Suck it up and pay | MensRights

[–]Jonas223XC 317 points318 points319 points 12 years ago (395 children) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 95 points96 points97 points 12 years ago (315 children) | Copy Link

[–]jpaul3211 337 points338 points339 points 12 years ago (119 children) | Copy Link

[–]LandPirateDude 35 points36 points37 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -61 points-60 points-59 points 12 years ago* (114 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but that leaves a shitty situation. It pressures the women into having an abortion if she is not not financially stable enough to have the kid which is likely if she is not at least middle class with all the time off mothers have to take. Your course of action is anti poor. With how it is now the man at least can choose to use protection if he does not want a kid (not perfect). Your way a couple could choose to have a kid, then the guy backs out (no down sides) all but forcing an abortion on a poor (in the economic sense) women or the pregnancy could just be an accident and the result is the same, forcing an abortion of a poor woman while the man gets to walk away with no consiquences. Now if you want the state to make up for that money the father would have had to pay we can talk but that seems an unfair burden on the state. At least how it is now the man does have a recourse in that he can use protection.

Also forcing the father to pay is not as bad as forcing a women to have an abortion is. It is not a situation that can be completely fair, the current method just seems the best way. Although there could be a few improvement here or there.

Edit: I am done replying. There are a hundred of you and one of me and this account has been downvoted to the point where I have to wait 10 minutes between posts and I feel i have replied to most of the arguments there are against this. Not that I think most of you will accept them.

[–]Partican 58 points59 points60 points 12 years ago (24 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -29 points-28 points-27 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]vipt84 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheTurtleBear 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Hypersapien13 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig10 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Perpetual_dissident 31 points32 points33 points 12 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -25 points-24 points-23 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]taagtaag 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]chelzeelee -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Just to play devil's advocate, it's made very clear to everyone that male condoms are typically only about 95% effective. It's right on the box as a disclaimer. When two consenting adults enter into a sexual relationship that includes PIV sex, they are recognizing the risks involved. Don't you think that realistically, in a world of adults who are responsible and accountable for themselves (which it sounds like is what you want to see), those adults are accepting responsibility for the outcomes of those risks, whatever they may be?

For example, when you enter into a contractual agreement for phone service and buy phone insurance, you sign an agreement that states what your phone will and will not be covered for, and that you will pay for the full 2 years' worth of service or pay a nominal contract-breaking fee. You drop said phone in the river when you go kayaking with your buddies and can't get it replaced because the insurance didn't cover water damage. You can't afford a new phone and you can't afford the fee to end the contract early, so you're stuck paying for phone service you can't use until the 2 years are up and you can either get an upgrade or lose the service.

Now, when that happened, you didn't go on a huge rant about how phone companies are way too powerful and the whole system needs an overhaul, did you? You recognized that you signed a contract, you had to abide by it, and when you signed that contract, you took responsibility for everything that happened thereafter. It wasn't expected and it certainly wasn't very pleasant, but it was just how it happened.

Again, I know this is going to get down-voted to oblivion but I just wanted to raise the point that I don't see being voiced. Not necessarily saying it's the be-all, end-all of the situation.

[–]taagtaag2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chelzeelee1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]taagtaag3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]chelzeelee0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]psilorder 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DaymanMaster0fKarate 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Perpetual_dissident 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]EotWOT -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Perpetual_dissident14 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TracyMorganFreeman 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Partican 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 45 points46 points47 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]TyrannyMcbane 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TyrannyMcbane 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]flyingwolf -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TyrannyMcbane4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tessie999 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]tessie999 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Davidisontherun -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jpaul3211 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[+]EotWOT -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

Replying on this account to get around 10 minutes between posts rule because I have been down voted on the other account.

As I have said the situation cannot be fair. The biological realities of life prevent it. Yes I freely admit sometimes protections fail and it can seem unfair but sex leading to babies is a biological reality of life. We can talk about those cases if you want but they are not the norm they might require different rules but then you need some way to prove they it was an accident.

As for men in poverty, child support is based on the mans income. There have been issues in the past but the theory is sound.

You seem to have forgotten the fact that women have the ability to give up a child to the state if she can't take care of it.

You are asking someone to give up their kid when they want it... really? That is horrible. And for what? To save you some money because you don't want to provide for your own kid.

[–]GunshyJedi 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I understand the objections you guys make, fairness of the law, in letting both side have the same options works great when both side are the same going in. If that is the case it leads to the same results but that is not the case here. Equality in the law disproportionatly punishes one side in this case, it leads to worse results. I can smtomach making a father pay for his own child when he doesn't want it, thee father does have responsibility there he did create the child even if it is unfair that the women can back out at a later point and he cannot. I cannot stomach forcing a child to grow up in poverty because one parent just didn't give a fuck and said not my responsibility when he got someone pregnant. I understand and see the unfairness and we can make the system work better. I am open to suggestions to make it more fair but just letting the man walk away is just making the situation worse.

[–]eDgEIN708 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I cannot stomach forcing a child to grow up in poverty because one parent just didn't give a fuck and said not my responsibility when he got someone pregnant.

Why does the male get the blame for the female's decision?

If a woman gets pregnant knowing that the man doesn't want to be a father, and can't afford to raise a child on her own, where's HER part of the blame for making the choice to bring the child to term? She could've done something about it, but didn't. She could have prevented the travesty of a child growing up in poverty, but chose not to. She could give the child up for adoption, even.

But if she doesn't do any of those things, it's clearly the man's fault that the child is in poverty. I mean, it couldn't be the fault of the person who got to make all of the decisions, right?

[+]Seifer_Almasy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]eDgEIN7083 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 21 points22 points23 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Peter_Principle_ 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jpaul3211 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What's best for the child: Giving up the kid so they can have a better life or you both living in squalor?

Shit happens. Sometimes you need to do what's best for the kid, afterall. It's not always about women's desires or life choices.

Keep in mind that if women have both access to abortion as well as the ability to adopt out, then having a child becomes a choice. Her choice. It is her choice entirely whether or not she wants to have a child. If she chooses to have a child when she is confronted with the possibility of not having support, then she should be responsible for that decision.

Imagine a world where women make reproductive choices with the knowledge that she might be on her own for it, but she could also adopt out, or have an abortion without anyone shaming her for it (ignore the current reality for this hypothetical). Would she not be more empowered by this kind of decision? Would she not exercise more caution if she did not want to have a child in her current financial situation? She could practice safe-sex, just like a man can, where she uses protection and birth-control.

If we are being serious about respecting women's life-choices, then we should respect their responsibilities for their life-choices when they make them with the full knowledge that their sexual-partner does not want to be a part of the resulting child.

"If he didn't want children he shouldn't have had unprotected sex" should instead be turned into "If she didn't want the responsibility and costs of raising a child, she shouldn't have had unprotected sex, she should have been on birth-control, she shouldn't have brought the child to full term, she shouldn't keep the child."

At each step in the process of having a child, a woman makes the choice to stay the course. She's under no obligations to keep the child, or even raise it. It isn't some tragic course of events that she's suddenly stuck with a kid.

Footnote: If she has a child under the verbal agreement that the man said he would be responsible for that child, then I feel she is fully entitled to child support if the man later changes his mind. Agreeing to raise a child isn't something you say halfheartedly.

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

[+]EotWOT -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vegemeister 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]chelzeelee 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal011 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]EotWOT-12 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]psilorder9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EotWOT-11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Since you are arguing from the emotional impact on the woman i won't argue that women can just walk away via adoption. Instead i'm pointing out that women can have an abortion whether or not the man wants to keep the child or not.

And that is truely tragic, it is also an unfortunate biological reality. Unless you want to advocate forcing women to carry children to birth or forcing an abortion there is nothing that can be done about it.

The woman has the right to abort whether or not the man wants it because it is her body. Fine. But having to pay childsupport for 18 years for an unwanted child has huge effect on the fathers life. If the argument is that a parent shouldn't be able to walk away simply because it has huge effect on their life, i guess i at this point need to ask whether you are against all abortion?

i am not against all abortion but it should be the woman choice. She owes it to the father to listen to him and for him to make his case either way but the choice has to be hers. Extreme economic pressures should be minimized. There is always going to be economic pressures but thinking your baby will have a father who will help you and then learning that nope he is just going to walk away and not pay is unfair. You need to know before you get pregnant what your financial situation will be like, you cannot just let one party change that after the face when it is avoidable.

Letting the father walk away has a big effect on the mothers life and the childs life. This is very anti poor which, it can all but force a women to have an abortion. Really in some cases you may as well be dragging the women and strapping her ot the abortion table yourself. I cannot support that. If you want to say the state should provide the money the father should have been paying we can talk, I still think it is scummy of the father but at least the kid is not going to suffer to much because of it even if it does cause lots of other problems.

[–]psilorder5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And that is truely tragic, it is also an unfortunate biological reality. Unless you want to advocate forcing women to carry children to birth or forcing an abortion there is nothing that can be done about it.

The problem is that the woman is allowed to give up being a parent at a later stage, even if she was at first enthusiastic about it. The man is not allowed to stop the process even if he never indicated a wish to be a father.

thinking your baby will have a father who will help you and then learning that nope he is just going to walk away and not pay is unfair

Thinking that you were only going to have sex and then have to pay to support a child is unfair.

You need to know before you get pregnant what your financial situation will be like, you cannot just let one party change that after the face when it is avoidable.

This is making assumptions for the other party and if that is the problem (her assumptions being wrong), allow legal paternal surrender and she will know beforehand that it isn't up to her to assume that there will be two parents. She can make assumptions for herself, but no more.

Letting the father walk away has a big effect on the mothers life and the childs life. This is very anti poor which, it can all but force a women to have an abortion.

What the mother wants should only balance what the father wants and since there is no child yet, there is only the mother and the father to consider.

This is very anti poor.

If you want to say the state should provide the money the father should have been paying we can talk

(Note: i am swedish and so i am not knowledgeable on how social security plays out outside sweden)

I can agree that if the mother falls below the line then the state should step in, but only as much as lifting her and the child to whatever standard is decided on, just as they would if she were on her own. She should not have a claim on any part of the mans pay and be aware that neither does the child if the man has chosen not to be a father to it.

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EotWOT0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]snyper7 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegreenlabrador 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

So...

The shitty situation deciding if you want to go solo as a parent or getting an abortion overrules a mans decision to either pay for the child he doesn't want until it reaches adulthood or run away and be subject to jail?

Yeah. That makes sense.

With how it is now the man at least can choose to use protection if he does not want a kid (not perfect).

So can the woman. Equality exists here. In fact, there are more options for women to choose if they are ready or not. Almost all of them are non-permanent. A man has two options. Again the woman has a greater choice.

Also forcing the father to pay is not as bad as forcing a women to have an abortion is.

That is your opinion. The woman still has a choice. She is never forced to do anything. It might be the wisest decision, but she isn't forced. The father would be forced.

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegreenlabrador 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegreenlabrador 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

The shitty situation deciding if you want to go solo as a parent or getting an abortion overrules a mans decision to either pay for the child he doesn't want until it reaches adulthood or run away and be subject to jail?

When the man put himself into that situation himself. Sure why not. When giving the man the option of backing out leads to the situation I described above.

So can the woman. Equality exists here. In fact, there are more options for women to choose if they are ready or not. Almost all of them are non-permanent. A man has two options. Again the woman has a greater choice.

There are certain biological realities here that your cannot escape. I am sorry if that upsets you.

That is your opinion. The woman still has a choice. She is never forced to do anything. It might be the wisest decision, but she isn't forced. The father would be forced.

You don't know what it is like to be poor do you? This policy you want is anti poor.

[–]MetaethicalQ 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]_treebeard 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]EotWOT -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]EotWOT-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

no point in waiting, I have 12 account stored on res, its a one click change.

I don't think you understand the point of the 10 minute time out, it is there because people did not wish to hear you repeating yourself and so they downvoted you to oblivion, due to that you are limited.

Bypassing this limitation using multiple accounts is easily a violation of http://www.reddit.com/wiki/reddiquette

Child support is based on your income, it is not an issue if the father is poor to as he wouldn't not have to pay a lot.

If only it were that simple, I have known men who have lost their jobs, and still had to pay out hundreds a month despite the fact that it would be a physical impossibility, so the solution to that? Of course, lock them up, that should help them get a job again.

The child suffers but it is unavoidable in asociety with poverty.

Both the suffering and the poverty are entirely avoidable, stop having unwanted children. That's kind of the point of this thread no?

Some children are not going to get a good standard of living, we have to do the best we can. It is all we can do.

By far it is not all we can do.

[–]Seifer_Almasy0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And downvoting based on disagreeing is also against reddiquette, I am discussing relevant issues to the topic. It contributions to the discussion. Besides if people don't want to hear what I have to say why are people asking questions and trying pro provoke responses?

If only it were that simple, I have known men who have lost their jobs, and still had to pay out hundreds a month despite the fact that it would be a physical impossibility, so the solution to that? Of course, lock them up, that should help them get a job again.

The system is not perfect, we can improve it. Tossing it out and just saying men can just walk away is not the solution.

Both the suffering and the poverty are entirely avoidable, stop having unwanted children. That's kind of the point of this thread no?

Applies to men as much as women.

By far it is not all we can do.

Letting the man just walk away makes it worse. I am very open to hearing better solutions.

[–]flyingwolf2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

And downvoting based on disagreeing is also against reddiquette

I donwvoted a couple of your items for the simple fact that they added nothing to the conversation, which is the entire purpose of the downvote.

The system is not perfect, we can improve it. Tossing it out and just saying men can just walk away is not the solution.

You are correct, making it fair IS a solution, giving equal abilities based on available items, for instance, the lady has the uterus, she can decide on the abortion, termination etc, and the man has the purse for lack of a better word, and he can decide to not pay for the child and the price for that is never being allowed to be a part of that child's life.

Applies to men as much as women.

Um, how are you not seeing the issue here, a MAN has no ability to stop an unwanted pregnancy if the female wants to go through with it, zip, zero, zilch, nada, do you understand that or are you being purposely obtuse?

Letting the man just walk away makes it worse. I am very open to hearing better solutions.

If the man cannot just walk away then that option should be removed from the mother as well, and abandonment of the child should carry the same consequences for the mother as they do currently for the father.

HOWEVER, the past has shown us that humans are greedy little fuckers, and if there is no safe place to drop off the baby women WILL leave them in dumpsters etc, and while it breaks my heart the child dies, I cannot begin to understand the anguish that the parents must feel knowing it has happened and they caused it, hence the safe places where ONLY WOMEN are allowed to drop off newborn children anonymously.

Which again is an unilaterally unfair situation.

[–]Vegemeister 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MetaethicalQ 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psilorder 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]thegreenlabrador 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

When the man put himself into that situation himself. Sure why not. When giving the man the option of backing out leads to the situation I described above.

K. I can't argue with someone who sees the value of a man's life as less than that of another persons life who happens to be a child.

There are certain biological realities here that your cannot escape. I am sorry if that upsets you.

Who said it upset me? I am just presenting the reality that there are multiple choices for women at all stages of sex and pregnancy. The point is to give them more choice, not less.

You don't know what it is like to be poor do you? This policy you want is anti poor.

That's a pretty fucking holier-than-thou statement. It isn't a anti-poor statement, its a freedom of choice statement moron. I could say lets subsidize the extra children only through an extra tax on low-income earners, since they are the ones who generally have those children.

That would be anti-poor.

[–]Revoran 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Your course of action is anti poor

So is forcing child support onto people, though.

Also forcing the father to pay is not as bad as forcing a women to have an abortion is

Both are serious violations of an individual's rights. I'm not sure you can even really compare the two since one is an invasion of bodily integrity whilst the other is an invasion of property rights and (if your jurisdiction imprisons people for non-payment) equivalent to slavery/debt-bondage.

That being said, there are lots of other options other than having an abortion. Sterilization, various forms of contraception, adoption...

Hell, if the father wants the child you could even give it to him to raise! (Keeping in mind that many fathers want custody but are denied by the mother / courts).

And if abortion is a medical necessity (ie the pregnancy is putting the mother's life at significant risk) well that's a different situation entirely. I don't fault people for having an abortion in that situation.

[–]Jazzeki 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VortexCortex 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Yeah but that leaves a shitty situation.

Life's a bitch. Grow up.

It pressures the women into having an abortion if she is not not financially stable enough to have the kid which is likely if she is not at least middle class with all the time off mothers have to take.

No it does not. See also: Giving the kid up for adoption or dropping the kid off at a safe harbor approved fire station. "Maternity Leave" exists. You're a fucking troll.

Your course of action is anti poor.

You just broke my Orwellian BS detector.

With how it is now the man at least can choose to use protection if he does not want a kid (not perfect).

And women can take birth control pills. Women can also sabotage condoms with a simple pinprick, and also "forget" to take the pill. There is no male pill. The next best option is to simply give men the same rights women have to not be a parent.

Your way a couple could choose to have a kid, then the guy backs out (no down sides) all but forcing an abortion on a poor (in the economic sense) women

No. Lack of payment is not an abortion gun to the woman's head. She has other options. Also, she can get a damn job. That's why governments provide childcare aide and Earned Income Tax Credit.

or the pregnancy could just be an accident and the result is the same, forcing an abortion of a poor woman while the man gets to walk away with no consiquences.

The only forcing being done here is forcing the man to pay for a child he did not want. Note that the woman has no such obligation. No one HAS to get an abortion, though they probably should. Instead they can BOTH choose to "walk away".

Now if you want the state to make up for that money the father would have had to pay we can talk but that seems an unfair burden on the state.

No, what we can do is require women to pay if they choose to bring a child into the world but don't want to take care of it. You see? They have the power to choose. That means it's the Woman's responsibility. At no point can the man assume that responsibilty: He can not demand an abortion. He can not force the mother to give the kid up for adoption, he can not force the mother to abandon the child.

Currently, the mother isn't even required to TELL the father that she's pregnant, or has had a child, or give him the option to take responsibility instead of giving it up for adoption.

At least how it is now the man does have a recourse in that he can use protection.

Are you retarded? Seriously, you just said, "What about an accident". Additionally: Birth Control Pills. The man has no recourse. Learn that damn word, you're using it wrong. He can preemptively abstain from sex, and the woman could have done the same. Hell, a man can't even be sure if the woman is grabbing the condom from the trash and impregnating herself while he's in the shower.

Also forcing the father to pay is not as bad as forcing a women to have an abortion is.

18 years of MANDATORY indentured servitude (slavery) vs a VOLUNTARY medical procedure and a bit of forgettable guilt? Get bent you fool. You're a disgusting individual if you think the former better than the latter. An abortion is unpleasant, it's distressing, but just because it happens in a vagina doesn't mean it's the end of the damn world. Abortion is not even in the same league as living under the threat of jail for 25% of your life, especially if you're equally as likely to be as poor as the woman.

It is not a situation that can be completely fair, the current method just seems the best way. Although there could be a few improvement here or there.

Oh, it could be A WHOLE LOT MORE FAIR, but evil bitches like you exist. To be clear: We could just take away the right of the woman to give up the child, make them responsible if they drop the kid off at a safe house... Oh, but there's a reason we don't make mothers keep kids they don't want. Abuse and Neglect.

[+]vaselinepete -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]flyingwolf 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Seifer_Almasy-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Life's a bitch. Grow up.

I could say this about men having to pay child support but I am not, just because life can be cruel that does not mean we cannot try to improve it.

No it does not. See also: Giving the kid up for adoption or dropping the kid off at a safe harbor approved fire station. "Maternity Leave" exists. You're a fucking troll.

You are asking some to give up their child to save yourself a buck because you don't want to pay for your own child? That is legitimately a horrible thing to say. Maternity leave exists but it is not enough unless you leave your kid to be raised by someone else and that is not an option for the poor.

And women can take birth control pills. Women can also sabotage condoms with a simple pinprick, and also "forget" to take the pill. There is no male pill. The next best option is to simply give men the same rights women have to not be a parent.

Treating remote cases like the norm is not sound. We can treat cases where the women did something like that differently to the normal case. Each case can be decided in court as it already is. The courts are not always fair but that is not a reason to scrape the entire system, rather improve it.

No. Lack of payment is not an abortion gun to the woman's head. She has other options. Also, she can get a damn job. That's why governments provide childcare aide and Earned Income Tax Credit.

As I said anti poor, the poor cannot simply get a job that allows them the free time to raise their kid and earn enough to survive. They also cannot just hire a nanny because they are poor. If the father stuck the financial situation would be averted.

The only forcing being done here is forcing the man to pay for a child he did not want. Note that the woman has no such obligation. No one HAS to get an abortion, though they probably should. Instead they can BOTH choose to "walk away".

Once again saying just give away your kid.

No, what we can do is require women to pay if they choose to bring a child into the world but don't want to take care of it. You see? They have the power to choose. That means it's the Woman's responsibility. At no point can the man assume that responsibilty: He can not demand an abortion. He can not force the mother to give the kid up for adoption, he can not force the mother to abandon the child.

He can hoose to use protection. He can choose not to have sex. In cases where the condomn breaks we can have special rules in cases where it is necessary. No need to through the entire system out and give men blanket immunity.

18 years of MANDATORY indentured servitude (slavery) vs a VOLUNTARY medical procedure and a bit of forgettable guilt? Get bent you fool. You're a disgusting individual if you think the former better than the latter. An abortion is unpleasant, it's distressing, but just because it happens in a vagina doesn't mean it's the end of the damn world. Abortion is not even in the same league as living under the threat of jail for 25% of your life, especially if you're equally as likely to be as poor as the woman.

Paying for you child is not slavery.

Oh, it could be A WHOLE LOT MORE FAIR, but evil bitches like you exist. To be clear: We could just take away the right of the woman to give up the child, make them responsible if they drop the kid off at a safe house... Oh, but there's a reason we don't make mothers keep kids they don't want. Abuse and Neglect.

It could be more fair, but letting the father just walk away is not how we are going to do that. That just creates an even worse situation but now the men doesn't have to deal with anything.

[–]Pecanpig 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Xenoith 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

And the other situation isn't fairly shitty, forcing the man to have a child he doesn't want? Why do women get an out? Yeah, it's her body, but isn't it slavery to force a man to work under the threat of jail if he doesn't pay for it when she forces him into it?

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpaceDog777 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 67 points68 points69 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]combatchuck -27 points-26 points-25 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]jvardrake 47 points48 points49 points 12 years ago* (9 children) | Copy Link

[+]combatchuck -20 points-19 points-18 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Then your moral compass should also be requiring women - except in the case that there is extreme risk to her life - to cary all fetuses to term, and then be responsible for supporting them (no adoption; no surrender).

Why must arguments be taken to the extreme like this? My moral compass does not include the ability to determine what a woman should decide, because I've never been a woman.

Let me break it down for you. I do, in fact, believe voluntary abortion is nearly always a negative thing. It shows lack of forethought and concern about the future. What I do not believe is that I, or anybody else, am able to tell another person what they are allowed to do to their own body, so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of another person. I also believe that, until the fetus is able to survive outside of the woman's body, it is not separate from her body.

After all, women too know that, if they engage in sex, a baby may be the result. If they don't want to be responsible for a baby, they shouldn't have sex, right?

This is absurd. Women have so many options available to them to reduce or eliminate the chances of conception that this is now approaching the level of being a straw man argument.

[–]classic_hawkeye 39 points40 points41 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]combatchuck 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jvardrake 24 points25 points26 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]psilorder 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Pecanpig 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]yaniggamario 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Amunium 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In the case of adoption, where the natural parent(s) of the child give custody to another willing parent(s), no child support would be needed because it's a change of custody. Just as in the case where a single parent has sole custody because that's what they want, then they are responsible for 100% of the care.

I'm not saying that in all cases the man owes the woman child support. If the custodial parent doesn't pursue child support, requests that it be stopped, or doesn't allow the non-custodial parent to interact with their child, child support should not be due. I would also say that in cases of proven malicious intent (stealing a condom, rape, etc.) or infidelity in cases where the father is automatically considered responsible, even when DNA proves otherwise, that it is not fair to collect child support. I agree that custody laws are completely fucked. Especially, like in my state, where child support cannot be stopped even if the mother requests it. Of course, if a father has custody and is lucky to be collecting child support (it does happen, rarely) and requests that it stop, they stop it so fast that if it were a car he'd fly out the windshield.

My best friend of 15+ years just got custody of his oldest daughter. It was a very long, very expensive fight for him. The natural mother is an abusive drug addict. My friend is natural father of one other child, and adopted father of his wife's child from a previous relationship. It took this man at least 3 years to win the fight for primary custody of his daughter, and even then only because she admitted in a public forum (facebook) that she was getting high and allowing abusive people into the girl's life. And she still has visitation rights. She pays him child support, as she should. Just like if the roles were reversed, he should be paying her child support.

TL;DR The difference between adoption and "I don't want it" is that adoption is passing full responsibility to a willing recipient, where "I don't want it" is forcing full responsibility onto an unwilling recipient.

[–]Number357 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Danny_Plainview 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[+]combatchuck -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

What do you think is the reasonable question? No one said anything about forcing a woman to have an abortion, even the post clearly explained it.

I've heard the argument before, I just wanted to clarify.

Women can choose to bring another partner to raise the child with them without the biological father's consent, women can choose to keep the baby even if the baby is not in the best interest of both people, women can give the child to the state if she decides she doesn't want the child. Men by law can't do any of these things.

I agree that these are bad situations and I agree that they need to change. Equal rights go both ways.

Men are forced by law to pay child support if the women decides to keep the child but women rarely are required to pay anything when the man ends up taking care of the child.

Right. I am on board with this. It's a fucked up situation and needs to change.

What I take issue with is the argument that it's unfair to force a man to pay child support if he doesn't want to be involved with the child. The man's wishes in this case are not relevant to the fact that there is still a child who requires support. I also believe that it should go both ways, if a man has custody of the child, the woman should be required to provide financial support. I also believe that child custody should not default to the mother, instead be judged on case-by-case basis to determine who is the most suitable parent for the child.

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]PeterArching 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]combatchuck -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]psilorder 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]The_Cockpit 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]combatchuck 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder 46 points47 points48 points 12 years ago (135 children) | Copy Link

Basically, no one should be required to pay child support for a child they never planned to raise. If a child is conceived under the understanding between both parents to raise it together, and one parent changes their mind and withdraws support, than I think forced monetary support is fair and necessary.

But there is a huge difference between where support is withdrawn and where support was never intended. The wellness of the child is of course important, but forcing someone who never intended to have a child is not a good solution. Some countries have child support paid by the state in these situations.

This is just a general principle I personally judge these issues on. There are of course practical difficulties, such as establishing in a court when and when not support should have been expected, but this is a far better mind set to work from then where the current system works from, that being to force the biological parent to pay regardless of any other considerations to the situation.

[–]Th3DragonR3born 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

We get told all the time "if you didn't want a child, you shouldn't have put your penis in her." Well, if there was equality here it would be different. Already if you sign the birth certificate you're on the hook, even if the child turns out to not be biologically yours. Men should have the rights to refusal women have, and once they sign the birth certificate they are obligated to pay. There, its a choice. And if a woman doesn't know if a man will own up to the responsibility of a child, well then they have the same choice fathers now have. Abstinence. Make sure the man you share your bed with is a decent man and not a slutty dickhead. Give us good guys a better chance.

Well then, who pays for the babies given up for adoption? I believe fathers should have first right of refusal when a mother decides not to raise their child. If the father agrees, mom should pay child support equal (or rather, calculated the same way) to what daddy would have. If both decline, they can pay a portion of child support to the state to help raise the child. Once someone adopts the child, biological parents could see a lessening of support owed since a new parent or parents agree to take on the responsibility of raising aaid child.

[–]Amunium 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Offensive_Brute 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wait_for_ze_cream -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (116 children) | Copy Link

[–]WuBWuBitch 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]wait_for_ze_cream -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tksmase 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Revoran 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

A blanket ban on abortions is a very very dangerous road to go down.

For starters, there's lots of cases where the pregnancy risks the life of the mother (less in western countries, more in developing countries and places without universal healthcare like the US). As an unborn human cannot survive outside the womb until very late in pregnancy, the death of the mother usually results in the death of the newborn.

Secondarily, just because you ban abortions doesn't necessarily mean people stop having them / performing them. The market demand for abortions is still there so people will still perform them in many cases, albiet a huge amount of them will be done by unqualified people (because the qualified doctors risk their careers by performing abortions) in unsanitary conditions, resulting in yet more deaths and injuries.

For those children who do make it into the world unwanted, well, suffice to say there will be a lot of unwanted children being born who are likely to get neglected, abused, abandoned/foisted onto the state.

Lastly, I sincerely hope you support full sex education in schools, and access to contraception + emergency contraception for everyone. You do support those things, right?

[+]ThatCoolBlackGuy -9 points-8 points-7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]Emergencyegret -14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]WuBWuBitch 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

The man should have just as much responsibility as the woman. Aka, as much as they choose to.

The woman can unilaterally decide the baby shouldn't be born and kill abort a fathers child. The woman can decide to keep the baby even against the best attempts for the father to sway her otherwise, that man is now financially responsible for the mother and childs well being and the mother can pursue getting child support payments.

At any point during parenthood or pre-parenthood the woman has the options. The only option the man has is to have sex or not, once he has sex the options are gone and its down to the mother and her whims.

He could want the child in the first place, just like a mother could. But if he decides during prenancy that he no longer wants to be a parent or feels he shouldn't be a parent because it would disrupt his schooling, job, or whatever else he should have the right to do so. This is the same rights already extended to women who can freely get an abortion, give a child up for adoption (and thusly avoid responsibilities), or keep the child BUT recieve financial support from the father (the father has no similar option at all).

Why is it considered "ok" for a woman to "not have any responsibility" but a dastardly crime of a lowlife bastard for a man to do the same? Why is it liberating for a woman to have an abortion and have sex without fear of pregnancy ruining there lives, but a "burden" men would have to bear as there own "responsibility"?

[+]Emergencyegret -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]WuBWuBitch 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-9 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]just5this 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[+]Emergencyegret -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData11 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]snyper76 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]govt_took_my_baby4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 43 points44 points45 points 12 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]tksmase 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]ThatCoolBlackGuy -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Both would have a choice of what to do about it. If SHE chooses to keep it, and HE chooses to not, of course he shouldn't have the responsibility.

I have to disagree completely. Pauze. This is one of the most extreme posts i've seen on MRA.

By having unprotected sex you already knew that your partner might get pregnant. If she does and doesn't want an abortion you should pay for the kid. After all its YOUR kid too. If you don't want kids take safer routes.

Mra's often knock on feminist because they're ideologies only protect women. Well this is the same exact thing but for men. Sorry but if you have offspring you consented to making you can't just step out of their lives.

I mean did you even think about what you just said for a second? Do you know how much worse things would become? By your argument i can have as much unprotected sex as i want and have 500 kids by 500 different women if i want and never ever have to pay ANYTHING for them as long as i argue that i "never wanted any kids".

Dude that shit is NEVER gonna be legal in ANY progressive country. If you can't honestly see how you can't see how stupid you're being right now.

But oh well. There's people who take things too far in every group.

[–]NeedsMoreData 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

I have to disagree completely. Pauze. This is one of the most extreme posts i've seen on MRA.

sigh.

By having unprotected sex you already knew that your partner might get pregnant. If she does and doesn't want an abortion you should pay for the kid. After all its YOUR kid too. If you don't want kids take safer routes.

The partner also knew the chances, why does she get all the choices, and none of the responsibility? What safer routes is that? Celibacy? But don't dare tell a woman that, it would be wrong. Shaming! Victim Blaming!

Mra's often knock on feminist because they're ideologies only protect women. Well this is the same exact thing but for men. Sorry but if you have offspring you consented to making you can't just step out of their lives.

Yes, how dare the man want the same choices the woman gets. Clearly, the same thing. I'm not asking for MORE options. I'm not asking for the power to unilaterally force her to carry a baby to term, or force her to have an abortion. (which would be extreme, far more extreme my post) I fully agree that Men should respect Women's choices in that regard.

Why shouldn't Women respect the Men's choice to not want a child?

Sorry but if you have offspring you consented to making you can't just step out of their lives.

Like safe haven laws where you can drop a baby off at a police/fire station no questions asked?

Like adoption?

Both of these terminate parental responsibility, do they not get the same scorn?

Or is that only allowed if the woman makes the choice, not the man?

I mean did you even think about what you just said for a second? Do you know how much worse things would become?

By choices having consequences? Man, that's scary. People might think more about their choices, might be more careful and judicious with their lives. Might be more caring and considerate with their partners. Hell, might even see the divorce rate drop. Might see families staying together. (Since being a family would be a goal, instead of a means to an end) Might see happier more well adjusted children.

Would their be a rough spot to get there? Sure. Farther our society goes, the worse it will be. And hell, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal progressive. (or used to be, really taking a thoughtful look at some of my opinions).

By your argument i can have as much unprotected sex as i want and have 500 kids by 500 different women if i want and never ever have to pay ANYTHING for them as long as i argue that i "never wanted any kids".

So those 500 women. All 500 of them also consented to unprotected sex right? Do they shoulder zero of the blame for this?

And those 500, all chose to not use birth control.

And those 500, all chose to not have an abortion, or adoption.

Do those 500 women get no responsibilities at all?

You're argument seems to be - men don't have sex, if you do deal with the consequences. shame them into "manning" up.

But women - have all the sex you want, and here's 5 extra outs if you don't like the result.

I find it extremely disappointing that you find this an extreme view.

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The partner also knew the chances, why does she get all the choices, and none of the responsibility? What safer routes is that? Celibacy? But don't dare tell a woman that, it would be wrong. Shaming! Victim Blaming!

What? Are you saying that single mothers have no responsibility? This is pretty ignorant.

Yes, how dare the man want the same choices the woman gets. Clearly, the same thing. I'm not asking for MORE options. I'm not asking for the power to unilaterally force her to carry a baby to term, or force her to have an abortion. (which would be extreme, far more extreme my post) I fully agree that Men should respect Women's choices in that regard. Why shouldn't Women respect the Men's choice to not want a child?

So in turn making it so that you can make kids and never have to take care of them at all. Yes that's a good ideal.

Like safe haven laws where you can drop a baby off at a police/fire station no questions asked? Like adoption? Both of these terminate parental responsibility, do they not get the same scorn? Or is that only allowed if the woman makes the choice, not the man?

Aren't both parents supposed to consent when opting for adoption? As an adult man or woman if you choose to go against adoption than you should be the one keeping the child. The other parent still has to pay though. I'm a bit confused on safe havens as that is not a choice in my country.

By choices having consequences? Man, that's scary. People might think more about their choices, might be more careful and judicious with their lives. Might be more caring and considerate with their partners. Hell, might even see the divorce rate drop. Might see families staying together. (Since being a family would be a goal, instead of a means to an end) Might see happier more well adjusted children. Would their be a rough spot to get there? Sure. Farther our society goes, the worse it will be. And hell, I'm a dyed in the wool liberal progressive. (or used to be, really taking a thoughtful look at some of my opinions).

This by far the the most idiotic statement you have made. Or maybe we're on different planets.

So those 500 women. All 500 of them also consented to unprotected sex right? Do they shoulder zero of the blame for this? And those 500, all chose to not use birth control. And those 500, all chose to not have an abortion, or adoption. Do those 500 women get no responsibilities at all?

The don't , they never have. Most single mothers ONLY getting checks at the end of the month by the dads have to take care of everything else by themselves. Kid needs to go to school? Their responsibility. Need new haircut? Their responsibility. School meeting for parents? Their responsibility.

You seem to think that the women getting checks from dads. Are living luxuriously and raising kids isn't a way of shouldering blame.

You're argument seems to be - men don't have sex, if you do deal with the consequences. shame them into "manning" up.

My argument is that if you're going to have sex that might result into a kid be fucking prepared to help raise it.

But women - have all the sex you want, and here's 5 extra outs if you don't like the result.

No because every single mother i have ever seen works there ass off to raise their kids. And their are countless of "fathers" that only pay X amount of cash at the end of the month and are completely okay with that.

Now non-biological fathers that are paying money at the end of each month "for the better of the kids" is a complete injustice.

[–]NeedsMoreData 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData6 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'll answer your larger edited post here instead of in 2 places.

What? Are you saying that single mothers have no responsibility? This is pretty ignorant.

I'm saying those that decide they'd rather have someone else pay than take care of themselves don't. I'm specifically indicting the "actions" here, not the people.

So in turn making it so that you can make kids and never have to take care of them at all. Yes that's a good ideal.

So that one person can't decide to "make kids" AND force someone to pay for it without the others consent. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.

Aren't both parents supposed to consent when opting for adoption? As an adult man or woman if you choose to go against adoption than you should be the one keeping the child. The other parent still has to pay though. I'm a bit confused on safe havens as that is not a choice in my country.

Nope, not necessarily. Clearly we're not talking about 2 people in a healthy relationship making decisions together. That's the whole gist of this. IF the father is made aware, they may have the rights to intervene and stop the adoption, taking over parental rights and assuming all responsibility. If they do the mother is more than likely completely off the nook, no financial responsibilities at all.

Mother doesn't want it, father does = father gets child, father pays for child.

Mother does want it, father doesn't = Mother gets child, father pays for child.

See the problem?

Safe haven (laws) decriminalize the act of turning over an unharmed infant to certain designated people (fire fighters, police officers, paramedics, etc) essentially giving the child up to be a ward of the state.

This again lets (primarily) women give up financial responsibility for a child.

This by far the the most idiotic statement you have made. Or maybe we're on different planets.

You are aware of the concept of positive feedback and negative feedback loops right?

Where by you encourage behavior you want to happen and discourage behavior you don't want to happen.

If a given act is a negative problem, people are less likely to do it. Same thing with a societal taboo associated with certain things.

Think carefully about what would happen in response to this. Not for individuals, but for society after awhile. What happens if women can't get pregnant then collect 18 years of pay?

The don't , they never have. Most single mothers ONLY getting checks at the end of the month by the dads have to take care of everything else by themselves. Kid needs to go to school? Their responsibility. Need new haircut? Their responsibility. School meeting for parents? Their responsibility.

Broaden your horizons, it is horrible abused in this country at least (US). What country are you from if you don't mind disclosing?

My argument is that if you're going to have sex that might result into a kid be fucking prepared to help raise it.

But that doesn't apply to women? Are you against all these "outs" we've spoken of? birth control, adoption, abortion, safe haven?

No because every single mother i have ever seen works there ass off to raise their kids. And their are countless of "fathers" that only pay X amount of cash at the end of the month and are completely okay with that.

And that's the ones that have made the decision to keep the child. Now how about all those that made the decision NOT to keep the child? They had an "unwanted" pregnancy, they made it go away via whatever method. All we're asking for is the same option.

Now non-biological fathers that are paying money at the end of each month "for the better of the kids" is a complete injustice.

Agreed, but merely a symptom of the larger problem. The man always pays.

[–]ThatCoolBlackGuy3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Curacao as of now. Used to live in Netherlands(too young to remember if their where safe havens there).

I actually get your point man. I might not agree completely. But i understand now what you mean that men don't have a lot of options of "outing".

In my country you can take the other parent "he or a she" to court and make them pay the monthly fee. Too me ultimately if you chose to have any type of sex that may result in a child you should be forced to pay the caring parent for the child. Abortions are illegal here. (You can still get the pills illegally). And if a parent does not agree to adoption he/she can keep the child and the other one is forced to pay.

Like i said. I think that if you helped make a baby that you don't want you should be able to be forced to pay. In the end its for the better of the kid.

[–]blinderzoff1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Lawtonfogle 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]wait_for_ze_cream 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Emergencyegret -6 points-5 points-4 points 12 years ago (63 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 23 points24 points25 points 12 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[+]Emergencyegret -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[+]Emergencyegret -11 points-10 points-9 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic779 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-8 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Idiopathic777 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AustNerevar7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData7 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Kronikle3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (40 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Emergencyegret-3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link