It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
The entire reason I would avoid sentances like this is because of this simple switch. "Forcing fathers to have children that they do not want is coercion." How is that not also true? In fact, it is quite commonly talked about (not sure if it is commonly done, anyone have numbers?) for women to get pregnant trying to keep a man from leaving.
No, its doesn't work. You're conflating 'having' a child with 'gestating and bearing' one, and they're fundamentally different.
By the way, "bitches are golddiggers therefore no child support"? Not an argument that's going to get you any respect.
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
Yeah, I mean, seriously. Why have strive for fairness and equality, when you can have children AND punish irresponsible bums at the same time?
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
Yeah, I mean, seriously. Why have strive for fairness and equality, when you can have children AND punish irresponsible bums at the same time?
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
Yeah, I mean, seriously. Why have strive for fairness and equality, when you can have children AND punish irresponsible bums at the same time?
I mean, who doesn't love children?
:zzz:
If you want to "punish the bums," then you should actually come up with a policy that "punishes the bums" and not the children born to the bums who have no choice in parents.
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
Yeah, I mean, seriously. Why have strive for fairness and equality, when you can have children AND punish irresponsible bums at the same time?
I mean, who doesn't love children?
:zzz:
I suggested earlier that maybe the state could step in for parents who are too poor to afford CS. But since that is not equal enough for you, we could institute a 100% tax.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
I'm not sure I understand - are you challenging or merely tossing in your own two cents? Because we already have spent the last 400 posts talking about that.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Without choice, accountability is impossible.
EDITED to actually address WorLord's point. (in progress)
What you're suggesting is impossible in our current system. In fact, I believe it's only possible in a totally socialized economy wherein the government guarantees that every child will be properly cared for in case the parents are unwilling or unable to do so.
Since that is most definitely not the case, and because parenting is extremely costly and the government does little to back up needy parents, the man cannot claim to absolve himself of responsibility for caring for an eventual child simply because he never wanted it.
If he really never wanted a child, he would have not had sex.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
But is this really unreasonable to the mother? Or is it simply a bad consequence of being equitable in this circumstance? Because avoiding bad situations is one thing, but the fact still stands that the mother has the freedom to make choices for which the father should not be held accountable (as far as the law goes, anyway--he's still an ass if he bails.). He has less influence in the matter, and less accountability as a result.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
But is this really unreasonable to the mother? Or is it simply a bad consequence of being equitable in this circumstance? Because avoiding bad situations is one thing, but the fact still stands that the mother has the freedom to make choices for which the father should not be held accountable (as far as the law goes, anyway--he's still an ass if he bails.). He has less influence in the matter, and less accountability as a result.
No, for the dozenth time.
The man has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of his child via sex with its mother.
The woman has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of her child via sex with its father and, if conception results, via abortion.
If the man had the uterus, he would be the one making the extra decision but it still wouldn't fundamentally alter the situation.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
You know, I finally realized what irritates me about this whole situation where most of you pit this as a man versus a woman thing. The argument goes that it is a man's choice to get the woman pregnant so he has to deal with the consequences. Oddly, this never involves him having to pay for anything related to the pregnancy. Instead, we skip right over that and go straight for the "think of the children argument."
And this isn't a false choice. We already have families that making just over the poverty line having children. This exists for families with two parents. Those children get NOTHING special from some other third party agent responsible for their conception. However, for those fortunate ones where their parents chose not to stay together for whatever reason, they are guaranteed payments that are provided by the other parent. (Note: I fully recognize that women can pay child support.)
And I am not personally trying to make the "gold-diggers" argument. I'm just acknowledging that it exists, as that is honestly the only sexist side of the current child support laws that I can see.
And does nobody know how this is handled in prostitution cases? (I realize that isn't exactly wide spread in the US.)
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
But is this really unreasonable to the mother? Or is it simply a bad consequence of being equitable in this circumstance? Because avoiding bad situations is one thing, but the fact still stands that the mother has the freedom to make choices for which the father should not be held accountable (as far as the law goes, anyway--he's still an ass if he bails.). He has less influence in the matter, and less accountability as a result.
No, for the dozenth time.
The man has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of his child via sex with its mother.
The woman has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of her child via sex with its father and, if conception results, via abortion.
If the man had the uterus, he would be the one making the extra decision but it still wouldn't fundamentally alter the situation.
And again, why is the decision regarding paying for the child (underlined because it's no longer part of the woman's body and thus no longer under that defense for her sole jurisdiction) still the woman's instead of both parties'?
I'm not saying it's indefensible, I'm asking for your defense.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
You know, I finally realized what irritates me about this whole situation where most of you pit this as a man versus a woman thing. The argument goes that it is a man's choice to get the woman pregnant so he has to deal with the consequences. Oddly, this never involves him having to pay for anything related to the pregnancy. Instead, we skip right over that and go straight for the "think of the children argument."
Everyone keeps whining about how "poor innocent men" are forced to pay for "that bitch's decision" against their will and shit, and it pisses you off when I treat the issue like it's a man versus woman thing. Sweet.
Everyone keeps whining about how "poor innocent men" are forced to pay for "that bitch's decision" against their will and shit, and it pisses you off when I treat the issue like it's a man versus woman thing. Sweet.
You know, I finally realized what irritates me about this whole situation where most of you pit this as a man versus a woman thing. The argument goes that it is a man's choice to get the woman pregnant so he has to deal with the consequences. Oddly, this never involves him having to pay for anything related to the pregnancy. Instead, we skip right over that and go straight for the "think of the children argument."
I think that's largely because few people here know how much even a non-problematic pregnancy costs. Scans, checkups, ante-natal ed, the birth itself - it generally adds up to several thousand under the US system sans insurance, and even if you have insurance, there's not necessarily a guarantee that you're covered for obstetrics stuff. A lot of companies offer only limited cover for women's health issues - in particular, many refuse to cover the cost of contraception... but in any case, the father in the doomsday scenario that this thread is based around never has to contribute to any of those costs. That's all on mum, on top of all that other stuff. So no, its not a part of the discussion.
Lastly: to those who really hate the "don't fuck her, then" argument: after ponderation just now, I've come to realise its really not analogous to the "don't have sex if you don't want to get knocked up" argument directed at women. Why? Because the argument directed at men only states "don't have sex with that particular woman if you don't want to have a kid with her". Your options are still open after that, because there are plenty of women out there who are fully compatible with your reproductive desires. Its more analogous to the female-directed argument "Don't fuck abusive or anti-choice men if you don't want to be coerced into keeping a kid you don't want" than anything else. And neither are foolproof, but I thought the above might add some clarity.
Lastly: to those who really hate the "don't fuck her, then" argument: after ponderation just now, I've come to realise its really not analogous to the "don't have sex if you don't want to get knocked up" argument directed at women. Why? Because the argument directed at men only states "don't have sex with that particular woman if you don't want to have a kid with her". Your options are still open after that, because there are plenty of women out there who are fully compatible with your reproductive desires.
Wait what? So... Not wanting your girlfreind to get pregnant means you should obviously go out and have sex with her best friend... Sure the guy may have more options as to who to get pregnant, but if we are talking contraceptives failing and all that, then his chances aren't really lessened by fucking someone else. It just means someone who he knows even less is going to get pregnant.
I mean I hate to break it to you but your argument actually comes off as kind of mysoginistic.
Rereading it I kind of realise what your saying, but so the guy can find another pro-choicer, the girl could have found another pro-lifer. Wouldn't they both be at fault for not having discussed it pre-fucking. And if it's a case of the woman changing her mind post-conception, then I think it's a little late to worry about wether the guy can go fuck someone else or not as the baby is already conceived and on the way.
As to the issue at hand... Frankly it comes down to like it or not there is now a baby in the world, and our society has deemed it the father's job to pay out, raise it, or run like a little bitch to another state. We do this because it is extremely dificult for single mothers to make a living, unlike single men who don't ahve to worry about dropping kids off at school or paying for health insurance. So even if the situation just plain sucks for the guy, it's how we handle it to keep at as fair as possible for all involved, especially the child who wasn't there for any of the decision making.
[Edit]
If the end result for the man, wether he wants the pregnancy or not, is the same, then the only point at which it is his choice is the fucking. Meaning that it redoubles the "don't have sex if you don't want to get knocked up" effect for him, not negates it.
No, really. That's a really goddamn stupid reading of what I just said. The tl;dr version of it is common advice in H/A: don't get involved with people who's reproductive intentions don't match your own, and if your relationship shifts on that front, you either need to find a way to reconcile your own intentions with your partner's changed ones or break up and start again. Because you can't force or cajole people around to your point of view. And I know that those of you enamoured with casual sex may find that restrictive (both genders), but tough shit. If you want to bang people you don't know well, you are taking a risk, and on many more fronts than this one. If you don't want to take the risk, don't.
No, really. That's a really goddamn stupid reading of what I just said. The tl;dr version of it is common advice in H/A: don't get involved with people who's reproductive intentions don't match your own, and if your relationship shifts on that front, you either need to find a way to reconcile your own intentions with your partner's changed ones or break up and start again. Because you can't force or cajole people around to your point of view. And I know that those of you enamoured with casual sex may find that restrictive (both genders), but tough shit. If you want to bang people you don't know well, you are taking a risk, and on many more fronts than this one. If you don't want to take the risk, don't.
That makes more sense, but this thread must have gotten way of course since my last reading for that be directed at the hypothetical situation presented.
The man has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of his child via sex with its mother.
The woman has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of her child via sex with its father and, if conception results, via abortion.
If the man had the uterus, he would be the one making the extra decision but it still wouldn't fundamentally alter the situation.
And again, why is the decision regarding paying for the child (underlined because it's no longer part of the woman's body and thus no longer under that defense for her sole jurisdiction) still the woman's instead of both parties'?
I'm not saying it's indefensible, I'm asking for your defense.
The defense is that a woman cannot give birth to a child without first using a man's sperm to conceive that child.
Even if the man doesn't want birth to occur, the mere fact that he's released sperm into the woman's custody means that he's given up control over the abort/don't abort decision. He's automatically 50% responsible for any outcome of that sexual encounter, regardless of which outcome he desires most. After the sexual encounter takes places he has absolutely no control over whether or not pregnancy will occur, and if the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, then once the kid pops out he's just as responsible as she is for making sure it's cared for since he's just as much "at fault" for its existence as she is.
Look, if we had a socialized economy with a rigorous and beneficent government-provided health and child-care support system then this line of reasoning might not be necessary; if the government took upon itself responsibility for making sure everyone was cared for through adulthood, then there would be no reason to hold (almost always) men accountable for children they've helped create. Unfortunately, we don't live in that sort of socioeconomic system, the government does a woefully inadequate job of backing up low-income parents when it comes to supporting children, and when (almost always) men abandon their children, it's a devastating turn of events for the now-single parent.
Even if the man doesn't want birth to occur, the mere fact that he's released sperm into the woman's custody means that he's given up control over the abort/don't abort decision. He's automatically 50% responsible for any outcome of that sexual encounter, regardless of which outcome he desires most. After the sexual encounter takes places he has absolutely no control over whether or not pregnancy will occur, and if the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, then once the kid pops out he's just as responsible as she is for making sure it's cared for since he's just as much "at fault" for its existence as she is.
Why should that matter?
Assume that you're taking a course whose only recorded grades are the midterm exam (50%) and the final (50%). You, for whatever dumbshit reason, decide to skip the midterm. No matter how many times you said "I don't want to fail this class" prior to skipping the midterm, it doesn't matter. Choices have consequences. Just because you don't like the consequence and express that dislike doesn't mean you are immune to its effects.
Hm. After rereading your post, it sounds like we're on the same side, but somebody else could have written exactly those words and just been bitching about the situation.
Assume that you're taking a course whose only recorded grades are the midterm exam (50%) and the final (50%). You, for whatever dumbshit reason, decide to skip the midterm. No matter how many times you said "I don't want to fail this class" prior to skipping the midterm, it doesn't matter. Choices have consequences. Just because you don't like the consequence and express that dislike doesn't mean you are immune to its effects.
Hm. After rereading your post, it sounds like we're on the same side, but somebody else could have written exactly those words and just been bitching about the situation.
<Shrug>. Yeah, we pretty much agree, although I don't think I want to change anything about my post. I'm open to suggestions, though.
I'm not sure that I'd change anything about it either. I just think it's interesting that until I noticed your icon I thought you were just another guy bitching about the fact that our choices have consequences.
I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth
The argument goes that it is a man's choice to get the woman pregnant so he has to deal with the consequences. Oddly, this never involves him having to pay for anything related to the pregnancy.
Not to pick nits, but... I've advocated just this several times.
And this isn't a false choice. We already have families that making just over the poverty line having children.
I agree with you. "A situation in which one choice more financially feasable than another" is different, to me, than "removing a choice entirely" or turning a choice into a "false" one. Sometimes (arguably many times) even with child support, one simply doesn't make enough money to properly care for and raise a child. That happens sometimes; sometimes all of your options suck, and its nobody's job to make one option seem brighter than others.
But I really don't want to argue that point, as I think I already have, and everyone is pretty deeply attached to their own points of view (expressed multiple times) at ths juncture of the discussion. I'm just saying that indeed I did suggest, often, that a man should be financially culpable for the physical complications of pregnancy.
I'm not sure that I'd change anything about it either. I just think it's interesting that until I noticed your icon I thought you were just another guy bitching about the fact that our choices have consequences.
To tell you the truth, I'm a little unnerved with how sex-negative my rhetoric feels, even though it's not explicity sex-negative. I consider myself to be a pretty sex-positive person, and all this "don't have sex if you don't want kids" talk is pretty strong. It's unfortunate that we can't talk more (like Cat mentioned) about the vast in-between of having a solid relationship with someone and being able to talk to them about this issue before you have sex with them.
It's unfortunate that we can't talk more (like Cat mentioned) about the vast in-between of having a solid relationship with someone and being able to talk to them about this issue before you have sex with them.
While that is a good point, I think that it is almost never the people in solid relationships who end up like the hypotheticals we've been going over.
I'm not sure that I'd change anything about it either. I just think it's interesting that until I noticed your icon I thought you were just another guy bitching about the fact that our choices have consequences.
To tell you the truth, I'm a little unnerved with how sex-negative my rhetoric feels, even though it's not explicity sex-negative. I consider myself to be a pretty sex-positive person, and all this "don't have sex if you don't want kids" talk is pretty strong. It's unfortunate that we can't talk more (like Cat mentioned) about the vast in-between of having a solid relationship with someone and being able to talk to them about this issue before you have sex with them.
Except that all the talking beforehand in the world doesn't necessarily matter when that person still gets to make an entirely autonomous decision afterwards. And it's not like people, even people that the other partner knew well, are not known for changing their minds when faced with this decision (in either direction...either from aborting to not or vice versa).
EDIT: In other words, it's not just crazy people...even perfectly sane people you think you know well may or may not follow your "plan" when the shit hits the fan.
It's unfortunate that we can't talk more (like Cat mentioned) about the vast in-between of having a solid relationship with someone and being able to talk to them about this issue before you have sex with them.
While that is a good point, I think that it is almost never the people in solid relationships who end up like the hypotheticals we've been going over.
Depends how narrowly you word your hypothetical. If it's "birth control fails, man doesn't want baby, woman decides not to abort" I'd say it's not entirely unheard of.
Forcing mothers to not have children that they do want is coercion. Even if they technically have the choices "abort, put up for adoption, raise without father's support."
For many women, there is no choice that allows them to keep their child. A false choice is not a real choice, and by denying that mother and child support payments from the father (or the state) you're denying her the freedom to choose whether she raises her own child if she decides to carry it to term.
Am I being coerced into staying in school? coerced into not quitting my job? You are suggesting that parenthood is a universal right. Where, in our laws or tradition, is that true? I don't see it anywhere in the declaration of Independance or the Constitution. You get life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, then you get the bill of rights. That's all that's explicit, and even those are often curtailed.
There's also no right to father/mother children and not be responsible for them. What's you point?
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
Assume that you're taking a course whose only recorded grades are the midterm exam (50%) and the final (50%). You, for whatever dumbshit reason, decide to skip the midterm. No matter how many times you said "I don't want to fail this class" prior to skipping the midterm, it doesn't matter. Choices have consequences. Just because you don't like the consequence and express that dislike doesn't mean you are immune to its effects.
To make this analogy more accurate, you do both assignments with a partner, and she decided to skip the midterm, now you fail, gg.
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
how do we not give the mother the choice on wether or not to be responcible?
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
It seems to me that a woman's choice to have or not have a child does not absolve a man from the responsibility of his choice to ejaculate into her.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
our current system requires men to pay child support, some don't, but they are breaking the law, we arn't talking about them. Where is his choice again?
as for the woman, she has the same choice any woman has regarding her children, keep it and be responcible for it, or give it away. Some women have a promise from their spouce or signifigant other or relatives that they will get help raising the child, but they all have the same choice about what to do with it.
caradrayan on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
Our current system requires legal Guardians have to take care of children. If they don't they're breaking the law, and we aren't talking about them. Where is their choice again?
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
how do we not give the mother the choice on wether or not to be responcible?
Look, for the bajillionth time:
- When a man chooses to have sex he also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- When a woman chooses to have sex she also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- Because any pregnancy resides only in the woman's uterus, she alone gets a second choice when she finds out she's pregnant: keep or terminate the pregnancy.
If men bore pregnancies inside their bodies, they would have the second round of choice as well.
Both men and women choose to be responsible for a possible pregnancy when they choose to have sex.
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
how do we not give the mother the choice on wether or not to be responcible?
Look, for the bajillionth time:
- When a man chooses to have sex he also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- When a woman chooses to have sex she also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- Because any pregnancy resides only in the woman's uterus, she alone gets a second choice when she finds out she's pregnant: keep or terminate the pregnancy.
If men bore pregnancies inside their bodies, they would have the second round of choice as well.
Both men and women choose to be responsible for a possible pregnancy when they choose to have sex.
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
Posts
B-b-b-but 18 years! And hooks! And a proportion of income way less than what would be spent if actually helping raise the child instead! And something about women having all the power in the world!
No, its doesn't work. You're conflating 'having' a child with 'gestating and bearing' one, and they're fundamentally different.
By the way, "bitches are golddiggers therefore no child support"? Not an argument that's going to get you any respect.
Yeah, I mean, seriously. Why have strive for fairness and equality, when you can have children AND punish irresponsible bums at the same time?
I mean, who doesn't love children?
:zzz:
Oh look, a circle.
If you want to "punish the bums," then you should actually come up with a policy that "punishes the bums" and not the children born to the bums who have no choice in parents.
I suggested earlier that maybe the state could step in for parents who are too poor to afford CS. But since that is not equal enough for you, we could institute a 100% tax.
Very fair.
No one is arguing that it is. At least, I'm not. I'm arguing that said responsibility ends with the costs of $abortion_or_birth, and not with someone else's independant and often conflictory choice to keep and raise a new life.
Without choice, accountability is impossible.
Actually without child-support it's not an independent choice. If the mother can't afford the baby, she has to give it up, one way or the other. Without child-support, it is in many situations entirely the man's choice whether or not the woman keeps the baby.
EDITED to actually address WorLord's point. (in progress)
What you're suggesting is impossible in our current system. In fact, I believe it's only possible in a totally socialized economy wherein the government guarantees that every child will be properly cared for in case the parents are unwilling or unable to do so.
Since that is most definitely not the case, and because parenting is extremely costly and the government does little to back up needy parents, the man cannot claim to absolve himself of responsibility for caring for an eventual child simply because he never wanted it.
If he really never wanted a child, he would have not had sex.
No, for the dozenth time.
The man has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of his child via sex with its mother.
The woman has the right to choose whether or not to risk the birth of her child via sex with its father and, if conception results, via abortion.
If the man had the uterus, he would be the one making the extra decision but it still wouldn't fundamentally alter the situation.
You know, I finally realized what irritates me about this whole situation where most of you pit this as a man versus a woman thing. The argument goes that it is a man's choice to get the woman pregnant so he has to deal with the consequences. Oddly, this never involves him having to pay for anything related to the pregnancy. Instead, we skip right over that and go straight for the "think of the children argument."
And this isn't a false choice. We already have families that making just over the poverty line having children. This exists for families with two parents. Those children get NOTHING special from some other third party agent responsible for their conception. However, for those fortunate ones where their parents chose not to stay together for whatever reason, they are guaranteed payments that are provided by the other parent. (Note: I fully recognize that women can pay child support.)
And I am not personally trying to make the "gold-diggers" argument. I'm just acknowledging that it exists, as that is honestly the only sexist side of the current child support laws that I can see.
And does nobody know how this is handled in prostitution cases? (I realize that isn't exactly wide spread in the US.)
I'm not saying it's indefensible, I'm asking for your defense.
Everyone keeps whining about how "poor innocent men" are forced to pay for "that bitch's decision" against their will and shit, and it pisses you off when I treat the issue like it's a man versus woman thing. Sweet.
I admire your ironic use of punctuation.
I think that's largely because few people here know how much even a non-problematic pregnancy costs. Scans, checkups, ante-natal ed, the birth itself - it generally adds up to several thousand under the US system sans insurance, and even if you have insurance, there's not necessarily a guarantee that you're covered for obstetrics stuff. A lot of companies offer only limited cover for women's health issues - in particular, many refuse to cover the cost of contraception... but in any case, the father in the doomsday scenario that this thread is based around never has to contribute to any of those costs. That's all on mum, on top of all that other stuff. So no, its not a part of the discussion.
Lastly: to those who really hate the "don't fuck her, then" argument: after ponderation just now, I've come to realise its really not analogous to the "don't have sex if you don't want to get knocked up" argument directed at women. Why? Because the argument directed at men only states "don't have sex with that particular woman if you don't want to have a kid with her". Your options are still open after that, because there are plenty of women out there who are fully compatible with your reproductive desires. Its more analogous to the female-directed argument "Don't fuck abusive or anti-choice men if you don't want to be coerced into keeping a kid you don't want" than anything else. And neither are foolproof, but I thought the above might add some clarity.
Wait what? So... Not wanting your girlfreind to get pregnant means you should obviously go out and have sex with her best friend... Sure the guy may have more options as to who to get pregnant, but if we are talking contraceptives failing and all that, then his chances aren't really lessened by fucking someone else. It just means someone who he knows even less is going to get pregnant.
I mean I hate to break it to you but your argument actually comes off as kind of mysoginistic.
Rereading it I kind of realise what your saying, but so the guy can find another pro-choicer, the girl could have found another pro-lifer. Wouldn't they both be at fault for not having discussed it pre-fucking. And if it's a case of the woman changing her mind post-conception, then I think it's a little late to worry about wether the guy can go fuck someone else or not as the baby is already conceived and on the way.
As to the issue at hand... Frankly it comes down to like it or not there is now a baby in the world, and our society has deemed it the father's job to pay out, raise it, or run like a little bitch to another state. We do this because it is extremely dificult for single mothers to make a living, unlike single men who don't ahve to worry about dropping kids off at school or paying for health insurance. So even if the situation just plain sucks for the guy, it's how we handle it to keep at as fair as possible for all involved, especially the child who wasn't there for any of the decision making.
[Edit]
If the end result for the man, wether he wants the pregnancy or not, is the same, then the only point at which it is his choice is the fucking. Meaning that it redoubles the "don't have sex if you don't want to get knocked up" effect for him, not negates it.
No, really. That's a really goddamn stupid reading of what I just said. The tl;dr version of it is common advice in H/A: don't get involved with people who's reproductive intentions don't match your own, and if your relationship shifts on that front, you either need to find a way to reconcile your own intentions with your partner's changed ones or break up and start again. Because you can't force or cajole people around to your point of view. And I know that those of you enamoured with casual sex may find that restrictive (both genders), but tough shit. If you want to bang people you don't know well, you are taking a risk, and on many more fronts than this one. If you don't want to take the risk, don't.
That makes more sense, but this thread must have gotten way of course since my last reading for that be directed at the hypothetical situation presented.
[Edit] Yes... yes it has.
The defense is that a woman cannot give birth to a child without first using a man's sperm to conceive that child.
Even if the man doesn't want birth to occur, the mere fact that he's released sperm into the woman's custody means that he's given up control over the abort/don't abort decision. He's automatically 50% responsible for any outcome of that sexual encounter, regardless of which outcome he desires most. After the sexual encounter takes places he has absolutely no control over whether or not pregnancy will occur, and if the woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term, then once the kid pops out he's just as responsible as she is for making sure it's cared for since he's just as much "at fault" for its existence as she is.
Look, if we had a socialized economy with a rigorous and beneficent government-provided health and child-care support system then this line of reasoning might not be necessary; if the government took upon itself responsibility for making sure everyone was cared for through adulthood, then there would be no reason to hold (almost always) men accountable for children they've helped create. Unfortunately, we don't live in that sort of socioeconomic system, the government does a woefully inadequate job of backing up low-income parents when it comes to supporting children, and when (almost always) men abandon their children, it's a devastating turn of events for the now-single parent.
Why should that matter?
Assume that you're taking a course whose only recorded grades are the midterm exam (50%) and the final (50%). You, for whatever dumbshit reason, decide to skip the midterm. No matter how many times you said "I don't want to fail this class" prior to skipping the midterm, it doesn't matter. Choices have consequences. Just because you don't like the consequence and express that dislike doesn't mean you are immune to its effects.
Hm. After rereading your post, it sounds like we're on the same side, but somebody else could have written exactly those words and just been bitching about the situation.
<Shrug>. Yeah, we pretty much agree, although I don't think I want to change anything about my post. I'm open to suggestions, though.
Not to pick nits, but... I've advocated just this several times.
I agree with you. "A situation in which one choice more financially feasable than another" is different, to me, than "removing a choice entirely" or turning a choice into a "false" one. Sometimes (arguably many times) even with child support, one simply doesn't make enough money to properly care for and raise a child. That happens sometimes; sometimes all of your options suck, and its nobody's job to make one option seem brighter than others.
But I really don't want to argue that point, as I think I already have, and everyone is pretty deeply attached to their own points of view (expressed multiple times) at ths juncture of the discussion. I'm just saying that indeed I did suggest, often, that a man should be financially culpable for the physical complications of pregnancy.
To tell you the truth, I'm a little unnerved with how sex-negative my rhetoric feels, even though it's not explicity sex-negative. I consider myself to be a pretty sex-positive person, and all this "don't have sex if you don't want kids" talk is pretty strong. It's unfortunate that we can't talk more (like Cat mentioned) about the vast in-between of having a solid relationship with someone and being able to talk to them about this issue before you have sex with them.
While that is a good point, I think that it is almost never the people in solid relationships who end up like the hypotheticals we've been going over.
Except that all the talking beforehand in the world doesn't necessarily matter when that person still gets to make an entirely autonomous decision afterwards. And it's not like people, even people that the other partner knew well, are not known for changing their minds when faced with this decision (in either direction...either from aborting to not or vice versa).
EDIT: In other words, it's not just crazy people...even perfectly sane people you think you know well may or may not follow your "plan" when the shit hits the fan.
Depends how narrowly you word your hypothetical. If it's "birth control fails, man doesn't want baby, woman decides not to abort" I'd say it's not entirely unheard of.
We give the mother the choice to not be finacially responcible for the child, we do not give the father this choice, he deals with whatever the mother decides. This is unequal, that is my point.
No, we don't, you just refuse to accept perspectives from which it's possible to see as much. This is everyone else's point.
To make this analogy more accurate, you do both assignments with a partner, and she decided to skip the midterm, now you fail, gg.
how do we not give the mother the choice on wether or not to be responcible?
*sigh*
I'm sorry, I don't follow this. Elaborate?
Puzzle League: 073119-160185
our current system requires men to pay child support, some don't, but they are breaking the law, we arn't talking about them. Where is his choice again?
as for the woman, she has the same choice any woman has regarding her children, keep it and be responcible for it, or give it away. Some women have a promise from their spouce or signifigant other or relatives that they will get help raising the child, but they all have the same choice about what to do with it.
Look, for the bajillionth time:
- When a man chooses to have sex he also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- When a woman chooses to have sex she also chooses to take responsibility for any outcome of that sex.
- Because any pregnancy resides only in the woman's uterus, she alone gets a second choice when she finds out she's pregnant: keep or terminate the pregnancy.
If men bore pregnancies inside their bodies, they would have the second round of choice as well.
Both men and women choose to be responsible for a possible pregnancy when they choose to have sex.
But nobody is arguing with this, as far as I can see. The only argument is with exactly what "the consequences" of having sex should be for a man, specifically whether they should inclued mandatory child support payments if the woman becomes pregnant and decides to give birth. You seem to be using the fact that they are currently the consequences as justification for the fact that they should be the consequences.
Puzzle League: 073119-160185