him to support a child is not nearly as extreme and dangerous as asking a mother to carry a child to term. They are not functionally equivalent so the definition of "reasonable standards" changes.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I said that consenting to sex means that you're consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Now, explain to me why this is not true.
Because the decision to actually have the child is not his to make.
You do have a greatly diminished responsibility. You don't have to spend any time raising the child, and only make payments. What you mean to say is no responsibility, and I'm not down with that.
She doesn't have to spend the time, either.
This is a personal responsibility thing. And while I'd like to argue about it, Warlord's post in the other thread was so good, that I'm just going to repost it here, because it does a damned good job of explaining what I think:
Really?? Think it through. His decision came at the beginning.
Huh. This sounds familiar. Someone else posited it in another thread just now, and my reply there was better. So:
"There are, in fact, several choices here:
- The choice to have sex
- The choice to use protection DURING sex
- The choice to use protection during sex and make your intentions clear and come to an agreement if only verbal ("if you get pregnant, I want nothing to do with it")
and, once pregnant, there is:
- The choice to abort or deliver
- The choice of what to do after delivery (adopt or keep)
They all do not follow from each other, and aren't part of some meta-choice. They are separate, and though one can SOMETIMES lead to another, things fall down right about at the point of pregnancy - when the choice to keep or abort occurs (as I see it, 100% woman's choice/responsibility).
Also, I'd be interested to know of any precidents dealing with point 3 (where a verbal consensus was reached beforehand).
EDIT: I dunno. Maybe its me. I believe very strongly in personal responsibility and cleaning up your own mess. I believe very strongly in the ability to deal with the ramifications of your own decisions. Having to deal with the ramifications of someone ELSE'S decisions is anathema to that, as far as I can tell, and strikes a chord. It smacks of sexism and double-standards. Forgive me if I've been too foamy-at-the-mouth about this.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I said that consenting to sex means that you're consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Now, explain to me why this is not true.
Consenting to sex means you SHOULD be consciously consenting to the risk of fatherhood. That doesn't actually make it true.
It's a woman's choice because it's her body going through the changes. A guy shouldn't be able to force a woman to go through nine months of hell and maybe destroy her figure, even if they guy says he will take full responsibility.
A guy can put in his opinion and tell her how he feels, and the woman should take it into account, but ultimately it is her body, therefore her decision.
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption?
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
Is this the PUNISH THOSE SLUTS argument again? Cuz I'm getting sick of it.
Anyway, you leave out the most important part. The father needs to accept the consequence as well. We protect women's reproductive rights because they are the ones who suffer the physical and economic issues with pregnancy and childbirth. To protect women's reproductive rights, we must offer them viable options in as many situations as possible. If we offering them false choices, then we are not really protecting reproductive rights at all.
Abortion isn't a way for you to pretend to have no responsibility. It's just another layer of birth-control. The fact that it comes later than the others doesn't make you into responsibility-free jizz fountains.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
And often do.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
It does not follow, because sex doesn't always lead to babies naturally, and even if it did, we now have methods to both prevent and terminate a pregnancy. Now that we have those methods, consenting to sex IN NO WAY implies consenting to anythinghood, nor should it. There are choices now.
Also I find it interesting that a common theme in this seems to be the whole, "he could just choose not to have sex," thing. As if that's a reasonable standard to apply in any way. Which obviously it isn't, since we don't apply the same to women.
Right. It's her body. Aside from rape, she has the full right to keep penises out of it. Why is this not a reasonable standard to apply to both parties?
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
It doesn't matter what you believe, because it's true. Are you saying that you have sex without acknowledging the possibility that pregnancy is a risk?
No. I'm saying that the decision to become a parent should be viewed as separate from the decision to have sex, even though pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex.
I said that consenting to sex means that you're consenting to the risk of fatherhood. Now, explain to me why this is not true.
Because the decision to actually have the child is not his to make.
Actions have consequences. Conception is a consequence of sex, unprotected or otherwise.
Just because you didn't mean to make her pregnant doesn't mean that you shouldn't be partially responsible. "I didn't mean to do x by doing y" is a shitty excuse. That's why you can be convicted of murder for negligence. Sure, you didn't mean to kill your kid, but not feeding him ended his life just the same. You didn't mean to be a rapist in the eyes of the state, but you had consensual sex with your underage girlfriend. And you didn't mean to get that girl pregnant, but it's you that made a sperm deposit.
Deal with it. You don't want kids, and you want to be 100% sure you never have any? Quit having sex and start masturbating.
Same thing with sex. No matter how many precautions you take, there is a possibility that your actions might result in pregnancy (other than having your tubes tied or a vasectomy or whatnot). Just like how you cannot sue an amusement park for injuries you may sustain (unless there is gross negligence), you cannot avoid the financial obligation you might bear with the birth of a child (barring extreme circumstances like her extracting semen from a condom and impregnating herself in-vitro with it, etc etc).
Waitaminute. Suing an amusement park IS child support in the analogy.
I don't believe that consenting to fatherhood is necessarily implied by having sex. People can have sex without any intention of becoming parents.
And often do.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
It does not follow, because sex doesn't always lead to babies naturally, and even if it did, we now have methods to both prevent and terminate a pregnancy. Now that we have those methods, consenting to sex IN NO WAY implies consenting to anythinghood, nor should it. There are choices now.
To repeat: It's different because women bear the physical and emotional cost of pregnancy and childbirth and men don't. That's why we don't reverse the genders unless we actually reverse the physical nature of pregnancy. Am I talking to a wall here?
Same thing with sex. No matter how many precautions you take, there is a possibility that your actions might result in pregnancy (other than having your tubes tied or a vasectomy or whatnot). Just like how you cannot sue an amusement park for injuries you may sustain (unless there is gross negligence), you cannot avoid the financial obligation you might bear with the birth of a child (barring extreme circumstances like her extracting semen from a condom and impregnating herself in-vitro with it, etc etc).
Waitaminute. Suing an amusement park IS child support in the analogy.
So what are some legal changes that would solve this problem? All I can think of are pre-nups before sex; which aren't exactly workable.
1. The woman is legally obligated to inform the father that she is pregnant, else she wave all right to compensation from the father.
2. The father is allowed to file a petition with the court noting his objection to the birth, shielding himself from financial liability resulting from the birth (e.g. child support).
3. If both parties consent to terminate the pregnancy, both must share the cost of the abortion and related medical expenses, and if the woman is disabled and unable to work due to the procedure (we're talking short-term stuff here, not the doctor fucking up and doing permanent damage), the man is liable for some basic financial support.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to terminate. The man doesn't have that choice, so to pretend that he's not risking parenthood is pretty fucking stupid.
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption?
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
I believe it comes down to the fact that for the:
Woman: Chance of complications/miscarriage/death of baby/death of mother herself not to mention the fact she spends 9 months carrying it to term (and the additional upbringing afterwards).
Man: Baby's born and he's on the hook for child support, which, won't directly or even indirectly (due to the way the system's setup to accommodate his employment status and means) harm him.
So I don't see how slight economic hardship is being argued here to be put on equal footing with possible real physical consequences.
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption?
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
I believe it comes down to the fact that for the:
Woman: Chance of complications/miscarriage/death of baby/death of mother herself not to mention the fact she spends 9 months carrying it to term (and the additional upbringing afterwards).
Man: Baby's born and he's on the hook for child support, which, won't directly or even indirectly (due to the way the system's setup to accommodate his employment status and means) harm him.
So I don't see how slight economic hardship is being argued here to be put on equal footing with possible real physical consequences.
Thank you, maybe they'll listen to you when you say it cuz they sure as hell aren't listening to me
I don't like the amusement park example... how about this one.
You go to a game show where a person in the audience may or may not win a prize. If you win you must legally pay taxes for the prize. You really want to go to the game show because it's fun but you may or may not want the prize or the taxes that go along with it. If you do not want to pay the possible taxes for the prize, do you still go to the game show?
Without child support, though, you're offering many women a false choice. Namely: if you're a woman, poor, are pregnant, and the biological father does not want to be an actual father and can simply run away with no responsibilities whatsoever, what choice do you have BUT to abort or put their child up for adoption?
What about the woman's first right to choose NOT to have sex to begin with or alteast use protection to avoid pregnancy. If she chose to accept the risks, then she should accept the consequence.
Is this the PUNISH THOSE SLUTS argument again? Cuz I'm getting sick of it.
Yeah, it was actually.
I still believe in personal accountability. and Rockwell paintings of Santa.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to terminate. The man doesn't have that choice, so to pretend that he's not risking parenthood is pretty fucking stupid.
What's your point?
But everyone knows that parenthood is a potential outcome of sex. That's not the debate. What's at issue is whether or not a man should be financially liable to a mother who chooses to have the child when she can't afford it and the man has no interest in being part of its life.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
Well, it's a good thing my opinions aren't based on what other people think then.
Also, even if this was true (which I don't know how you could be so sure of a "what if" scenario), so what?
Are you saying that because people would be angry if the reverse was true, then the people's arguments right now are baseless?
Right. It's her body. Aside from rape, she has the full right to keep penises out of it. Why is this not a reasonable standard to apply to both parties?
I'm confused........men also have a right to keep penises out of their bodies and their own penises out of others' bodies. When a man chooses to stick his penis in a way that might create babies, he's taking the risk that he might end up fathering a child. Like the amusement park I mentioned before, it is a foreseeable risk that he can avoid if he so chooses. Asking him to support a child is not nearly as extreme and dangerous as asking a mother to carry a child to term. They are not functionally equivalent so the definition of "reasonable standards" changes.
Nobody is asking the mother to carry a child to term. In fact, often we're asking her not to.
Abortion isn't a way for you to pretend to have no responsibility. It's just another layer of birth-control. The fact that it comes later than the others doesn't make you into responsibility-free jizz fountains.
Yet women get to be responsibility-free (or at least drastically less-responsible) cum-receptacles. You know, if they want to be.
Is this the PUNISH THOSE SLUTS argument again? Cuz I'm getting sick of it.
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.
I don't like the amusement park example... how about this one.
You go to a game show where a person in the audience may or may not win a prize. If you win you must legally pay taxes for the prize. You really want to go to the game show because it's fun but you may or may not want the prize or the taxes that go along with it. If you do not want to pay the possible taxes for the prize, do you still go to the game show?
k, so I can't come up with a great one...
The point I'm making is that we assume liability for consequences of our action (or inaction) all the time. This is no different. The amusement park analogy is not a bad one, actually.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to terminate. The man doesn't have that choice, so to pretend that he's not risking parenthood is pretty fucking stupid.
What's your point?
But everyone knows that parenthood is a potential outcome of sex. That's not the debate. What's at issue is whether or not a man should be financially liable to a mother who chooses to have the child when she can't afford it and the man has no interest in being part of its life.
Frankly, I think you guys need to be petitioning god or your local bio-engineer for a detachable womb. Then the woman can say, fuck it, you carry it. And your problems will be solved.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
Frankly, I think you guys need to be petitioning god or your local bio-engineer for a detachable womb. Then the woman can say, fuck it, you carry it. And your problems will be solved.
No, they won't. Because then the woman can still choose to carry it and make the father pay for a child he didn't want. So we'd need detachable womb+large government spending on welfare.
If we were really interested in the child's quality of life, we'd tell the woman to terminate, because bringing yet another kid into yet another poor, broken home is going to do nothing but make us build another wing at the state prison.
Abortion isn't a way for you to pretend to have no responsibility. It's just another layer of birth-control. The fact that it comes later than the others doesn't make you into responsibility-free jizz fountains.
Yet women get to be responsibility-free (or at least drastically less-responsible) cum-receptacles.
What do you propose? Taking abortion away or punishing the child? I know you're just venting, but I'm bringing it back to this because in the end, this is what it's about. Making fathers pay child support is better than the alternatives.
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.
If we were really interested in the child's quality of life, we'd tell the woman to terminate, because bringing yet another kid into yet another poor, broken home is going to do nothing but make us build another wing at the state prison.
Honestly, I believe most men who pay child support wouldn't have a problem if they knew all the money was actually going to the child. However that's another discussion in itself.
And there are consequences other than financial obligations on the father's part. He has to deal with the mother for atleast 18 years, which is an extreme emotional burden depending on the crazy factor of the mother. Take Alec Baldwin as case, who leaked his voicemail to his daughter? Crazy ass Basinger. Who got the short end? Their daughter being publicly humiliated.
Future relationships, impacted - you're burdened with the other woman in your life, and your partner has to bear that burden with you.
There are a few others I can think of... just not right now.
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."
Posts
You do have a greatly diminished responsibility. You don't have to spend any time raising the child, and only make payments. What you mean to say is no responsibility, and I'm not down with that.
I don't personally want a legal way out of it, I'm just defending my second thought on the matter. If you'll recall I personally think that if you helped make it then you'll help raise it.
Failing that, I think that both parties should have an equal say in whether the child is born. If only the mother wants it then she can pay for it. If only the father wants it and the mother is willing to carry it then he can pay for it and come to an agreement wherein he compensates the mother for her time.
Ideally, though, we'd all think long and hard before we had sex with anybody because no matter how much protection you use, making a baby is a possibility. It may not be why you're having sex, but until somebody holds a gun to you head and says "ejaculate inside her" that baby ought to be your responsibility.
lol
Because, as I said before, it would create a false choice in many situations without significant state intervention. There are too many situations where giving the father a choice about whether or not to support the child is functionally equivalent to giving him say over whether the child is born or not.
Also, children don't magically disappear once they go into the foster care/orphanage system either. There are large costs to the state there as well, not to mention the child's psychological and emotional development.
I'm confused........men also have a right to keep penises out of their bodies and their own penises out of others' bodies. When a man chooses to stick his penis in a way that might create babies, he's taking the risk that he might end up fathering a child. Like the amusement park I mentioned before, it is a foreseeable risk that he can avoid if he so chooses. Asking him to support a child is not nearly as extreme and dangerous as asking a mother to carry a child to term. They are not functionally equivalent so the definition of "reasonable standards" changes.
This is a personal responsibility thing. And while I'd like to argue about it, Warlord's post in the other thread was so good, that I'm just going to repost it here, because it does a damned good job of explaining what I think:
Consenting to sex means you SHOULD be consciously consenting to the risk of fatherhood. That doesn't actually make it true.
It's a woman's choice because it's her body going through the changes. A guy shouldn't be able to force a woman to go through nine months of hell and maybe destroy her figure, even if they guy says he will take full responsibility.
A guy can put in his opinion and tell her how he feels, and the woman should take it into account, but ultimately it is her body, therefore her decision.
I didn't write that.
Is this the PUNISH THOSE SLUTS argument again? Cuz I'm getting sick of it.
Anyway, you leave out the most important part. The father needs to accept the consequence as well. We protect women's reproductive rights because they are the ones who suffer the physical and economic issues with pregnancy and childbirth. To protect women's reproductive rights, we must offer them viable options in as many situations as possible. If we offering them false choices, then we are not really protecting reproductive rights at all.
And often do.
And I think someone here mentioned how many people would be so completely up in arms if the genders in this case were reversed (consenting to sex = consenting to possible motherhood).
It does not follow, because sex doesn't always lead to babies naturally, and even if it did, we now have methods to both prevent and terminate a pregnancy. Now that we have those methods, consenting to sex IN NO WAY implies consenting to anythinghood, nor should it. There are choices now.
Sorry; edited quotes manually.
Actions have consequences. Conception is a consequence of sex, unprotected or otherwise.
Just because you didn't mean to make her pregnant doesn't mean that you shouldn't be partially responsible. "I didn't mean to do x by doing y" is a shitty excuse. That's why you can be convicted of murder for negligence. Sure, you didn't mean to kill your kid, but not feeding him ended his life just the same. You didn't mean to be a rapist in the eyes of the state, but you had consensual sex with your underage girlfriend. And you didn't mean to get that girl pregnant, but it's you that made a sperm deposit.
Deal with it. You don't want kids, and you want to be 100% sure you never have any? Quit having sex and start masturbating.
Waitaminute. Suing an amusement park IS child support in the analogy.
To repeat: It's different because women bear the physical and emotional cost of pregnancy and childbirth and men don't. That's why we don't reverse the genders unless we actually reverse the physical nature of pregnancy. Am I talking to a wall here?
No, it's not. Read it again.
Why? You have burden of proof.
2. The father is allowed to file a petition with the court noting his objection to the birth, shielding himself from financial liability resulting from the birth (e.g. child support).
3. If both parties consent to terminate the pregnancy, both must share the cost of the abortion and related medical expenses, and if the woman is disabled and unable to work due to the procedure (we're talking short-term stuff here, not the doctor fucking up and doing permanent damage), the man is liable for some basic financial support.
I did. Go to park, get hurt, try to get money from the park to compensate.
Go to man, get laid, get pregnant (hurt, medically, as it is painful) - try to get money from man. For YEARS. To compensate.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has the choice to terminate. The man doesn't have that choice, so to pretend that he's not risking parenthood is pretty fucking stupid.
What's your point?
O_o
Do you want me to explain to you how sex could lead to pregnancy, and how pregnancy could lead to babies?
Really?
Because I can.
I believe it comes down to the fact that for the:
Woman: Chance of complications/miscarriage/death of baby/death of mother herself not to mention the fact she spends 9 months carrying it to term (and the additional upbringing afterwards).
Man: Baby's born and he's on the hook for child support, which, won't directly or even indirectly (due to the way the system's setup to accommodate his employment status and means) harm him.
So I don't see how slight economic hardship is being argued here to be put on equal footing with possible real physical consequences.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The terms "sue for damages" and "avoid paying child support" are being compared.
Thank you, maybe they'll listen to you when you say it cuz they sure as hell aren't listening to me
You go to a game show where a person in the audience may or may not win a prize. If you win you must legally pay taxes for the prize. You really want to go to the game show because it's fun but you may or may not want the prize or the taxes that go along with it. If you do not want to pay the possible taxes for the prize, do you still go to the game show?
k, so I can't come up with a great one...
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Yeah, it was actually.
I still believe in personal accountability. and Rockwell paintings of Santa.
Nature says no, the US court system says yes.
Well, it's a good thing my opinions aren't based on what other people think then.
Also, even if this was true (which I don't know how you could be so sure of a "what if" scenario), so what?
Are you saying that because people would be angry if the reverse was true, then the people's arguments right now are baseless?
Nobody is asking the mother to carry a child to term. In fact, often we're asking her not to.
Yet women get to be responsibility-free (or at least drastically less-responsible) cum-receptacles. You know, if they want to be.
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.
The point I'm making is that we assume liability for consequences of our action (or inaction) all the time. This is no different. The amusement park analogy is not a bad one, actually.
We say no in the interest of the child.
No, they won't. Because then the woman can still choose to carry it and make the father pay for a child he didn't want. So we'd need detachable womb+large government spending on welfare.
We don't need more people.
What do you propose? Taking abortion away or punishing the child? I know you're just venting, but I'm bringing it back to this because in the end, this is what it's about. Making fathers pay child support is better than the alternatives.
Elaborate?
Since when does single parenthood mean "broken"?
And there are consequences other than financial obligations on the father's part. He has to deal with the mother for atleast 18 years, which is an extreme emotional burden depending on the crazy factor of the mother. Take Alec Baldwin as case, who leaked his voicemail to his daughter? Crazy ass Basinger. Who got the short end? Their daughter being publicly humiliated.
Future relationships, impacted - you're burdened with the other woman in your life, and your partner has to bear that burden with you.
There are a few others I can think of... just not right now.
'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.