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..
Except you wouldn't be paying as much for it. Unless we actually have a 1:1 taxpayer to unwanted child ratio.
So, if a man has sex with a woman, and gets her pregnant, he is now beholden to care for the child, whether by rearing it or by paying child support, even if he didn't want the child to begin with.
The only conclusion I can reach from that is that people who argue that position are saying that men should abstain entirely from premarital sex, which is kinda dumb.
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?
No, I said to be at no fault in a pregnancy you'd have to be raped. As far as I know the only way to be at 0% fault in an accident is to not be moving.
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.
If by "unjust" you mean "the basic biological fact of human reproduction involving female gestating fetus inside her body," then yeah, it's unjust.
So, if a man has sex with a woman, and gets her pregnant, he is now beholden to care for the child, whether by rearing it or by paying child support, even if he didn't want the child to begin with.
The only conclusion I can reach from that is that people who argue that position are saying that men should abstain entirely from premarital sex, which is kinda dumb.
They don't necessarily have to abstain; they just need to understand the potential ramifications of having sex. Consequences aren't always the same for everybody involved.
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 didn't bring ease into it. She has those choices, so should he. He should, in fact, front the cost of an abortion or delivery because the consequences of those choices are greater for her.
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.
Woman decides which procedure man pays for is as fair as I think the law has a right to make 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?
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.
Absolutely none of which are infringed by society not supporting womens' bad decisions.
I have now dropped the car analogy. It was a horrible analogy that was dredged up on a spur of the moment and apologize profusely for exposing us to it's horribleness.
The whole "being a fault for pregnancy just by having sex" sounds suspiciously like a pro-life argument though. I find it funny that our pro-choice-ish discussion is bringing that out in this discussion.
The car analogy is still B.S. I don't know whether I have to ride a motorcycle through a flaming hoop while balancing a turtle on my head to get to you people, but I am here.
I don't care about car crashes because babies aren't made in car crashes. Car crashes don't create things which might require state money. Car crashes have rules which make someone distinctly responsible, unlike sex.
But the government tries to pay as little money as possible for children, which is why fathers have to pay before taxpayers.
There, now my text is pink, please notice it.
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.
What.
That argument makes no goddamn sense. Are you being deliberately obtuse? You do even comprehend what we're talking about, that there's a huge double standard and going "oh tough titty" isn't a reasonable or even acceptable situation. Furthermore all your arguments can be applied to both sexes, but you seem to be viewing it through some myopia that makes you see only the poor women and children, but not the dude who can possibly be fucked if some girl decides after the fact "I'm keeping the kid and there's nothing you can do about it."
There is a double standard, but, as a taxpayer and a man who isn't a fucktard, its to my benefit that there is one, so I'm quite fine with it.
Edit: I define fucktard as "Man who gets a woman pregnant" this can include fucktards but also rape victims and unlucky people, and generally expands into "Men who have premarital sex"
I'm not saying that all women or most women do this, but some women will purposely seduce a famous/rich/etc. guy to get pregnant and sit back and let the payments roll in.
In much the same way as guys will get a girl pregnant and bolt, leaving the girl "holding the bag".
In the former situation, the guy is a douchebag, and is law bound to provide child support. In the latter, it seems the majority here take a "life sucks" approach, and claim that the guy has no choice.
So, if a man has sex with a woman, and gets her pregnant, he is now beholden to care for the child, whether by rearing it or by paying child support, even if he didn't want the child to begin with.
The only conclusion I can reach from that is that people who argue that position are saying that men should abstain entirely from premarital sex, which is kinda dumb.
Step 1: If a man doesn't want the responsibility of caring for a child, he should talk it over with his partner first. Assuming that they have a halfway-decent relationship they'll come to a reasonable consensus.
Step 2: If they don't agree, then the man should insist on the best available safe-sex methods if he still wants to have sex with the woman. This is not a get-out-of-parental-obligation-free card.
Step 3: If a man isn't confident that he'll be able to completely avoid his female partner getting pregnant, then he shouldn't have sex with her.
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.
Other than making the male/female arguements for this thread more even, what are the benefits?
It's a traumatic, painful, often life-altering experience that can have lasting physical or psychological effects. I think the benefits of allowing abortion far outweigh the benefits of disallowing it, but there is a small measure of potential benefit in eliminating the procedure. It's just not net benefit in my (pro-choice) opinion.
I don't think disallowing abortion is really the way to go to make it fair for both parents, though. This is just a dumb tangent.
I'm not saying that all women or most women do this, but some women will purposely seduce a famous/rich/etc. guy to get pregnant and sit back and let the payments roll in.
In much the same way as guys will get a girl pregnant and bolt, leaving the girl "holding the bag".
In the former situation, the guy is a douchebag, and is law bound to provide child support. In the latter, it seems the majority here take a "life sucks" approach, and claim that the guy has no choice.
This just reeks of double standard to me.
Why? the rich/famous person is totally free not to have sex with the woman in question.
Unless it's rape, which is a totally different issue.
I hate the double standard here but it's not something that anyone can fix. Hell, the only way everything would be completely equal is if abortions were mandatory, we could remove a fetus from the womb and have it grow into a child outside of he woman's body, and you had to apply to be a parent. Seeing how that's crazy talk and not going to happen I think both sides are going to have to realize that this is a necessary evil with no real solution at this present time.
However, myself I'd much rather live in a world where I have to pay taxes to help single parents out (with or without them receiving child support). Even if child support is being paid, single parents have it rough.
However, myself I'd much rather live in a world where I have to pay taxes to help single parents out (with or without them receiving child support). Even if child support is being paid, single parents have it rough.
I'm not saying that all women or most women do this, but some women will purposely seduce a famous/rich/etc. guy to get pregnant and sit back and let the payments roll in.
In much the same way as guys will get a girl pregnant and bolt, leaving the girl "holding the bag".
In the former situation, the guy is a douchebag, and is law bound to provide child support. In the latter, it seems the majority here take a "life sucks" approach, and claim that the guy has no choice.
This just reeks of double standard to me.
Why? the rich/famous person is totally free not to have sex with the woman in question.
Unless it's rape, which is a totally different issue.
"Oh, don't worry baby, I'm on the pill. Oh, and here, I've got a condom just to be safe!" Meanwhile, not on the pill and condom is full of holes.
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.
Absolutely none of which are infringed by society not supporting womens' bad decisions.
And when the children die due to the parents' total inability to care for them? How, exactly, are the childrens' rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness secured in this case?
Quite frankly, I'm a virgin, and 16.
I think people who have premarital sex and aren't willing to pony up are fucktards, but as a future taxpayer I'm making you pay for your mess before I do.
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.
What.
That argument makes no goddamn sense. Are you being deliberately obtuse? You do even comprehend what we're talking about, that there's a huge double standard and going "oh tough titty" isn't a reasonable or even acceptable situation. Furthermore all your arguments can be applied to both sexes, but you seem to be viewing it through some myopia that makes you see only the poor women and children, but not the dude who can possibly be fucked if some girl decides after the fact "I'm keeping the kid and there's nothing you can do about it."
It doesn't apply to both sexes equally. The man can't decide "I'm having this baby whether you like it or not." Laws can't make nature fair. I'm seeing the poor women and children because they're the ones hurt if absolve fathers of responsibility for unwanted children.
The system isn't perfect because it applies to a biological process that was unbalanced to begin with. Our society has done nothing to fix that. Women make less than men. Women are passed over for promotions. Parents are undesirable employees, especially single ones.
Just as in all other aspects of life, we need to be conscious of the consequences of our actions. If 16 year old Johnny 100% doesn't want to be a daddy the only way to 100% certainly make that happen is for him to not engage in sex. I'm sorry that the playing field isn't level, but I'm not about to tell women that they can't have abortions just because some guys out there don't want to take responsibility for the babies they helped make.
It's easy to legislate fairly when the sexes are on equal footing, but they aren't here, and there's nothing that any of us can do to change that short of harming the child, the one party who actually had no say in the matter, and equality in this instance isn't worth that cost to me.
You want to fuck over kids, that's your business, but I'm content to hold parents responsible for children that they're responsible for creating.
Quite frankly, I'm a virgin, and 16.
I think people who have premarital sex and aren't willing to pony up are fucktards, but as a future taxpayer I'm making you pay for your mess before I do.
Then I'll trust you to not have sex until you're at a job making at least, say, $30,000 a year then. [EDIT: Actually, $40K would probably be better.]
I find mcdermott's solution the most appealing to this situation.
By spreading the burden to taxpayers we eliminate an inequity in the law and we do a better job of taking care of the children.
If a man really doesn't want to pay for a kid he's not going to law be damned there are an absolute ton of dead-beat dads out there and we can't catch them all.
If our interest is really the children we do a better job taking care of all of them not just the ones with dads who stayed in the same state.
Quite frankly, I'm a virgin, and 16.
I think people who have premarital sex and aren't willing to pony up are fucktards, but as a future taxpayer I'm making you pay for your mess before I do.
Then I'll trust you to not have sex until you're at a job making at least, say, $30,000 a year then.
Have fun in college.
I will, apparently its strange that my thinking goes on in my brain and not my balls
However, myself I'd much rather live in a world where I have to pay taxes to help single parents out (with or without them receiving child support). Even if child support is being paid, single parents have it rough.
You damn dirty socialist.
Me too.
Ya, that actually doesn't sound so bad. It sure would assist single-parents who never receive child support.
Quite frankly, I'm a virgin, and 16.
I think people who have premarital sex and aren't willing to pony up are fucktards, but as a future taxpayer I'm making you pay for your mess before I do.
As a current taxpayer, not only do I not mind paying a few extra pennies a year in taxes to make sure that children with the bad luck of being born to poor parents don't die from illness or malnutrition, but I also understand that people without adequate medical coverage can and do go to emergency rooms for treatment and we, current and future taxpayers together, foot the bill for that.
I'm not saying that we shouldn't foot the rest of the bill if the parents can't pay, but I don't think that just because a man has less than 50% responsibility doesn't mean that society should pay his end of the childs welfare.
Coming from you, jclast, this is amusing, because that's what you've been advocating all along. You like laws the way they are because you think they balance the scale, when all they really do is try to turn two wrongs into a right.
I'm seeing the poor women and children because they're the ones hurt if absolve fathers of responsibility for unwanted children.
Maybe she should consider not having a child when the father tells her he doesn't want to support it. The child doesn't just magically appear, and isn't totally inevitable.
Posts
Except you wouldn't be paying as much for it. Unless we actually have a 1:1 taxpayer to unwanted child ratio.
The only conclusion I can reach from that is that people who argue that position are saying that men should abstain entirely from premarital sex, which is kinda dumb.
No, I said to be at no fault in a pregnancy you'd have to be raped. As far as I know the only way to be at 0% fault in an accident is to not be moving.
Other than making the male/female arguements for this thread more even, what are the benefits?
If by "unjust" you mean "the basic biological fact of human reproduction involving female gestating fetus inside her body," then yeah, it's unjust.
They don't necessarily have to abstain; they just need to understand the potential ramifications of having sex. Consequences aren't always the same for everybody involved.
Calculated risk and informed consent.
I didn't bring ease into it. She has those choices, so should he. He should, in fact, front the cost of an abortion or delivery because the consequences of those choices are greater for her.
Woman decides which procedure man pays for is as fair as I think the law has a right to make it.
The whole "being a fault for pregnancy just by having sex" sounds suspiciously like a pro-life argument though. I find it funny that our pro-choice-ish discussion is bringing that out in this discussion.
I don't care about car crashes because babies aren't made in car crashes. Car crashes don't create things which might require state money. Car crashes have rules which make someone distinctly responsible, unlike sex.
But the government tries to pay as little money as possible for children, which is why fathers have to pay before taxpayers.
There, now my text is pink, please notice it.
What.
That argument makes no goddamn sense. Are you being deliberately obtuse? You do even comprehend what we're talking about, that there's a huge double standard and going "oh tough titty" isn't a reasonable or even acceptable situation. Furthermore all your arguments can be applied to both sexes, but you seem to be viewing it through some myopia that makes you see only the poor women and children, but not the dude who can possibly be fucked if some girl decides after the fact "I'm keeping the kid and there's nothing you can do about it."
Edit: I define fucktard as "Man who gets a woman pregnant" this can include fucktards but also rape victims and unlucky people, and generally expands into "Men who have premarital sex"
In much the same way as guys will get a girl pregnant and bolt, leaving the girl "holding the bag".
In the former situation, the guy is a douchebag, and is law bound to provide child support. In the latter, it seems the majority here take a "life sucks" approach, and claim that the guy has no choice.
This just reeks of double standard to me.
Step 1: If a man doesn't want the responsibility of caring for a child, he should talk it over with his partner first. Assuming that they have a halfway-decent relationship they'll come to a reasonable consensus.
Step 2: If they don't agree, then the man should insist on the best available safe-sex methods if he still wants to have sex with the woman. This is not a get-out-of-parental-obligation-free card.
Step 3: If a man isn't confident that he'll be able to completely avoid his female partner getting pregnant, then he shouldn't have sex with her.
It's a traumatic, painful, often life-altering experience that can have lasting physical or psychological effects. I think the benefits of allowing abortion far outweigh the benefits of disallowing it, but there is a small measure of potential benefit in eliminating the procedure. It's just not net benefit in my (pro-choice) opinion.
I don't think disallowing abortion is really the way to go to make it fair for both parents, though. This is just a dumb tangent.
Why? the rich/famous person is totally free not to have sex with the woman in question.
Unless it's rape, which is a totally different issue.
However, myself I'd much rather live in a world where I have to pay taxes to help single parents out (with or without them receiving child support). Even if child support is being paid, single parents have it rough.
So, you never once had sex before you were financially capable of supporting a child? Just curious. That goes for everybody else, too.
You damn dirty socialist.
Me too.
"Oh, don't worry baby, I'm on the pill. Oh, and here, I've got a condom just to be safe!" Meanwhile, not on the pill and condom is full of holes.
And when the children die due to the parents' total inability to care for them? How, exactly, are the childrens' rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness secured in this case?
I think people who have premarital sex and aren't willing to pony up are fucktards, but as a future taxpayer I'm making you pay for your mess before I do.
It doesn't apply to both sexes equally. The man can't decide "I'm having this baby whether you like it or not." Laws can't make nature fair. I'm seeing the poor women and children because they're the ones hurt if absolve fathers of responsibility for unwanted children.
The system isn't perfect because it applies to a biological process that was unbalanced to begin with. Our society has done nothing to fix that. Women make less than men. Women are passed over for promotions. Parents are undesirable employees, especially single ones.
Just as in all other aspects of life, we need to be conscious of the consequences of our actions. If 16 year old Johnny 100% doesn't want to be a daddy the only way to 100% certainly make that happen is for him to not engage in sex. I'm sorry that the playing field isn't level, but I'm not about to tell women that they can't have abortions just because some guys out there don't want to take responsibility for the babies they helped make.
It's easy to legislate fairly when the sexes are on equal footing, but they aren't here, and there's nothing that any of us can do to change that short of harming the child, the one party who actually had no say in the matter, and equality in this instance isn't worth that cost to me.
You want to fuck over kids, that's your business, but I'm content to hold parents responsible for children that they're responsible for creating.
The rich/famous person is STILL totally free not to have sex with the woman in question.
Then I'll trust you to not have sex until you're at a job making at least, say, $30,000 a year then. [EDIT: Actually, $40K would probably be better.]
Have fun in college.
By spreading the burden to taxpayers we eliminate an inequity in the law and we do a better job of taking care of the children.
If a man really doesn't want to pay for a kid he's not going to law be damned there are an absolute ton of dead-beat dads out there and we can't catch them all.
If our interest is really the children we do a better job taking care of all of them not just the ones with dads who stayed in the same state.
Nope.
Ya, that actually doesn't sound so bad. It sure would assist single-parents who never receive child support.
Regardless, sex happened. Most people who go in for abortions had the same choice to not have sex, do we use that excuse with them?
As a current taxpayer, not only do I not mind paying a few extra pennies a year in taxes to make sure that children with the bad luck of being born to poor parents don't die from illness or malnutrition, but I also understand that people without adequate medical coverage can and do go to emergency rooms for treatment and we, current and future taxpayers together, foot the bill for that.
No, because abortion is a woman exerting her natural right to control her body.
In this case, the rich/famous person is exerting his natural right to control his body by having sex or not.
Coming from you, jclast, this is amusing, because that's what you've been advocating all along. You like laws the way they are because you think they balance the scale, when all they really do is try to turn two wrongs into a right.
Maybe she should consider not having a child when the father tells her he doesn't want to support it. The child doesn't just magically appear, and isn't totally inevitable.
But according to you, we should also be reasonsible for actions that aren't ours, and I'm saying this isn't just.
I'd rather there not be a child at all.
If there must be, I think the taxpayer solution is a pretty good one.