“No man wants a financial abortion like he wants an ice cream cone or a Porsche. He wants a financial abortion like an animal caught in a trap wants to gnaw off its own leg.”

izomo · 2015-02-24T23:54:09+00:00

Saw an interesting quote in twoX so I reversed the genders and situation, what do you guys think?...

[–]chavelah 53 points54 points55 points 11 years ago (225 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SirT6 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Phrodo_00 -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]richardnorth 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

The natural solution to that problem is to remove the legal obligation of the father, making it voluntary,

That is not really a full solution. That is a compromise that creates as many problems as it solves, without actually really respecting the father's reproductive right. The repercussions of bringing a child to life, without the consent of the father, extends far beyond financial obligation.

Without legal repercussions, the best case scenario is that you convince a woman not to make the wrong decision. Worse case scenario, you're left with a child with no father, a father who still has to live with the his child being alive without support(and the guilt that comes with it) and a mother who gets away with her negligence without consequence. By adding legal consequences to the situation, you end up significantly increasing the odds of that best case scenario, while simply granting justice to the father in the worse case scenario(with every other result being the same).

not to remove the right of the woman to give birth if she so chooses.

This is not "removing a woman's right to give birth". It is simply criminalizing it under the unethical circumstances. By your logic, removing the financial obligation would be the exact same thing, simply because the possibility of receiving no financial support from the father would be a deterrent to women choosing to go through with the unconsented pregnancy in the first place(i.e. unwanted situation, or repercussions, leading to an abortion that wouldn't have happened under different circumstances).

Your argument seems to be based on harm done to the unwanting father, but I think your solution is backwards.

How is that backwards? The right of sovereignty over one's body should extend to one's DNA and how it is used. The harm and injustice done to the father should not simply be dismissed like it's nothing. That's not right either. A woman giving birth to a child that wasn't fully hers in the first place is committing a criminal act against the father and, in a way, against the child as well(forcing a child to be born in negligent circumstances). A man forcing a woman to be a mother against her will is as much of a crime against her sovereignty over her body than a woman forcing a man to be a father or using his body/DNA to bring a child to life. The only thing that would be "backwards" would be to go back to completely dismissing the father's reproductive rights in favour of the mothers whims.

[–]danpilon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I think I see what you mean now. I mostly agree, but I don't have a solution. Sometimes even if you use a condom and birth control, your DNA ends up inside one of her eggs. Unless we forced abortion in this case (which I have previously said I absolutely do not want), there is not much we can do. I don't really agree with negative consequences for keeping the baby in this situation, but perhaps positive incentive to abort it?

How is that backwards?

I thought your argument was based on financial penalties to the man, not about the control of the propagation of his DNA. In the former case, it is better to remove the risk of financial hardship, rather than force some kind of legal obligation on the woman. In the latter case, as I have said, I don't really know of a good solution I would agree with.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]danpilon 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -49 points-48 points-47 points 11 years ago* (140 children) | Copy Link

Nobody should be forced to assume responsibility for a child against their will.

??! If it's your kid, then absolutely yes. What is this? Some weird false-flag operation? notice Assuming responsibility for a child is absolute, now people are down voting this on a theoretical idea of being able to sign away your rights as a father within the abortion time window, something I myself am an advocate of publicly since 2008 on reddit. but that's not what happens. This is today, your comment doesn't hold up today, and the ideas of men signing away their responsibility aren't tenable - not unless you're ok for other people (tax payers) to foot the bill. It's a nuanced problem that "shouldn't be forced" do not contend with and makes you sound like a mad person.

I have to say, I am very much in favor of mandatory if not very quick and simple paternity testing

Also, contrary to the majority of reddit: inalienable responsibilities. People harp on and on and on about rights rights rights, but I'll tell you, in eight years on this site, on many usernames, if I mention these two weird tricks... I get down voted to hell:

If my meal sucks / I am annoyed, I won't tip
People should live up to their responsibilities and own their actions

If you have spawn, you have to pay. You can put half a kid up for adoption. You don't get a say in what happens after she's pregnant. Yeah, that's what it is, and you can't say anything I've not already said many years ago on reddit. "Men should be able to abort a child / stop an abortion" (I don't think that, but I can also write out all possible arguments on a subject and consider them). But that's not the case.

Giving up paternal rights - that's a big issue, and you'd have to convince me of it (I already know my arguments for it, yes, I have arguments in favor of being able to give up paternal rights, and they might be better than yours, but in my mind the arguments I see against it outweigh it).

Do you think a guy should be part of the decision, legally, whether to abort a child or not? (run through each M/F want / not want grid in your head)

Do you think a guy should be able to force / stop an adoption. I think they should be able to stop an adoption of course, and they can. They can't force an adoption - which is effectively what we're saying, force her to adopt the child as her own, relinquishing rights.

I do not think a guy can decide to walk away from a pregnancy. As a tax payer, I don't want people doing that.

I think they need to fix the laws, stop the government overspends and stop the bias against men, so it's not "the man supporting" it's calculated and looked at "parent A/B" in all legislation meaning there's no coded characterization for either parent. They should make judges go for special bias detection and training and use statistics at a deep level (including questions asked / time taken / outcomes versus race / age / gender etc)

But the idea of a guy having not responsibility after getting someone pregnant? That's repugnant. I have to think you're someone trying to characterize MRAs as people who think this (I don't like labels) - as I've never heard that proposed, only people commenting on the realities and talking in hypotheticals.

Can you elaborate on "I liked the original quote, and I also like this version. Nobody should be forced to assume responsibility for a child against their will. Women, additionally, should not be forced to gestate against their will." - convince me if you will.

[–]eletheros 16 points17 points18 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Do you think a guy should be part of the decision, legally, whether to abort a child or not? (run through each M/F want / not want grid in your head)

Should a man be part of the decision to use one of the medical procedures involved in a biological abortion? No.

Should a man be the sole decision maker to use a theoretical legal right to terminate responsibility for a child prior to birth or within a reasonable period after first becoming aware of their connection to a child? Yes

I do not think a guy can decide to walk away from a pregnancy.

That's because you're not in agreement with equal legal rights for men.

As a tax payer, I don't want people doing that.

This is only a meaningful comment in the situation where, knowing the man has accessed a legal termination of responsibility, the woman still opts to birth the child, opts to keep the child, and is unable to pay for basic upbringing and so falls into the welfare system.

The tax burden in such a situation is one created by the legal system. You don't get to deny equality under the law for the man because of a prior act of the legal system causing social costs when that equality is exercised.

[+]feminist -18 points-17 points-16 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Should a man be the sole decision maker to use a theoretical legal right to terminate responsibility for a child prior to birth or within a reasonable period after first becoming aware of their connection to a child? Yes

You're going to have to write this in more plain english so it's clearer what you are saying. Just being honest, I feel this isn't clear.

Make a simple example, like "Jane just found out she's pregnant at (your theoretical max limit if any), Tony finds out that afternoon and..." kinda complete the sentence so there's no confusion.

That's because you're not in agreement with equal legal rights for men.

being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value.
a person or thing that is the same as another in status or quality.
be the same as in number or amount.

Surprise surprise another argument on reddit that stems from how you define a word. You mean are they equal, or are they, as you seem to think, mathematically, absolutely symmetrical in the options and choices they have any any one time?

Ways men and women and unequal in reproduction, unless you want to solve these you do not believe in true equality as you're asking for:

Women¹ cannot provide the y chromosome
Men² cannot bring the baby to term
Man cannot breast-feed the baby
Women cannot relinquish their maternal rights, without aborting - unless they carry the baby to term over 9 months.
Men don't get a placenta
Should we go on? Or are you realizing that your absolutist ideas might be a little silly?

Don't lecture me on male rights, I've discussed every form and scenario and hypothetical of men having the rights to abort a child or move things forward, and discussed and had ideas. Whereas everyone on here thinks they can type one sentence and pretend they have a well reasoned argument up their sleeve?

No, it doesn't work like that.

You don't get to deny equality under the law for the man because of a prior act of the legal system causing social costs when that equality is exercised.

Can you say that more simply? I want to be sure you're saying what you want to be saying.

I know a lot of people on reddit need a lot more education, but I thought at least within this narrowly defined area of discussion I thought I'd be less likely to run into poor logic and reasoning.

Would I like a world in which, somehow, men and women had a 50-50 say in what happens post conception? Yes. Have I argued with it before you even knew the idea existed? Yes. Do I understand what the problems are, what a "gate" is? Yes. Do you? No, because you don't discuss things enough.

For a women to opt to do something, she gives that permission for it to be done to her.

For a guy to make opt, first of all, you make it sound like the guy has a veto, you don't question how the system works, does it only work if they both vote the same way? The guy veto? This is a question I am asking you and the other idiots (yes, fuck you, idiots) who are doing out and making ridiculous "So, you don't believe in santa then!?!?!?!?!!?" remarks about what I've said. I want EACH and EVERY one of you to explain how the voting system works, write out all the possibilities (it's a two digit binary) and explain what would happen in each case: 00, 01, 10, 11. You do not get to make bullshit empty fucking strawman arguments in here. Leave that to the feminists.

TL;DR If you aren't trying to fight for men's rights to bring the baby to term, then stop bulldozing the issue and have the guys to write out exactly what you think.

¹ ಠ_ಠ

² ಠ_ಠ

[–]Evets616 9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You say that he's using a strawman and then part of your reply boils down to "rewrite human biology"? That's pretty bullshit.

Who the hell argues that men and women should have the same biological involvement in a pregnancy? Seriously, tell me because I've never seen someone argue that we can't have equality until that happens.

Such anti-think. You're literally using it as the argument for financial abortion: we can't, ergo.

Financial abortion, something I am very much in favor of, but very much sure isn't possible, will cause:

Financial cuckolding to the tax payer - Jeff saved hundreds of a month, you not pay $300 a month more taxes
Women not to express they are pregnant until after a certain date
What happens when women don't find out (rarer) until after a certain date?

Why not start by addressing these issues instead of hiding behind your anti-think? I am sorry if realities are inconvenient and taxing for you, but I am as much of an advocate for true equality in reproduction rights as anyone here, but I'd wager I've thought about it more for longer.

This isn't even scratching the surface of the myriad of other issues (sperm banks and egg donors, legal structures to get bulletproof paternity where you can never lose your kids, avoiding a society where women get to be pregnant from a catalogue, when they want, and you pay for it)

Unfortunately, so many half-baked quips coming at me, and there's no reply all, so it's getting repetitive.

[–]eletheros 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Should a man be the sole decision maker to use a theoretical legal right to terminate responsibility for a child prior to birth or within a reasonable period after first becoming aware of their connection to a child? Yes

You're going to have to write this in more plain english so it's clearer what you are saying. Just being honest, I feel this isn't clear.

I wrote it as I did to make it crystal clear what specifically I was talking about. There isn't a way to write it clearer that won't get disingenuous quote miners screaming that I want men to control women's bodies.

That's because you're not in agreement with equal legal rights for men.

Surprise surprise another argument on reddit that stems from how you define a word.

"Equal legal rights" / "Equality under the law" has a very specific meaning. In the US it's called the Equal Protection Clause. The UN calls it Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

You don't get to deny equality under the law for the man because of a prior act of the legal system causing social costs when that equality is exercised.

Can you say that more simply? I want to be sure you're saying what you want to be saying.

I am absolutely saying what I want to be saying.

The rest of your post is nonsensical dribble.

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]eletheros 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wanked_in_space 19 points20 points21 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

my reply

So you agree with the status quo: Every man who has sex is consenting to parenthood while every woman who has sex is not because she has lots of ways to avoid it after sex.

I believe both statements are false and misleading, and I don't agree with them at all, they are stupid. You don't consent to pregnancy, it's something that happens, not for your falsehood, write down all possible scenarios: a man wanting pregnancy, a woman not, protected / un protected, yadda yadda. Go on. Then come to a conclusion.

What? You don't want to? I did, I discussed all the possibilities and what it means, 8 years ago on reddit, why do you not have the same burden of argument? Let's do this.

And you agree that the decisions of what happens to a pregnancy should be left to the mother exclusively? That's pretty much the mainstream view on this.

No, but the mere fact that you either don't know (which I really don't know this day and age) or you're just willfully not wanting to bring in fact of two people making a decision (it's covered in my main reply), logistically, nor do you bring in the idea yourself, which is dishonest, that given a disparity in the choices between two people, there's one other choice that only one person has the decision to make, which is undergoing surgery.

So, are you, /u/tallwheel in favor of forced surgery and abortions against the person's will?

MRAs tend

... and billions of people believe in invisible gods and literally believes Uri Geller could bend spoons with his mind, something I find far more damning.

Any argument that says "well most people" would do well to bear in mind that most people are idiots. Unless you're willing to be absolutely specific in your arguments what you are saying is too vague, own it and cut to the chase.

RemindMe!

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (56 children) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (53 children) | Copy Link

Hahah that sounds like it is the 5th law of robotics ;) I picture a bunch of robots zipping around with giant dripping dildos asking for consent.

Want to know how I know you're a shitposting troll?

That was weird

Let's back up then:

Women must consent to insemination

Men must consent to insemination

Why are people taking them apart?

Because women have options after that.

Women don't consent to pregnancy, they have choices. Saying its consenting to pregnancy by not getting an abortion is stupid and anti-think. There are better arguments for financial abortion, I know because I made them.

Really? So women aren't consenting to parenthood when they have the option to not be a parent and choose instead to be a parent?

Life: things are not as simple as your limited ability to grasp things would like them to be.

Trolling.

We get it; you hate men. Fortunately we don't need your permission to support anything.

[+]feminist -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (43 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

You're making shitty, snide arguments without constructive basis to them, "Because women have options after that".

Snide, unproductive comments like: Want to know why you're an idiot? Bullshit takes a 10x more effort to refute.

Fucking come out and say you support forced abortions

I don't. Come out and admit you support exterminating most men and keeping the rest as enslaved breeding stock

/ and or tax payers being cuckolded into raising some guys kid then!

Well that's a new one. Also how is it his kid? Did she not have some role in it?

What about single women who go to sperm banks. How much contempt do you have for them?

When you make throwaway statements like you're making an argument or a point, you look stupid.

Ah the old troll-projection routine.

It's BULLSHIT, you're just putting the onus on someone else to refute your garbage. You're not making points. That's the point, you're using an intellectual crutch.

And again.

Twat.

Snide, unproductive comments.

We get it; you hate men

You're such a fucking idiot.

You hate me because you assume I'm male.

I get it. You're a bigot and feminist. But I repeat myself....

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]tallwheel 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]feminist 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]guywithaccount 10 points11 points12 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]iMADEthis2post 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (51 children) | Copy Link

[+]feminist -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

So you are fine with denying women abortions?

Where are you getting that? No, seriously, quote me in my comment the part which lead you to think this, I am genuinely curious.

The real issue here is reproductive rights and both sexes having equal control

This is a lie, a lie by omission. I want you to write it out explicitly. Don't say "equal control", say what that means. You're abstracting and it's a form of lying. Say what you mean. We're all friends here, don't be shy about what you think, learn to express yourself more succinctly and completely.

So if you want to treat everyone equally and you find it unacceptable to give men a say in weather they become parents or not you should also find it unacceptable for women to have an abortion.

I am going to bet a million dollars that you can't turn that sentence into a reasoned argument (because it's just something you've typed right now, it's not a correctly argued and reasoned point)

I personally find this moronic but that is the only way both genders could achieve equality if you continue to deny men reproductive rights.

What reproductive rights are they being denied? I am not saying they aren't, but I am genuinely asking because you keep writing things like your have cramp in both your hands and you cannot type out a few more sentences to elucidate.

[–]iMADEthis2post 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Where are you getting that? No, seriously, quote me in my comment the part which lead you to think this, I am genuinely curious.

The context for this is easily discernible from the material below.

This is a lie, a lie by omission. I want you to write it out explicitly. Don't say "equal control", say what that means. You're abstracting and it's a form of lying. Say what you mean. We're all friends here, don't be shy about what you think, learn to express yourself more succinctly and completely.

No, it's a very simple concept you perhaps don't like the outcomes of this concept. Also I believe it to be somewhat disingenuous to call us friends when you have just called me a liar in reply no less than 3 times in rapid succession.

I am going to bet a million dollars that you can't turn that sentence into a reasoned argument (because it's just something you've typed right now, it's not a correctly argued and reasoned point)

I actually find it hard to believe any person of sound mind cannot see the parallels in the situations presented throughout my reply. The following may sound like an insult but it isn't, do you suffer from any kind of autism or similar condition or are you a computer program created to generate replies? The lack of abstract thinking has me wondering.

I am going to bet a million dollars that you can't turn that sentence into a reasoned argument (because it's just something you've typed right now, it's not a correctly argued and reasoned point)

It's something I have typed many times and I'm sure others have before me. Both instances deny men and women reproductive rights, men and women are not exact copies of each other and the application of rights must therefore differ between the sexes. However all parties must have this right, that is the nature of equality.

What reproductive rights are they being denied? I am not saying they aren't, but I am genuinely asking because you keep writing things like your have cramp in both your hands and you cannot type out a few more sentences to elucidate.

My time is short and fragmented and constantly repeating myself on the same subject in explicit detail is not the best use of it. The right not to reproduce, the right to reproduce on ones own terms at a time and with a partner of ones choice, the right not to be financially responsible for the decisions of others to reproduce.

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The context for this is easily discernible from the material below.

I don't buy it, doesn't say that at all, in fact I am asking someone to be explicit about what they mean, because why should I be the one who explains what they mean?

Financial cuckholding is terrible, and it's what most of you are blindly advocating, yet intellectual crutching is a far worse crime in society.

I am going to bet a million dollars that you can't turn that sentence into a reasoned argument

I actually find it hard to believe any person of sound mind cannot see the parallels

I am proven right, because I know how your mind works, and you think I have the problems with reality and expression?

I know you won't be able to rationalize it because eight years of reddit and being well traveled shows me that people aren't able to express themselves. You've literally said something that you cannot externalize, it cannot fit into your output systems. Why not?

It's something I have typed many times and I'm sure others have before me.

Yes, you know who? Me. I am the one who has gone over this a thousand times, so I don't appreciate people making lazy, snarky comments about it.

men and women are not exact copies of each other

Perhaps you'll be interested to read the 2-3 comments I made (they've been hidden by automoderator, I'll link them to you when they are readded, I was just linking within the same thread) where I go into this in detail, at which points in the process it matters and how men and women are different, and how that isn't the argument (because, for fuck's sake, there ARE ARGUMENTS FOR FINANCIAL ABORTIONS a term I was using 8 years ago and an advocate of, THAT DOESN'T MEAN it's simple or viable, and being the one to say that doesn't mean you get to claim some higher celebration for the cause).

Anyway, read those comments

RemindMe!

[–]iMADEthis2post 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Look rather than playing dumb, pick one point and we will go through that. Don't give me a wall of text unless it is 100% relevant and no tangents, we will work through this in a linear fashion with any footnotes being addressed after the conclusion of the first point. Explain yourself simply, this is a rights movement sub, not a philosophy sub. My interest here is in equality not the fine print or justifying equality like it has to be for some reason. I will assume that the material you are not quoting back at me is now understood by yourself and you are satisfied with the outcome. If this is not the case we will address these matters on the reboot.. which will be your reply to this message.. a single point for discussion which we will resolve if we are able before moving on to the next.

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]iMADEthis2post 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Onithyr 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Why do you think women should have this right (to refuse to accept the responsibility of parenthood after the fact of conception) and men not?

Where do I say that (my replies have been removed by automoderator as I was linking to other threads within this thread, but be sure to read them)

What possible argument can be made against male financial abandonment that cannot equally be made against (for example) safe haven laws for women?

If a guy decides not to pay for a kid, then the woman will get more welfare. So you're paying for that guy. Congrats.

Because you, yes, you Onithyr, didn't show you understood how the arbitration process works, - why should you live in a world where other people solve problems for you?

Someone finally wrote out something of consequence, a man merely declaring to not be the father, so women will not notify anyone they are pregnant if they want to keep it, or some women find out too late.

There's a myriad of real world concerns, taxes and realities that you have to deal with.

This is not a race to see who can be the one to take the least into account in their arguments.

[–]Onithyr 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you saying then that you are against women having the ability to choose not to accept the responsibility of parenthood after the fact of conception? Are you against abortion rights and safe haven laws? Be very clear on your stance.

Where do I say that?

That's not a moral argument.

It's not moral to say a man should not be forced to work for someone else? Slavery isn't a moral argument?

I'm sorry, I missed your class in ethics 101, Professor...?

Please, do dazzle us with your credentials, as if you can prove your point, I am sure you'll get a nobel prize for it.

Also, if the woman decides to abandon the child to a safe haven then taxpayers will still have to fund the child, regardless.

True, but there's also cases where women want the child. You see, your arguments have to run the gamut of possibilities. 00,01,10,11.

You then have to say, why do people use safe havens? Is that a cause or effect?

Oh I know, there's all these fake abortion clinics forcing women to have gods children so they end up not getting the support they need to make the right choice to abort.

How about we look at that and try and solve it?

I've love to see men's rights fight back against this evil.

Your argument was good, thank you for being perhaps only the second person in this thread to use an argument. But it's something we need to solve, not something that invalidates the premise.

That task being to present an argument against male financial abandonment that cannot equally be made against (for example) safe haven laws for women.

I addressed it above, you're supposed to give the person a chance to reply.

Also, even if women do that - this is society saying "we, as voters, accept this". And that kid grows up to pay your pensions, or steal more of your taxes in prison.

I'd say more women keep the kid and get financial aid, those who use safe haven were probably the ones who would have wanted an abortion if they were given the right and safe options.

This isn't about vilifying young women, or patronizing young men, it's about fairness to all in this equation. If you aren't for forcing women to have abortions, then a woman would give birth even without the male financial aid, but that would be posted by taxes.

WHICH you might be in favor of, I don't know, and who is to say that's bad? I personally lean towards (make him responsible, not tax payers), then you might say "well, that's unfair to poor people". Fuck it, life is unfair, if you are poor, life will always be unfair, it's not a problem that needs fixing. If everyone was given 10,000,000,000 dollars, there would still be poor people, money is merely a meter of inequality, not currency. It literally means "who currently has more".

Anyway, think about it and come back with some effort in your reasoning.

[–]Onithyr 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Targren 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Targren 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Targren 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Fine, and the women who cannot afford, but go ahead?

Is making a bad decision. That's her prerogative, but doesn't make it his responsibility.

The problem is, as much as I fight for financial abortions, your logic is wrong.

If this is the case, your response fails to demonstrate it.

He has self-determination before - now he has fertilized an egg.

This statement is simply an implicit wording of "if he doesn't want a child, he should not have sex."

A straight question that you've avoided making your stance clear on, and I'd like a simple yes or no answer: Do you agree that women should have post-conception rights and options?

Most of the arguments on here say the man should have a right to decide because the woman has a right to decide.

Because that would fit the definition of "equal rights," yes.

What if she didn't? What if, absolutely, no argument trickery, women has no post conception rights. Hypothetical, no you can't move the goalposts. Would you still argue for males to be able to remove themselves from the equation? I would. What grounds would you use?

Funny that moving goalposts is exactly what you're doing with the nonsensical hypothetical. But I am feeling indulgent, and will answer anyway:

In the case of this hypothetical, I would argue for both men and women to have post-conception rights - and have done in the past.

You see.

No. You claimed my logic was wrong, thought you showed why with a weak hypothetical for which I had an answer that in no way contradicts anything I've said. So I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be seeing.

[–]feminist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Is making a bad decision. That's her prerogative, but doesn't make it his responsibility.

But, whether you agree with it all not, she will get tax money.

So it makes it our problem. And the little asswipe she's raising.

This statement is simply an implicit wording of "if he doesn't want a child, he should not have sex."

"If he didn't want to break both his legs, he shouldn't have gone skiing!"

No, but shit happens. FFS the fact is he HAS self determination which comes with risks. Don't assume it's self determination after that point, as if there are no other concerns involved. It's bullshit.

Because that would fit the definition of "equal rights," yes.

Well I think you're fucking stupid. Just because the woman has no choice, as you said, it's just the law, why can't the man have a choice?

Funny that moving goalposts is exactly what you're doing with the nonsensical hypothetical. But I am feeling indulgent, and will answer anyway:

Create a hypothethical to make a point, preemptively tells person not to circumvent the hypothetical as it's pointless
Person replies saying the hypothetical is a circumvention.

Anyway:

In the case of this hypothetical, I would argue for both men and women to have post-conception rights - and have done in the past.

The question is, what grounds would you use, so that could be "no body should be forced into parenthood".

No. You claimed my logic was wrong, thought you showed why with a weak hypothetical for which I had an answer that in no way contradicts anything I've said. So I'm not sure what it is I'm supposed to be seeing.

The hypothetical was to measure your response, not an argument unto itself (similar to another reply I just made)

[–]Onithyr 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]WeHaveIgnition 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]freshouttasheks -41 points-40 points-39 points 11 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 22 points23 points24 points 11 years ago (50 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -26 points-25 points-24 points 11 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

you make someone pregnant

No man can make a woman pregnant aside from physical restraint and tampering with her medication, period.

Women have plan B, the morning after pill, abortion, parental abandonment (Baby Moses laws), put the child up for adoption, etc in lieu of actually being a parent.

Men, contrary-wise, are stuck with 'pre-pregnancy' options. We have no 'oh shit' options available after she has decided to say fuck it. That's not equal, and you know it.

How does that work (from the POV of taxes, responsibility, personal liability etc)

It works by requiring the mother to notify the father upon finding out that she's pregnant, the father having up to two (2) months to file for financial abortion, and both the father and mother are alerted to the selected status.

Once the mom knows she won't have help supporting the kid, she'll take a good, hard look at her financial situation and decide if she can really keep the kid or not.

No man should be more responsible or personally liable than a woman in an equivalent situation (i.e., facing parenthood).

[–]AFuddyDuddy 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]nitzua 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eletheros 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

My reply... part 1

let's have an argument about the word make!

Oh for fuck's sake reddit, every single fucking reply here is "aha! the word about actually comes from ...".

So /u/EndlessTosser - using your english, how do you say you've impregnated someone, without using "impregnanted", so using the word "pregnant" and whatever you call that other person, explain to me that you've got her up the duff. Go.

RemindMe!

Birth control and adoption exist

Is get a better word? you can "get" someone pregnant? or will you say "you can't get someone pregnant, you just can't 'get' then pregnant unless you tie the down". Which way of saying you impregnate someone doesn't specify rape. I didn't realize that "making someone pregnant" or "getting someone pregnant" is 100% rape or forced insemination in the english language. How wonderful of you to tell everyone this.

Back to the story

Women have birth control, then abortion and adoption

Men have just birth control

You say that like you've just come down from a mountain. So since i've gone through all the painstaking options of how people make choices, how you resolve conflicts, everything, and you just get to sit here and say "women have blah, men have blah" I'd like to invite you now to explain how you resolve the conflicts for wanting to move a pregnancy forward in 00,01,10,11 cases of each parent wanting or not wanting to.

Do you agree with forced abortions on women against their will?

Then express your argument clearly. What a shambles, I could have expressed it for you, but why should I be the only one carrying the onus of not having to be vague.

It works by requiring the mother to notify the father upon finding out that she's pregnant, the father having up to two (2) months to file for financial abortion, and both the father and mother are alerted to the selected status.

Once the mom knows she won't have help supporting the kid, she'll take a good, hard look at her financial situation and decide if she can really keep the kid or not.

Nobody wants men to have equal choices of parenthood than me, but I fucking did the work and went over the options, and now I have to do the same to you, what is this? Should I do it for everyone not capable of free thought?

Why "two months", why statuses? What about women not informing people they are pregnant? What happens then? The man is invited to become responsible?

What about women who (rare cases) don't know they are pregnant until after they are passed the cut off for abortions?

Then why put a time limit on it? For the women to have an informed decision? That argument now falls flat on its face.

And if the woman wants it anyway, I understand entirely the arguments, but there's a lot more that goes along with it.

Why can't men stop the pregnancy all together? That would be great, in the future we might have some contraceptive technology that allows that, that holds the fertilized egg and stops it dividing until an injection takes place (being hypothetical here)

It's one thing to walk away, but why is that fair to the father? He's still a father even if he stopped paying, so it still affects him and the woman now has something over him.

The idea you have just means women will not tell people they are pregnant, then you'll get into a legal quagmire - wheres the solutions here?

The arguments are based on the artificial weight of time in the mind.

Women already make financial decision on abortion. Yes, you get a chick pregnant, I think you should say "I don't want a kid" and that's registered, it's, as I state in my reply, like adopting the kid out to her, giving up your rights, but if you make that, it'll make women not hide it.

Another thing - as a tax payer I WANT every single other human, man and woman, to toil under the burning sun, to be driven to mental and physical destruction, to empty out their lives for their kids so their kids get educated and make me a jetpack, and don't steal my car.

I'd willingly sacrifice the health and wellbeing of one hundred million americans to be sure that they raise good kids.

That's another side to this. and the one I touch upon in my reply:

If that woman goes ahead, which they will, then ALL MEN will paying for her. That's what women want now - migrating from "marry a guy and have one guy support me" to "get a government job and have all men support me". There's a MASSIVE bias of government money going to women, it's like one big federalized women's night, and you're footing the bill for their drinks.

So, men step out, 30,000,000 more women now live in government housing, built by greedy government contractors, billions more in social aid every year.

Sure, that guy has a couple hundred more bucks in his pocket every month, but your tax bill just went up $300 a month.

Yeah. financial cuckolding through the taxpayer.

Almost like intellectual herd immunity that you benefit from in your daily life. Why should I be the one who feels the need to rationalize things to the nth degree when you're fine making empty statements with a patronizing attitude?

There's more to it than blunt equality between the sexes, and the ideas you subscribe to have flaws, and if your not willing to discuss AND CRITICALLY THINK ABOUT THEM then why bother using reddit to discuss things in the first place.

What the fuck is this, feminism? I predicted entirely that calling responsibility would bring out the low-brow arguments, we're better than this, or at least we have to aspire to be.

[–]AutoModerator[M] 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In response to your language challenge, it's not possible a man, in this day and age, to cause pregnancy to happen to a woman; this is because women have medical, surgical, pharmaceutical, and legal ways out of, around, and to avert the consequences of pregnancy.

That's why many people are taking umbridge with it. Pregnancy doesn't, "just happen" to a woman any more than someone can trip, fall, and land on a full syringe of heroin, so implying that it's something a man does to a woman rather than something a woman chooses to have happen is bullshit and you know it.

Now, as to the incredible mystery of how I'd get across the idea is with the statement, "She is with child." If I really wanted to claim I'd done something or been involved in any way, "She is with my (or our) child."

Now, moving on

I'd like to invite you now to explain how you resolve the conflicts for wanting to move a pregnancy forward in 00,01,10,11 cases of each parent wanting or not wanting to.

Without surprise, the feminist mind conceives of a binary. So in the case of both parents either want or do not want the child, there is not conflict (I'm assuming you didn't really need me to tell you this, but you have a conniption fit when I leave out simply gleaned information, so here it is).

In the case of the woman not wanting the child and the man wanting one, there is no way, short of physical restraint for the entire period to force a woman to give birth, the man will have to cut his losses (and if he's smart, her) out of his life and move on.

In the case where this argument is actually taking place, and therefore the only relevant situation where the woman wants to have the baby and the man does not. It is in this case where we desire to have financial abortion. The logistics of which many of us have decided to leave to those more capable of legalcraft than we are. We are just vocalizing our support.

Why "two months", why statuses? What about women not informing people they are pregnant? What happens then? The man is invited to become responsible?

Because two months was a trap to make you look entirely unreasonable (oh wow, look, it worked). It's just a guess.

What about women who (rare cases) don't know they are pregnant until after they are passed the cut off for abortions?

Then I guess they can abandon their child or put it up for adoption, neither of which currently requires notifying the father. The only change would be a requirement of notifying the father, then basically asking if he wants it first (see, not difficult, you just want it that way).

Then why put a time limit on it? For the women to have an informed decision? That argument now falls flat on its face.

For the woman to have an informed decision on what? Whether or not she wants to have the child? To get the info back on if he wants to be involved or not? What are you referring to?

And if the woman wants it anyway, I understand entirely the arguments, but there's a lot more that goes along with it.

If the woman wants the child, there's nothing that can be done excepting morally wrong things or things that restrict her freedoms. The only real way to make it better would be to make sure she's actually doing a good job as a mother.

Why can't men stop pregnancy altogether?

We can't and wasting breath at the time isn't helpful. Maybe the future will help solve the problem, but wishing and dreaming for brighter days doesn't make the world go round.

It's one thing to walk away, but why is that fair to the father? He's still a father even if he stopped paying, so it still affects him and the woman now has something over him.

Is she still a mother if she gives the child away? And saying that the mother still holds something over him in what way? If she's ~~alienating~~ brainwashing the child that's a case for CPS, same as anything else. Threatening the child unless he pays up? That's extortion, which is currently covered by our legal system (in case you forgot).

The idea you have just means women will not tell people they are pregnant, then you'll get into a legal quagmire - wheres the solutions here?

You wanna take the idea apart? Sweet, that's something I can get behind. I illustrate it lower on, I'll bold the first bit so you can skip to it if you like.

Women already make financial decision on abortion. Yes, you get a chick pregnant, I think you should say "I don't want a kid" and that's registered, it's, as I state in my reply, like adopting the kid out to her, giving up your rights, but if you make that, it'll make women not hide it.

Not hide what? That's she's pregnant?

As a taxpayer...

I don't care how you feel about child raising. I have never cared how you feel about child raising. If you believe that children are this super special then I hope you either adopt or do foster care to help them get there.

If that woman goes ahead, which they will, then ALL MEN will paying for her. That's what women want now - migrating from "marry a guy and have one guy support me" to "get a government job and have all men support me". There's a MASSIVE bias of government money going to women, it's like one big federalized women's night, and you're footing the bill for their drinks.

That's already how it is. Financial abortion won't change that. That situation isn't what we're trying to fix. We're trying to fix the idea that a man needs to be held accountable for a decision he has no stake in making. It's like being drafted for a war you can't vote in (the major reason the common man got to vote).

I predicted entirely that calling responsibility would bring out the low-brow arguments, we're better than this, or at least we have to aspire to be.

Calling responsibility for what? For men to be corralled into not-actual-fatherhood? Responsibility to everyone else that isn't being enforced on those that are doing the actual draining (women, in your example)? What are you calling us responsible for?

So will this idea please you better?

In the case where a woman finds out her pregnancy before the event of the birth (the vast majority of cases) she will need to make the potential fathers aware of the child at the time, then any fathers that are interested need to 'opt in' to fatherhood, with the default stance being that they are not responsible for what the woman has decided to keep.

If no man opts to be a father, the woman then has the same myriad of opportunities available to her, to either take advantage of or ignore at her leisure. This part is no different from what already occurs.

If a potential father 'opts in' he may then be found responsible for the payment of child support in the event of the relationship deteriorating to the point where those responsible for the child refuse to have contact with each other, with the caveat that he receive his correct and allotted time with his children. In the event of one party refusing to make reasonable allowances for the transferal of the child or children, there shall be no collection of child support that month, provided that it can be proven that the withholding of the children was done in a deliberate manner.

Does that suggestion meet with your exacting specifications? Or do you have a better solution you've been holding back?

[–]feminist 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RemindMeBot -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]AutoModerator[M] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (11 children) | Copy Link

You're right, it would be nice if women actually paid for their own decisions in life. Like responsible adults.

You know what it's called when you have to pay some nominal amount of money to protect you against some stupid decision or accident? Insurance. And you know who pays for insurance? The people who face the risk, themselves. The solution is simple - instead of trampling on other people's reproductive rights, single women should pay for insurance in the amount that would cover the overall costs incurred by stupid reproductive choices of women just like themselves.

And guess what? Men already pay fees and taxes to provide insurance that provides free birth control for women. Feminists have absolutely no excuses left.

At any rate, your argument is nothing more than an exercise in hostage taking. Pay for women's horrible behavior or the children will suffer, right?. You know what will be the result of thinking like that? People will get fed up with it and women will gradually start losing their rights as adults. Perhaps social workers will start making the decision for them on whether or not they should be forced to undergo an abortion, based on the burden they create for society. Or maybe the child will be forcibly removed from their care and the women will go back to square one - no special benefits for popping out a unit every 9 months to incentive her bad behavior - except to go back to work and pay child support themselves to the adoptive family that's looking out after the child's best interests. This is the world you're asking for.

You're not even responding to the basic issue of equal rights and fair play. You're denying the very idea that a man might not want kids and therefore might only agree to have sex if proper birth control measures are used, including abortion if it comes down to it. You've got no response for that, do you? Instead, you're backing into this consequentialism of, "oh my god, but if men have rights, then God will make all the little children suffer and there will be taxes!"

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

And guess what? Men already pay fees and taxes to provide insurance that provides free birth control for women. Feminists have absolutely no excuses left.

To be fair, women pay that too.... except they don't... that's one issue I want to bring up - %age of government money spent on males v females civilians. Massive amounts, a huge majority of money is spent in healthcare / education, areas that are mostly women.

I think if we did the maths it'd be like spotting an iceberg, dead ahead.

At any rate, your argument is nothing more than an exercise in hostage taking. Pay for women's horrible behavior or the children will suffer, right?.

No, I am fine with them living in shit holes.

I do think we should look at the idea of EDUCATING people, giving them the best upbringing to improve society, reduce crime and maintain a competitive economy, but beyond that, don't care if the kid is borderline scurvy (many are today from fat diets)

What I am saying is realist - people will go for that, and you will get taxed.

The country (US) is run by idiots. Self interest groups. People feeding bullshit to the media. Things only get done if there's a "win" impetus.

God, taxes

Now you're understand what nut job group will push for more help to these people... and swing votes...

I am more in favor of financial abortion than you are, but there's realities too.

You're not even responding to the basic issue of equal rights and fair play. You're denying the very idea that a man might not want kids and therefore might only agree to have sex if proper birth control measures are used, including abortion if it comes down to it. You've got no response for that, do you?

Abortion isn't birth control though, but I agree there can be "agreements" on this, but in reality, it won't work, look at the guy being fined $30,000 for not even being the dad. There's a long way to go before this fantasy is realized, and if people want to downvote a reality check, go ahead.

Sometimes you just have to admit the issue is more complex, and the political landscape complicates it even further.

THEN you have to realize that there's a coup in this for feminists who want to get social support to become their own empowered, state funded single mothers, and I want to make sure there's no political impetus to make that happen. Nobody has a right to do something that will cost others.

That's the element of responsibility that we need to keep.

[–]dungone 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

I wish you stuck to a position and conceded when you were wrong instead of swinging around like a weathervane. You agree with me more than I do except that you don't, because of people such as yourself who embrace the current child support system for irrational reasons. Is that a pretty good understanding of your stance?

Our education system is doing just fine in educating women. It fails boys, not girls. You can't blame women's stupid decisions on the education system. The only thing you can blame it on is that no one wants to hold them to their own choices.

The country (US) is run by feminists as far as any of these issues are concerned. They control the narrative and are largely unopposed. There's no one else to blame.

Abortion is birth control, just like any other. Whether it's a morning after pill or a surgery. In either case can't special plead your way out of it - if a woman agrees not to conceive and says she would get an abortion if it came down to it, you can't sit there and tell me that she's allowed to lie and it should still the man's responsibility to spend the next 20 years paying for the woman's lifestyle or else face going to jail. You know whose problem that is? Not the man's. He didn't agree to having children and the woman's own choices have nothing to do with him. The "best interests of the child" have absolutely nothing to do with him. Especially in situations where he's not even the father to begin with. You can't sit there and pretend that the child support system has any underlying principle besides the idea that for every woman who decides she wants a kid, a random male slave is to be assigned to reward her with money for her choice to lead our society into poverty and decay.

you just have to admit the issue is more complex

No, I do not have to admit that men should be deprived of their reproductive rights because "reasons" that simply don't hold up. You've thrown so much circular logic at me today, I'm sure your head is spinning but mine isn't. It's a simple, cut and dry issue. The 14th amendment of the US Constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. You can spin your wheels all day but at the end of it if you violate the Constitution as well as various human rights laws with regard to forced labor (slavery), you've got nothing.

[–]feminist -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

I wish you stuck to a position and conceded when you were wrong instead of swinging around like a weathervane. You agree with me more than I do except that you don't, because of people such as yourself who embrace the current child support system for irrational reasons.

"I wish your position had been the one I had imagined, then I'd feel so much better about myself, and not have this feeling where I've realized that I was being stupid".

(That said I can't remember which thread this is).

It fails boys, not girls.

I know. What are you talking about?

Abortion is birth control

Yes, it is. I probably misread or assumed you were lumping it in with other contraceptives, which, by their very name, are different (or borderline different some).

No, I do not have to agree that men should be deprived of their reproductive rights

Who says anything about that?

I am saying people need to realize it's a complex issue, I am a proponent of financial abortion, I am also someone who sees a lot of issues in getting it enacted. Unless, you don't care about things actually getting done, you just like cheerleading about them?

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

One man's right to sign out of financially supporting someone shouldn't be another man's burden to bear in taxes.

Maybe so, but it's too bad, because that's the best solution that we have.

It's not fair that it's "another man's burden" when the homeless need a homeless shelter, or when the poor need food stamps, or when the elderly need Medicare. But we do these things anyway, because not doing them is an even worse alternative.

BTW you are making the assumption that many women will choose to have the child, knowing that they are unable to support it on their own. While this situation will happen occasionally, I believe that many more women will choose abortion if they can't rely on a well-off man's money being there to help support them.

And if the woman is making a decent living (which some women do these days, you know) then there won't be any burden on other people, because she can afford to raise the child by herself.

It's inaccurate to assume that all the women affected by an opt-out will be broke or unemployed, and dumb enough to take on massively financial responsibilities that they can't afford without government assistance.

BTW, the "just let the man walk away post-pregnancy" leads to many complex situations which makes that form of LPS unworkable imo. And of course, no man who chose to become a parent can ever be allowed to force his responsibility that he chose onto someone else.

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Maybe so, but it's too bad, because that's the best solution that we have.

Nah, I prefer John to pay $300 a week than I pay $300 a week.

It's not fair that it's "another man's burden" when the homeless need a homeless shelter, or when the poor need food stamps, or when the elderly need Medicare. But we do these things anyway, because not doing them is an even worse alternative.

I agree, but the argument you made actually gave me a better insight - (see what happens when people discuss normally) - if the guy is paying his taxes anyway, he's paying into the system anyway.

What about case, the guy has nothing, removes himself, moves on. Pays no taxes. Point A. Then, a guy who earns at least $200k a year - would you argue he's paying enough in taxes (if indeed he's paying the right taxes) to say he doesn't have to opt in?

And if the woman is making a decent living (which some women do these days, you know) then there won't be any burden on other people, because she can afford to raise the child by herself.

Yep, and I have no problem with that, and I do have a problem with women getting more money from men to support their own lifestyles, not just for their kids (when the male is a father)

Now, another issue though about removing yourself as a father: What if this guy wants to meet his kids now they are 10, 15, 20 years old?

He has to pay back pay? What if he walks up to them or visits their graduation? what is the act of "not being a father". Women who put their kids up for adoption (which I characterize the male option of removing ones self) don't pay anything, then they often get a reunite - not saying that's the same - but what are we actually talking about?

I ask as I don't think I've got it in my head what it means, not just to say "I don't want the kid born" (another option) or "I don't want to be a father" - what does that imply?

You can't be a non-father and visit them twice a week.

It's inaccurate to assume that all the women affected by an opt-out will be broke or unemployed, and dumb enough to take on massively financial responsibilities that they can't afford without government assistance.

Yep, and I don't think that, I am trying to pose the edge cases as a point on social welfare, but say it's the exclusive case.

There's women who become single moms from sperm banks, and what I am keen to do is make sure there are no social benefits for that - what are we measuring? one person working to raise a taxable citizen, or sponsoring motherhood? You see, it's kinda complex.

And of course, no man who chose to become a parent can ever be allowed to force his responsibility that he chose onto someone else.

Right, I get that - I find the "window" idea lax (because it's open to abuse) and the problem with dad-by-default and other issues are notable blockades to any option, plus the math required to work the taxes out.

It's a complex issue.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Nah, I prefer John to pay $300 a week than I pay $300 a week.

I'd prefer not to have to pay taxes that go towards things that don't benefit me too, but that doesn't mean the solution is to force individuals to cover the whole expense themselves, against their will.

Then, a guy who earns at least $200k a year - would you argue he's paying enough in taxes (if indeed he's paying the right taxes) to say he doesn't have to opt in?

Taxpayers don't get a choice to opt in and out of what their tax dollars pay for.

What if this guy wants to meet his kids now they are 10, 15, 20 years old?

Too bad for him. He has the legal status of a random stranger, he's nothing but a sperm donor. He has no more rights to see those children than any random other person in the world. He may contact the mother and ask permission, if he wants to.

The mother is free to say no, and if he really really really wants to see them, they can work out a financial deal if they choose to do so, even though that would be pretty weird.

If he shows up after they're adults, once again he has no rights. They can talk to him, or not.

I find the "window" idea lax

Yeah, it just doesn't work at all. What if mom hides the pregnancy, what if dad is hard to contact, what if dad says he wants the kid and then opts out on the last day, there are way too many problems with an open time period by default. There has to be a legal agreement in place ahead of time.

[–]feminist -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

I'd prefer not to have to pay taxes that go towards things that don't benefit me too, but that doesn't mean the solution is to force individuals to cover the whole expense themselves, against their will.

Right, but, like I said, he pays it, or you pay it.

Taxpayers don't get a choice to opt in and out of what their tax dollars pay for.

Well... that kind of the sole reason we have government and voting. That's the process by which you try and form your government to your image, then you agree to pay the taxes based on which lobby bribes the most senators to get subsidized. I think Plato wrote that.

And in my argument... he's not opting out, what I am saying is, he has money to support someone, people would argue why doesn't me, I'd argue he already pays a fat sum of money to the federal and state programs to support these (the $300 handouts)

Too bad for him. He has the legal status of a random stranger, he's nothing but a sperm donor. He has no more rights to see those children than any random other person in the world. He may contact the mother and ask permission, if he wants to.

No more rights, or should he have less rights? Oh, I'm just a random stranger, let's go to a baseball game.

The mother is free to say no, and if he really really really wants to see them, they can work out a financial deal if they choose to do so, even though that would be pretty weird.

Exactly, it's not as cut and dry and the people wishing it was would have you believe... the point of me raising these issues, issues that were raised a long time ago.

If he shows up after they're adults, once again he has no rights. They can talk to him, or not.

Yeah, it's weird.

There has to be a legal agreement in place ahead of time.

I do like that argument, of course, in itself is untenable - hey, so you come here often? Do you happen to know any notary publics? I think the barman is one, hey Jeff I need you to notarize something, what? oh nothing. Could work. ;)

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Holy crap, I have no idea why a simple and direct question has been mass downvoted. WTF is that about?

So for women, I'm sure you're aware of how they can choose to not become a parent even after the pregnancy has happened. They can have an abortion, or if that isn't chosen for some reason, it's possible they can hide the pregnancy from the father and then give the child to the state, or up for adoption. Women cannot be forced into parenthood against their will, women never ever risk becoming a parent with each sexual encounter.

Men take that risk every time they have sex, no matter how careful they are. Condoms can break, other birth control can fail. Sometimes a man trusts that a woman is on the pill and that she doesn't want to have a child, and it turns out that neither are true.

I think NEITHER gender should ever have to take the risk of being forced into parenthood, I think it should always be a choice.

Now, keep in mind that what forces men into parenthood is not biology, but the law. Without the law forcing men to have the responsibilities of legal parenthood (18 years of child support, at the minimum), some men wouldn't do it... even some who chose to be parents in the first place, and want to give up responsibilities they chose to take on.

So what we need is a way for the law to protect men who have decided that they definitely do not want to have a child anytime soon. I think the best solution with the least inherent problems is to have a contract that works just like a pre-nup before a marriage. Except instead of "in case of divorce, my financial responsibilities are limited to suchandsuch", this contract says "in case of accidental pregnancy, I waive all rights and responsibilities to any child".

It's only valid if both people sign it, just like a pre-nup. Once it's done, both of them know what they're getting into. If there's a pregnancy, she can choose what to do about it, knowing that she is on her own with this.

If any woman doesn't like it, she doesn't have to sign. And if any woman doesn't sign, the man knows he's in a relationship with a woman who specifically wants the right to force him into parenthood against his will.

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Holy crap, I have no idea why a simple and direct question has been mass downvoted. WTF is that about?

Mostly about lols ;)

Eh, I don't care, it's reddit. Helping idiots appear clever since 1962.

So for women, I'm sure you're aware of how they can choose to not become a parent even after the pregnancy has happened. They can have an abortion, or if that isn't chosen for some reason, it's possible they can hide the pregnancy from the father and then give the child to the state, or up for adoption. Women cannot be forced into parenthood against their will, women never ever risk becoming a parent with each sexual encounter.

Yeah I get that, and I am a proponent of financial abortions, for a long while, I just think the thinking here isn't good - it's a complex issue. I am more taking a point against personal responsibility versus social welfare taxes (that's just me) (wow, that's why an idiot called me a conservative? lol) and I took out some of the ideas that men only need the ability to step out "because women have the choice".

If women couldn't have abortions, for instance, would you still grant men the choice?

You see, I don't think they are linked. I think it's not goose for the gander logic, it's "does the idea, on it's own, deserve merit" and it does.

I think NEITHER gender should ever have to take the risk of being forced into parenthood, I think it should always be a choice.

Agree

Now, keep in mind that what forces men into parenthood is not biology, but the law.

... and responsibility. I am ok and in favor of people making a decision, but let's be real, it's a choice out of responsibility.

FYI: I have a few initiatives I've been wanting to push for long while, one is vasectomy clinics on campus. (While we all wait for that miracle 20 year irradiated polymer implant). I know it sounds strange, but it would be a great idea - you run a small booth, collect funds, offer free vasectomies (the reversibility aspect is important... but the n days of no ejaculating plus the weeks of still being potent are issues, as are the idea people will put out that you're encouraging STD...).

I'd like to see the "great male contraceptive" out soon (and then get that shit on every single campus, and in every high school the next week), but until then, what are the options?

It's only valid if both people sign it, just like a pre-nup. Once it's done, both of them know what they're getting into. If there's a pregnancy, she can choose what to do about it, knowing that she is on her own with this.

I see you appreciate that's it's more complex than just skipping out. I like your approach, but I think it'll have problems.

Just look at the regressive shit we have going on : Not only did a game feature a girl in tight black pants, but a brain dead mom was kept alive because she she was pregnant and nobody knew what to go.

That was in Congo. No, sorry, Ireland. Fucking shambles.

Where the fuck are the feminists supposedly crying out about this? I know, camped out waiting for the next mens-rights meeting to get angry at. Lazy fucks.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

If women couldn't have abortions, for instance, would you still grant men the choice?

Absolutely not. Either both get to choose, or neither do. I'm strongly in favor of both.

You see, I don't think they are linked.

I think they are, I think we should have equality under the law (or as close to equality as we can possibly achieve). I think it's society's duty to not treat men and women differently whenever possible.

FYI: I have a few initiatives I've been wanting to push for long while, one is vasectomy clinics on campus

Vasectomies are a poor solution. The cost can be high (particularly the reversal), and more importantly, the reversal often does not work. It's less of a real world-workable solution than "just hope you don't get forced into parenthood" imo.

let's be real, it's a choice out of responsibility.

And many abortions are performed because the woman doesn't want the financial burden. Which is fine.

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]feminist -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]shameless8914 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 11 points12 points13 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]eletheros 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dungone 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EndlessTosser 7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's entitled to believe that you should have a choice as to when you have a child? How fucking delusional. You do know that most people choose to have their children, right?

And when it's an accident there's a somewhat high chance that it isn't.

Which means that someone is making a choice. A choice to be a parent. There is no social mechanism that randomly drops babies into people's lives and demands that they care for them (which would be assuming responsibility for a child against your will).

Parenthood is a choice. And it should remain a choice. The people who want to walk that road would be far better prepared to do that then people for whom birth control failed and then abortion was not chosen.

You do understand that, right? That people who willingly make a choice are more likely to be emotionally invested in the consequences of that choice? That makes sense, right?

I double check because you seem to be laboring under the delusion that people are completely unaware of the myriad of birth control options that exist and therefore any sentence of pregnancy dooms both parties to parenthood with no recourse. Which isn't true.

So, the fact of the matter is that most people choose when they want to have a kid. The idea that one party (women) get all the outs (try telling a woman that consent to sex is consent to parenthood and watch her flip the fuck out) and the other (men) have no choice (if condoms fail, you're boned), is pretty fucked up.

[–]Endless_Summer 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ExpendableOne 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Azothlike -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azothlike 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 47 points48 points49 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]denversocialist 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]User-31f64a4e -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]notnotnotfred 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]izomo[S] 30 points31 points32 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shazbottled 17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]StrangePronouns 25 points26 points27 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]jostler57 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]iMADEthis2post 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Targren 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]utmostgentleman 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]utmostgentleman 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]utmostgentleman -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pornography_saves_li 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Give me a break Sir Knight. I've known plenty of women who have had multiple abortions in my lifetime, most of whom were entirely unaffected by them. Which I cannot say of myself, I find the practice horrific.

The poor dears have abortion for, and are using it for, birth control, an entirely selfish act. If they are agonized over the procedure, its because deep down they believe they are murdering a baby. Far from having sympathy for these people, I ask, 'if you believed it was killing a baby, why the fuck did you do it?'

I believe women should have the right to choose that option (as men should have the right to legally sever any obligation to the child should the disagreement go in that direction), but in either case, I reserve the right to judge the moral character of the person involved.

[–]MRSPArchiver 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]handydave87 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

I think this way to perform "legal abortion" is the best: Just like men are expected to receive explicit consent from a woman prior to engaging into sexual acts, why shouldn't women have to get explicit consent from men that said sexual acts could result in a pregnancy that they would be responsible for, before the sex act?

In other words, if the woman wants to have a baby out of a sexual relationship, she can get consent from the man prior to having sex. If he doesn't agree but she has sex anyway, then he is not responsible for any resulting baby. If she only wants to conceive and the guy is not interested, she can then leave and go meet a different man and not "feel tricked/abused" by men having sex with her but refusing to conceive.

Edit: The only responsibility I would see for a man in case of an accident pregnancy (like the condom breaking) would be to pay for half the abortion costs.

[–]chocoboat 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago* (29 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Targren 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Well, I already do donate to Heifer every month, so writing a check to help support a poor family every month is clearly not something I object to. But, as a whole, I see where you're coming from.

However, we will always have poor children. We will always have parents whose situations change. If Jane has a good job and a baby and then gets into an accident and cannot work, we don't just let Jane and her baby starve to death, we allow them access to public support. If no father ever has to pay a dime to support his child, although many women will be able to scrape together the money he would have paid, a significant portion will not be able to, and we will see an inevitable rise in demands for social services, and thus a significant tax increase. Personally, I don't necessarily think that would be an atrocious thing; as a socialist I would rather pay a higher tax burden and know that all American children were well cared for. However, the idea of eliminating paternal responsibility and raising taxes to cover the burden is an idea that will never gain traction amongst anti-tax Americans.

Lastly, women are already to be financially responsible for the negative consequences of sex (i.e. unplanned pregnancy) without using taxpayer money for it, because taxpayer money never ever funds abortions. You seem to be suggesting that women shoulder 100% of the burden of sex. Either they pay for the abortion, or they pay for all of the needs of the resulting child, while men pay for neither the abortion or the resulting child. I can't understand why "men should have all of the rewards with none of the risk, because not having a uterus and thus the ability to personally terminate is oppression" seems like equality to you.

[–]chocoboat 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

However, the idea of eliminating paternal responsibility and raising taxes to cover the burden is an idea that will never gain traction amongst anti-tax Americans.

It shouldn't have to. Doing what's fair and right is a matter for the legal system, it's not something that should be voted on and have to pass a popularity content among people who mostly misunderstand the issue ("why would I vote to allow more deadbeat dads?")

Also, we currently allow new mothers to give up their rights to the child and turn the child over to the state, where it is taken care of using taxpayer money. "But taxpayer money might get involved" is not a valid excuse when we're talking about women, so it shouldn't be one for men either.

You seem to be suggesting that women shoulder 100% of the burden of sex. Either they pay for the abortion

I didn't get into all of the details right away, people don't always want a 20 paragraph response describing every tiny aspect of the entire situation.

In a legal parental surrender contract, it must be required for the man to pay 100% of all abortion costs (including travel) so that abortion is always an option for the woman no matter her financial situation. This ensures that both people always have the ability to choose.

[–]birdiefellows -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It is absolutely a valid point. Eliminating paternal responsibility to make up for the fact that men are not born with uteruses would increase the American tax burden significantly. The amount of money that the federal government spends to re-home surrendered newborns (a negligible percentage of adopted infants) is a drop in the bucket compared to the massive tax increase you're proposing.

Furthermore, the legal system goes against voter opinion in order to do what's "fair and right" only when it can be proven to benefit society. Inarguably, going against voter opinion to legalize gay marraige is a societal good, because it creates more potential adoptive parents, increases social tolerance, and eases the country's mental health burden, among many other wonderful things. In this case, you would be going against voter opinion to give fertile, unmarried, young men the "right" to add an unliminited amount of financial burdens to the system, by giving them the "right" to have consequence-free unprotected sex, at the expense of every single other American taxpayer. This situation would ameliorate the financial burden on a small subclass of Americans in order to raise the tax burden on everyone else. That doesn't sound fair or right to me.

Think of it this way. Jane has car insurance, gets into five accidents, and is dropped by her insurance carrier, because she has risen the price burden of that car insurance above what she paid for it, to the point that the other drivers that company insures are paying for her to have five accidents. Why should Jane have the right to continually crash her car with no consequences, while other people are paying for her accidents?

Where are you finding this information about legal parental surrender contracts? I have never heard that, ever, and since it is net yet a legally enforceable contract, I'm surprised that legal professionals have taken the time to draw up invalid documents. How will these stipulations be enforced? Would it be all good faith, and if the man doesn't come through, the woman is SOL? Or will there be some kind of governmental body in place to enforce things? Because in that case, you would again need to take taxpayer money in order to ameliorate a financial burden on a small subclass of Americans by increasing the tax burden on everyone.

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

the massive tax increase you're proposing

Why do you assume there would be massive numbers of women choosing to have children by themselves without the ability to afford to take care of them?

Furthermore, the legal system goes against voter opinion in order to do what's "fair and right" only when it can be proven to benefit society.

Correct. That's why we use taxpayer money to take care of the homeless, fund the military, and do a wide variety of things that not everyone would choose to have their money spent on.

In this case, you would be going against voter opinion to give fertile, unmarried, young men the "right" to add an unliminited amount of financial burdens to the system, by giving them the "right" to have consequence-free unprotected sex, at the expense of every single other American taxpayer.

That is a "right" that every woman in this country already has, and it doesn't seem to be a big deal. But somehow if you give the same right to men, it's magically become this gigantic problem and enormous tax burden.

This situation would ameliorate the financial burden on a small subclass of Americans in order to raise the tax burden on everyone else. That doesn't sound fair or right to me.

You mean like food stamps, or Medicare, or homeless shelters?

Why should Jane have the right to continually crash her car with no consequences, while other people are paying for her accidents?

I wouldn't be opposed to a reasonable limit for how often LPS can be used. The goal of LPS is to prevent people from being forced into parenthood against their will... if someone is abusing it for other purposes, that can be restricted.

Where are you finding this information about legal parental surrender contracts? I have never heard that, ever, and since it is net yet a legally enforceable contract

It's a hypothetical discussion, I'm talking about how it would work if men COULD opt out of parenthood and have equal reproductive rights with women. LPS agreements do not exist yet, and would be legally invalid if someone attempted to create one.

BTW your default assumptions about accidental pregnancies are pretty strange. You seem to be assuming that all women have financial problems and can't support themselves without a man's help, and that most accidentally-pregnant women who are poor will choose to have the child and try to raise it solely on their own, rather than choose abortion.

The fact of the matter is that most women in that situation do choose abortion, and the number will be even higher once they don't have the option to have the child and force the man to pay for it for the next 18 years. There will not be some massive influx of new babies that taxpayers have to support.

Let me ask you... do you support the idea of having food stamps, homeless shelters, or Medicare? Do you support allowing women to give up their child to the state? Well, allowing men to opt out falls into the same category as those. It will mean some level of supporting those in need through the use of taxpayer money.

But I can't see how you would oppose one, but not the others. If it's wrong to use taxpayer money that way, why do we do it for the homeless? If it's wrong, why don't we hold a lottery where for each person who needs food stamps, each financially stable person whose name is drawn is forced to personally pay for another person's food stamps out of pocket? How would you like it if your name was drawn, and for 18 years you had to write a support check for some other person in need?

It's nonsense, it's a terrible idea to do things that way. It makes more sense to spread the cost out among the taxpayer.

Let me predict: here is the point where you say "but this situation is different, because the man got to have sex. If he has sex, he has to suffer the consequences, and should have to pay for a child for 18 years." So I'll ask you... should that also be true for women, and should women be forced to endure pregnancy and 18 years of supporting a child just because they had sex? Or are you just in favor of forcing responsibilities for sex onto someone only if they're male?

[–]birdiefellows -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I personally do not have a problem with my tax dollars taking care of kids. What I have a problem with is absolving half the population of any consequence of sex. Most sexually active women are using birth control, which can have severe consequences, including death. This is seen as a worthwhile risk, because it prevents having to deal with the negative consequnces of sex. It doesn't seem morally right to me to say, "ladies, if you don't want to get pregnant, you need to take these pills that could give you heart attacks/strokes/blood clots, but men, you don't need to use condoms or get vasectomies, because if you get a girl pregnant, haha, that slut's SOL". Do you see what I'm saying?

I'm not trying to be combative, this is just something that grinds my gears a bit. So much time is being wasted debating LPS, a legally impossible solution to the enormous problems that unplanned pregnancies give men, instead of working to fund male birth control.

You're leaving out the key fact here, that LPS would require a government organization to enforce, and would therefore require taxpayer money to facilitate abortions. When many states are a hair's breath away from criminalizing abortion, how could we reasonably enact a system that would require anti-abortion taxpayers to pay for abortions facilitation? Please explain.

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What I have a problem with is absolving half the population of any consequence of sex.

And are you currently upset right now because women have the right to opt out of becoming a parent, but men can't?

Most sexually active women are using birth control, which can have severe consequences, including death. This is seen as a worthwhile risk, because it prevents having to deal with the negative consequnces of sex. It doesn't seem morally right to me to say, "ladies, if you don't want to get pregnant, you need to take these pills that could give you heart attacks/strokes/blood clots, but men, you don't need to use condoms or get vasectomies, because if you get a girl pregnant, haha, that slut's SOL". Do you see what I'm saying?

Did I describe the type of LPS agreement I'm talking about in response to you? I thought I had, but maybe it was elsewhere in this thread.

LPS should work like pre-nups. Except instead of "in case of divorce, my financial responsibilities are limited to suchandsuch" it's "in case of accidental pregnancy, I waive all rights and responsibilities to any potential child, and all rights/responsibilities will belong to the woman". Both people must agree to it for it to be valid.

With this agreement in place, each person is responsible for their own outcomes. The woman can choose to use birth control and take on that small risk of harm, or she can choose not to. She can choose to only have sex with the use of condoms, or other less-risky contraceptives. If for some reason she is not willing to have sex unless it includes the opportunity to force the man into paying child support in case of an accidental pregnancy, she doesn't have to sign the agreement. But with LPS or without it, no one is making women take on the risk that birth control pills carry.

As for male birth control, yes that will probably be the solution that ends up solving all of this.

When many states are a hair's breath away from criminalizing abortion, how could we reasonably enact a system that would require anti-abortion taxpayers to pay for abortions facilitation?

First of all it doesn't matter what the taxpayers want, I'm anti-war but taxpayer money still funds a massive military force, and there should be no special exception for those who are anti-abortion. Second it doesn't matter, because with LPS there's still no taxpayer money funding abortions, the cost of abortion would belong to the couple themselves. If the woman can't afford it, the man should have to pay 100% of abortion costs to ensure that abortion is always an option for her.

[–]LikesTacos 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]LikesTacos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]LikesTacos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Meh. I cannot find the actual law to link to but I am living it so I really don't feel the need to provide proof. Maybe if I have some free time later I'll look it up. My children did not have a court appointed attorney either, so the website is dubious at best.

I do need to clarify my statement that the person making less is deemed the custodial parent. This is only for the calculation of child support. Not the actual physical custody of the child. I have 50 /50 shared physical custody of my children, but am still required to pay full child support to the ex because she makes less. Physical custody of the children plays no part in the child support order. A judge can consider circumstances when assigning child support but has to provide reason for doing so. The judge is also not obligated to consider circumstances when ordering support.

I am not completely ignoring anything. The discussion was about need and whether people should be able to not pay child support for their kids. Poor Joe better hope he gets the right judge in NY state if he makes more than his ex.

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

If you don't mind me asking, what would your ideal situation be? Support is calculated in order to keep the child at the standard of living s/he enjoyed before the divorce, because living a middle class lifestyle with one parent and poverty with another is emotionally damaging to a child. Do you feel like income should dictate one's right to spend time with their child?

I really don't mean to minimize your situation (my sincere apologies on your divorce), but I'm curious how it's relevant to legal paternal surrender, the topic at hand, unless you feel that you should be able to surrender financial responsibility of your already born children because your marital situation has changed.

(I'm sorry if that was a rude question, I'm just always curious when I hear dads chiming in to say that men should have less of a financial obligation to their children, since so much of the MRM is about dads getting more parental responsibilites.)

[–]LikesTacos 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The kids will never be at the standard of living they enjoyed before the divorce. My income is now supporting two households. I can no longer save for their college education. I am obligated to pay until they turn twenty one. That will lead me to encourage them to skip college and go their own way. This is not in their best interest and when people suggest it is they are either misinformed or like the free ride given to dead-beat mothers.

The children should go with the parent that makes the higher income and forego child support altogether. That not being an option (parent doesn't want them, abusive household, etc.), child support should be a set amount regardless of what the "non-custodial" person makes. Custody does not determine time spent with children. Give liberal "visitation" to the non-custodial parent. I had to fight to get 50/50 custody, which is utterly ridiculous. I was told every other weekend should be plenty of time to spend with my children.

The standard of living argument is crap. No kids are going to be at the standard of living before the divorce unless custody is given to the primary bread winner. The non-primary bread winner can always improve their financial situation if they want shared/physical custody. Standard of living is more for the ex than the kids. IMO.

If child support was capped there would be a lot less fighting for sole custody from the people looking to maintain their previous standard of living.

[–]birdiefellows 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]birdiefellows -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]TheRealMouseRat -7 points-6 points-5 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I honestly think that financial abortion is not the way to go. It will either force the woman to have an abortion, or that the kid will grow up most likely very poor.

It's better to completely rework the child support and alimony system.

First of all the system should be gender neutral, but with a slight focus on the mother when the child is still in breast feeding age.

The default should be a 50/50 split, and the mother should have just as much responsibility to not move away as the father has. (making it fair for both parents)

Money transfers should not be the norm. (a 50/50 split should consist in no money transfer regardless off wage differences)

If one parent has the child more days than the other, then the child support should be fairly low, and based off the wage the one paying support is making right now. (a father or mother losing their job should immediately reduce/remove their potential payments)

Alimony in case of marriage and then divorce is bullshit. Prenuptial should be the norm, or what I mean is values acquired before the marriage should not be shared on divorce. However, values acquired during the marriage can be split. No money should be transferred after the initial split of values earned during the marriage.

[–]harryballsagna 15 points16 points17 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRealMouseRat -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]harryballsagna 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was thinking mainly of the child though, that the child shouldn't have to grow up without a parent, and also in poverty.

Agreed. But it's 2015 and women can make money and get a new partner. Or have an abortion. Or not get a new partner. But society will not let a child go hungry. There are untold programs for single mothers.

As for the balance of "forced to have abortion" as opposed to "forced to be a parent", as long as the split of values and the time with the child is always 50/50, then the woman also has to be a parent and the burdens it brings with it, and it will not be an income source for her.

Nobody can force a woman to be a parent or to support a child. Women can abandon a child, have an abortion, put it up for adoption, get subsidies, etc. If a man owed child support, he is expected to work hard and pay. At least the woman had a choice to put her own needs first. Men don't.

As per your last point, I don't think it should be rape (because it's not rape), but the man should have no obligation whatsoever towards the child.

[–]Eryemil 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chocoboat 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]puchre 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

All children have parents. Simply in this case one of the parents would not be around because he waived his parental rights and responsibilities. The child need not be around except for a stupid decision, or a series of stupid decisions (women generally don't have to get pregnant in the first place because their contraception options are so effective and hey, they can keep their pants on too!) by the other parent. Not that different from having a dead parent, and plenty of children have one parent die when they are very young. Except in this case the mother could have prevented the parental death by preventing the child's life.

And nobody has a right not to be poor. Plenty of children grow up poor under the current system. Maybe the mother should think of that before she tries to extort a man for 18 years. Women generally aren't even required to prove they spend child support money on the child. They can spend it on whatever they want. So we don't know how much the kid is benefitting.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It will either force the woman to have an abortion

It may encourage her to do so. It won't force her to do anything.

Unless you're saying having to choose between two options is force.

In which case most workers are slaves since they are "forced" to choose between work and having a greatly diminisehed lifestyle.

I don't believe that to be so.

Do you?

or that the kid will grow up most likely very poor.

Children of unwed mothers are very likely to grow up poor even with child support.

So are kids of poor couples.

Since we're apparently ok stripping men of their rights to ensure there are no poor kids shouldn't we also strip women of their rights to accomplish this goal?

Forced sterilization/abortion for any woman who would bring a child in to poverty.

It sucks for the adult yes but this is about what's best for the children.

[–]TheRealMouseRat -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ghytrf -13 points-12 points-11 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Funcuz 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments

When you make throwaway statements like you're making an argument or a point, you look stupid.

When you make throwaway statements like you're making an argument or a point, you look stupid.