Suck it up and pay | MensRights

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

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

[–][deleted] 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

[–]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.

[–]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

[–]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

[–][deleted] 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

[–][deleted] 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

[–]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

[–][deleted] 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

[–]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

[–][deleted] 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

[–]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

[–]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

[–]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

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]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

[+][deleted] -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

[+][deleted] -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

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

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

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 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

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

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

[–][deleted] 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

[–][deleted] 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

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

[+][deleted] -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

[+][deleted] -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

[–][deleted] -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

[–][deleted] 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

[–][deleted] 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

[–][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

[–]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

[–][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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't believe a child is entitled to two parents.

I think a woman who chooses to bring to term a pregnancy without a partner willing to be a second parent should be choosing single parenthood. I don't believe single parenthood should be a surprise, the man's deadline to opt out should be a little before the latest allowable abortion, allowing the woman to assess her new options, either single parenthood, abortion, or adoption.

A woman who then chooses single parenthood should then be doing so with full understanding that she is accepting all responsibility to support and raise that child. I believe that it is irresponsible to bring to term a child you cannot adequately support. That doesn't change if the man wants to exercise his rights to choose, only the threshold of available support does.

[–]Merawder 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Assuming the man never had any intention to support a child (we'll say it's a one night stand), he shouldn't owe anything. In practice there would likely be some sort of process to go through and etc. The woman would then have the choice to abort, give the child up for adoption, keep it (and receive state child support perhaps), or drop it off.

I realize that biology puts the woman in the tougher situation, but current solutions are not a solution, but a bigger problem. This is why sexual education is important, and women especially should use methods of contraception available to them (though mistakes happen).

As a side note, I am not in favour of taking away any pregnancy options women currently have to my knowledge. Also, I believe that honesty about contraception is huge. Should a guy claim to be wearing a condom, or to have had a vasectomy, or whatever, and he doesn't, that's rape in my eyes and you better believe that he should be liable for child support. Putting rape charges aside, in this situation by lying about safety measures he solely took on the risk.

[–]snyper7 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]snyper7 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]wait_for_ze_cream -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]wait_for_ze_cream -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Merawder -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]wait_for_ze_cream -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

Do you mean the state paying towards the cost of raising a child? If so, that happens in my country (UK) anyway. More important to me is what the psychological effects are on a child whose father is encouraged to abandon them because they're exercising their ever-so-important right to not be a parent.

I have no sympathy for a man abandoning a child in protest of his lack of rights. We all know who gets hurt the most in this situation.

Family courts are imperfect, but they are there to protect the interests of the child, whereas your solution almost forgets the child entirely. Here's a recent AMA from a divorce lawyer. His main point was that the courts do not work as some anti-men conspiracy. They look out for the child first and foremost.

I hope you don't mean foster care when you say 'support from the state' as another option for the child who's dad is pissed off at his responsibility.

It makes me feel sad, too, that most people posting on this thread are angry at paying the cost of a child. They only see children as a drain on their wallet. It's depressing

[–]Merawder 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

Honestly, for me the debate is just centred on the child. I feel like whatever injustice a person may have suffered in being tricked into having a child, once that child exists, their rights trump the wronged father. If a woman had lied about being on birth control, responsibility would depend on whether the man had also used contraception. But if a child is born from a situation like that, while the father has been betrayed, the child has done nothing wrong. The father should support the child however they can.

In the example of stealing sperm, I think most people could understand a father's refusal to support a child that results. But, say it happened to someone I know, I would still encourage them to do what they can for their child. They can stay away from the mother as much as possible. The best thing that could result from that shitty situation is the kid having another person, besides the duplicitous one, influencing their life.

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

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

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

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

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]ndstumme 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]ndstumme 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

[–]Offensive_Brute 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

[+][deleted] -71 points-70 points-69 points 12 years ago* (74 children) | Copy Link

[–]NeedsMoreData 40 points41 points42 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]BbCortazan -26 points-25 points-24 points 12 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

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

No, the problem is with choices. Why shouldn't Men get the same choices that Women get to "opt out"? I don't hate women for those choices, I simply want the same opportunities without being shamed or celibate.

Why should a woman have the choice to unilaterally decide to keep or not keep a child? and at the SAME TIME the man has the responsibility to pay for it with no say in that choice other than "don't have sex"?

Shouldn't decisions be made "together" for things like this, with both having equal say and equal stake?

*Not to say a man should be able to force a woman to have a child, I don't agree with that. But I also don't think a woman should be able to force a man to pay either. Grrll power and what not, "fish a bicycle" and all the other stuff, women have more degrees and better opportunities than ever before, why is it the man's job to pay for the woman's choice?

[–]KageKitsune28 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would say women should not be able to pick and choose when they want equality. Heck, it was only a couple years ago that a woman was complaining that the physical test to become a firefighter was too difficult and needed to be scaled back to open the way for more women. Well, as a woman myself, i can tell you that it is absolute B.S. that we can cry feminism and equality to get ahead in some ways (say office jobs and pay grades), but the minute it becomes too difficult we want a special exception made for us. Nif you have consentual sex, you assume the risk that a child may be created. As such, the responsibility should go both ways. Believe it or not, there is nothing magical in the males sperm that makes him more responsible for a child than the women. That is what we call outdated gender roles and stereotypes. Breaking those stereotypes and promoting gender equality would require that regulations be put in place to protect men who wish to relinquish all paternal responsibility and rights.

Furthermore, because the rape subject has been brought up numerous times, what happens if a man is raped by a women and she gets pregnant? Does he have to pay his abuser child support? I am seriously asking because I don't know, but rape does go both ways as many people forget.

[–]red_rivers 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+]BbCortazan -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

All of your criticisms have already been addressed.

You think implementing such a law wouldn't result in more poor single mothers?

If they chose to have a child they can't afford to support, yes. If not, no. But it's (rightly) their choice.

What if they can't afford the abortion?

Beg, borrow or steal. Ask the guy to contribute. Or don't get an abortion.

What if they're against abortion?

What difference does this make to anything? What if the guy is against abortion? Does the morning after pill count? What about abandonment or adoption?

What if she wanted a kid and then the man backs out too late and it's too painful to think of aborting the child?

It's still entirely her choice and she can choose to keep, abort, abandon or offer up for adoption.

Thinking that sort of law wouldn't victimize women just shows how little you've thought about it

None of these things victimise women in any way. All they do is prevent a reluctant guy from being forced to become a father against his will or pay for a child against his will.

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

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

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

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

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 30 points31 points32 points 12 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[+]dbx99 -26 points-25 points-24 points 12 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+]dbx99 -21 points-20 points-19 points 12 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 points12 points13 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[+]dbx99 -10 points-9 points-8 points 12 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]baskandpurr 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]user1492 22 points23 points24 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[–]notarapist72 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 17 points18 points19 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]Realworld 41 points42 points43 points 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

Do keep working to make our world better, but seriously guys, deal with reality as it exists today. Acknowledge current reality and prepare a defense.

Surest guarantee against forced paternity is a vasectomy. It's the only self protection family courts can't pierce. Even "good of the child" won't do it (unless you accept financial responsibility).

Got a vasectomy while single and in my 20s. It was an easy decision after working with Family Court as part of my WA State DSHS employment. During my years there every Family Court decision went against the men. It was automatic. Whatever the qualities of the mother and father, the mother got custody. Father employed and responsible with mother a street hooker and addict in completely different city? Mother gets permanent legal custody and father gets temporary physical custody. "She might turn her life around and want the children back."

Family court is more dangerous to your future happiness than anything else in our society.

[–]flyingwolf 25 points26 points27 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Funny enough, when I was 18 I looked into getting a vasectomy, I was refused by 7 doctors due to the fact that I was 18 and had no children. By the time I got to the 7th doctor he had already heard of me. And told me flat out that he would not perform it.

Unless there was a medical reason I could not get a vasectomy.

I have 3 wonderful kids today, and I am done, and over a decade later I don't regret it a bit, but I also know that if I had gotten the vasectomy my life would have been completely different, and frankly, possibly for the better. But I wouldn't trade it for a single day at this point.

I always had the option of adoption.

I thought about this a lot when I was young, I never intended to have any natural kids, don't care about some bullshit bloodline crap. I always wanted to adopt.

Then a condom broke, the plan B pill was not an option and abortion was not on the table, so enter into the world flyingwolf Jr.

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

[–]flyingwolf 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]adamwizzy 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

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

[–]gtrmu223 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 76 points77 points78 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 45 points46 points47 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jesus_marley 20 points21 points22 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[+]obvilious -15 points-14 points-13 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]BottomContributor11 points 12 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]the_people 65 points66 points67 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]ankensam 35 points36 points37 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dichtbringer[S] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]the_people 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]rlaptop7 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]uncommonman 50 points51 points52 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]41145and6 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mynoduesp 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]41145and6 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 49 points50 points51 points 12 years ago (49 children) | Copy Link

[–]Daemonicus 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 35 points36 points37 points 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–]AgentCircle 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]stult 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

No, this pic is 65% bs from a legal perspective. If the mother wants to give the child up, the father can take custody and get child support from the mother in every state in the US. It's not like she can just hand the baby over to an adoption agency and say fuck the dad. He has a right to take custody before adoption. As for custody and child support, almost every state has gender neutral laws at this point, though there does remain some strong institutional bias in how courts make decisions. E.g. younger children are more likely to be given to the mother for primary custody while teenaged minors are more likely to be given to the dad. Alimony is weird still, and can be very messed up and biased toward women, but that is unrelated to the rights over children. The only issue that remains arguably unfair from this infograph is that the woman can choose to keep an unwanted pregnancy, and the guy gets no say in any abortion decision. But the guy could have chosen to demand they use a condom, and it's not his uterus that will be subjected to a medical procedure during an abortion.

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

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

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points10 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]femmecheng -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

Vasectomies can be reversed, but it's worth noting that the success rates for reversals are not very good--especially if the procedure is used for the purpose of long-term birth control as suggested above; the reversal success rates drop dramatically with time.

The discussion makes me recall a Slashdot post I read a few months ago about a new male contraception method:

When I was 21 my girlfriend accidentally got pregnant, miscarried, and almost died. At that time vasectomy reversals were new, cost about $10,000-$15,000, and had a 70% success rate. My thought process was 1) technology only gets better, 2) if I couldn't afford $15,000 for a reversal then I certainly couldn't afford a kid, 3) I never wanted to go through another miscarriage, so I got a vasectomy. It also had the unintended effect of 4) I got laid a lot more often than guys who were still fertile.

Six years later I went to get it reversed. The technology was now well-established, and microsurgery was becoming commonplace. It now cost $15,000-$25,000. The claimed success rate was still 70%. Both attempts were complete failures, as were over a dozen attempts at artificial insemination.

It stuck with me because that poster had a very logical thought process likely informed by a technologically-oriented background (tech gets cheaper and better over time) that clashed with medical reality (medicine doesn't get cheaper in the same way). I would suppose that IVF may still be an option for those men with vasectomy reversal failures, but I lack enough knowledge on the subject to know how viable an option it is under those circumstances. At any rate, I think the linked poster's advice is probably good to heed: don't assume that a sterilization procedure is reversible and make plans in accordance with that knowledge.

[–]poloppoyop 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Default_User123 -13 points-12 points-11 points 12 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]red_rivers 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Default_User123 -12 points-11 points-10 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Alice_In_Zombieland 13 points14 points15 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 15 points16 points17 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]MarvelousMagikarp[🍰] 10 points11 points12 points 12 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+]Default_User123 -17 points-16 points-15 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]DevilishRogue 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

This is where we have gone wrong. When the birth control pill became common, the reason that it was celebrated is that it broke the firm link to sex and procreation. It basically made recreational sex something available to everyone of all classes. Remember; condoms have been around for centuries (i.e. sheepskins), but even then everyone knew that their reliability was only relative. Even before that; in ancient Greece, women would use olive oil as a lubricant for its contraceptive properties because they wanted access to recreational sex.

But the simple historical fact is that in one way or another; women have always controlled and determined paternity in any given sexual tryst. The Red Pillers have one thing right regarding hypergamy; "Alpha fucks; beta bucks." Women know who they want to father their children; they always have. Paternity trapping is an ancient technique for a woman to "get the man that they want."

In addition and also historically, there have always been negative consequences for men who want to deny a woman her paternal choice. In the ancient past through the early to mid 60s, the male family members of a woman "so victimized" would track the errant male down and force him to marry her (i.e. "shotgun weddings"). In India, men are still being killed for denying paternity. There have always also been social consequences for similar behavior by men. Back then when men "ran out" on their women, they also ran out of town to avoid the consequences of that behavior. Now we have laws that can help women in such circumstances. But those laws are being abused.

It's interesting that people who counter arguments for reproductive equity believe that we want to defend "Leroy Washington" who has 15 kids with 13 women.

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

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

[+]Default_User123 -3 points-2 points-1 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Willravel -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]shadecrawler 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]DevilishRogue 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–][deleted] 12 points13 points14 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

[–]Number357 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dan105 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ejk314 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]dan105 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]dan105 -2 points-1 points0 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]dan105 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Women can unilaterally adopt out children, even if the father wants custody - he will be lucky to get it:

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/2011/09/09/again-utah-forces-adoption-on-fit-fathers-child/

"That the mother can change her mind, and under safe haven of law, can drop her baby off no questions asked, and that the father has no control over it."

That would be safe haven laws, which are law in all of America:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/safehaven.cfm

A woman can simply go abandon her child by literally putting it down and walking away (no paperwork or any steps other than physically leaving the baby and physically walking away).

A man cannot stop this, however in theory, a man can get custody if this happens. In reality, that isn't the case because the woman (if she doesn't want the man to get custody) will simply not tell the father that it's happened.

[–]TheZenji 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheZenji 14 points15 points16 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

[–]ColonelVirus 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]7x5x3x2x2 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]WuBWuBitch 33 points34 points35 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]DevilishRogue 52 points53 points54 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]BellaBlack 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

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

[–]captain_jayw 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Azrael-sama[🍰] 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

[–]carchamp1 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Arby01 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Arby01 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]carchamp1 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotCindyBrady -5 points-4 points-3 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

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

How would that work in practice though. When I bring my daughter to the hospital, do I tell them to charge me half of her copay and chase her dad down for the rest? Do we both insure half of her? My company doesn't offer a premium for half a child. How would this be enforced? Would we take turns buying her food? Would school districts half to create duplicate accounts for fees and lunches that both parents pay into? What about daycare? if my daughter lives with her dad what incentive do i have to pay the daycare my half of the $1,200/month fee? if i don't, and they won't let my ex drop my daughter off, so he misses work and loses his job, too bad, not my problem right? It seems really unrealistic. How would you ever enforce that? I can't even get my ex to make a lunch for my daughter, let alone pay one of her bills. I think you're giving too much credit to people. Sadly, some people--men and women--won't meet their financial obligations on their own, and kids are the ones who suffer.

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

It isn't difficult. Presume equal custody. Clarify the situation with your medical insurer. Both buy her food when you are with her. Pay for school by splitting costs equally on a term by term basis. If child neglect occurs treat it the same way it is treated for other parents. If there is a problem raise it with the court.

What about daycare? if my daughter lives with her dad what incentive do i have to pay the daycare my half of the $1,200/month fee? if i don't, and they won't let my ex drop my daughter off, so he misses work and loses his job, too bad, not my problem right?

You do realize that this is how the current system works and you are criticizing that rather than my proposal, right? Equal rights/equal responsibility. If one party doesn't pay for an agreement you've both made then first talk to each other and try and fix it and if that doesn't work then go to court, by all means.

I think you're giving too much credit to people. Sadly, some people--men and women--won't meet their financial obligations on their own, and kids are the ones who suffer.

The reason we see this so much is because of the adversarial system that is set up where the kids end up being treated like pawns in a game of who gets the money. People who want children tend to take care of them when given the opportunity. The current system prevents this. It needs to change.

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]NotCindyBrady 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Those formulas are far from perfect. I would argue though that they work against the child and the custodial parent just as often as they work in favor of the child and the custodial parent.

Example

A divorced couple has 1 child together. They are awarded joint custody with the child living with the mom full time. The law in this state says that the noncustodial parent must pay 20% of his salary towards child support. The father earns $18,000 per year (or so he says) and must pay $3,600 per year in child support. Daycare alone is $14,400 per year (1,200/month, which is what I paid 5 years ago). The dad's contribution doesn't even begin to cover half of just the daycare expense. Does that mean no one has to pay for daycare or food or shelter or clothing? No, the custodial parent still needs to provide these things. At no time does the court say "what does it really cost to take care of this child. Let's figure that out and cut that amount in half." So the mom barely scrapes by and makes due. The mom at no time can say "sorry kid, I'm not feeding you this month because I used up 80% of my salary taking care of my own needs and there isn't enough left over to buy food for you." Because that would be fucking child abuse.

Look, I've sat in court and heard child support amounts that were staggering and large and no doubt way more than the child needs. I get that the system is not perfect. But I know too many couples--and I've been through it myself--where the burden to provide 100% for the child falls squarely on the custodial parent. It irks me to no end to hear people making it sound like child support is some windfall for the parent. There were times I was borrowing money to keep my water on, and my ex was going on trips, eating out at restaurants every weekend, driving a nice car and carrying around the latest smartphone. Not all men are the victims.

And for the record, I happen to know a dad who has custody of his kid and the biomom is no better. Sketchy employment, under-earning, and not paying.

In child support cases, the important thing is to make sure the child's needs are met. 20% of some crappy salary is not going to do that and it is NOT a windfall for the custodial parent.

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

"20% of some crappy salary is not going to do that..."

Let me first say that if you don't want to be burdened by child care costs in the way you describe, then either don't sleep with someone making $18,000 a year or get on the pill. We tell men all the time that if they don't want to be stuck with "child" support sans their child, then keep your pants zipped up. I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask women to keep their own pants on if the cost of raising a child is too burdensome. And, really, how long does it take for a 50-year old technology like the "pill" to catch on? Whose fault is it, anyway, if a women is over-burdened with child costs?

Under your example, let's stop after sentence one. You didn't mention who divorced whom. That's rather curious seeing how we know that women overwhelmingly initiate divorce when children are involved. It's pretty hard for me to give a shit about the woman in your example when I know SHE KICKED HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE in the first place.

And let's stop after sentence two, also. Why is said child living full time with mom? Most fathers love their children and would love nothing more than to spend more time with them. If you simply split time with dad, not only do your costs go down, you're more available for paid work. You could simply let dad have the kids full time. That's an option. In my judgment, denying fathers time with their kids on one hand while complaining you have no money on the other, probably because you're having a hard time working, is silly on its face.

Thankfully for the both of us I'm not going to critique your entire post. Needless to say I think your assertion that "the burden to provide 100% for the child falls squarely on the custodial parent" is usually the custodial parent's own damn fault. Guess what? When you make poor choice on top of poor choice life gets rough.

Oh, and if mom is denying dad time with his kids in spiteful revenge (which I'm sure never happens, right?), or because she doesn't want to work (couldn't happen I'm sure???) I care even less.

I could keep going, but I won't. I think you see where I'm coming from.

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

"Let me first say that if you don't want to be burdened by child care costs in the way you describe, then either don't sleep with someone making $18,000 a year or get on the pill."

I based this example on my own situation. He was making more than 18K when we got married and both decided to have children. It took several years to get the divorce/child support finalized, and by that time he had a good system for hiding his income. No one can see the future, so your weird advice to "not sleep with someone making $18,000 a year or get on the pill" is nonsense.

"I think it's perfectly acceptable to ask women to keep their own pants on if the cost of raising a child is too burdensome."

We agree! If you can't afford kids, don't have them! But once you do, you need to work enough to pay for their expenses.

"And, really, how long does it take for a 50-year old technology like the "pill" to catch on?"

Please don't assume that all children are the result of carelessness. My child was planned and wanted by BOTH parents.

"Under your example, let's stop after sentence one. You didn't mention who divorced whom."

No, I didn't mention that. I divorced him, for good reason.

"It's pretty hard for me to give a shit about the woman in your example when I know SHE KICKED HIM OUT OF THE HOUSE in the first place."

So punish the child because the parents couldn’t make a marriage work?

"Why is said child living full time with mom?"

Because the father had no involvement whatsoever in caring for the child. The court is not going to award custody to someone who doesn't even know what food his child eats, what the name of the pediatrician is, what brand of diaper she wears or what her favorite book is. In addition, in my case, he could have tried to get residential custody, but I'm sure he didn't want to interfere with his ability to live his life on his own terms.

"Most fathers love their children and would love nothing more than to spend more time with them. If you simply split time with dad, not only do your costs go down, you're more available for paid work."

I'm sorry, but how do both parents split time and work full time jobs. Your scenario only works if one of you can work evenings/weekends. I would have loved to have done that if it were possible.

"You could simply let dad have the kids full time. That's an option." That is absolutely an option and I know two dads who do have full custody of their kids--and coincidentally BOTH of them are dealing with deadbeat moms. I'm not gender biased when it comes to deadbeats. BOTH parents should take care of their kids. I'd be just as offended if someone said that these guys are just gaming the system and looking for some kind of a windfall from their kids' biomoms.

"In my judgment, denying fathers time with their kids on one hand while complaining you have no money on the other, probably because you're having a hard time working, is silly on its face."

When did I ever say that anyone should deny fathers time with their kids? Also, kids are expensive even if you've never had "a hard time working." Personally, I've been gainfully employed my whole working life, and it is still expensive to take care of kids, so I'm really missing your point.

"Thankfully for the both of us I'm not going to critique your entire post." LOL

"Needless to say I think your assertion that "the burden to provide 100% for the child falls squarely on the custodial parent" is usually the custodial parent's own damn fault. Guess what? When you make poor choice on top of poor choice life gets rough."

Wat. All divorced parents made "poor choice after poor choice"?

"Oh, and if mom is denying dad time with his kids in spiteful revenge (which I'm sure never happens, right?), or because she doesn't want to work (couldn't happen I'm sure???) I care even less."

What are you even talking about? You can lose custody for violating a visitation agreement. You can also get thrown in jail. I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[–]carchamp1 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]carchamp1 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]BaconSandwich420 -14 points-13 points-12 points 12 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Number357 27 points28 points29 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]greatGoD67 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]BaconSandwich420 -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

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

[+][deleted] 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]NeedsMoreData 7 points8 points9 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]mhall812 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (10 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Triananator5000 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]flyingwolf 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–]Cant_Ban_All_MRAs 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]veyron1001 -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]blinderzoff 9 points10 points11 points 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

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

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

This whole post seems to be filled with people who don't follow reddiquette

Well that would actually be all of reddit. That doesn't it make it right though, I'll grant. However, "When in Rome..."

[People ITT] answer in sarcasm or half answers

Maybe the shorthand is because:

can you explain why you made that list and what this subreddits concerns actually are?

Either you've read the FAQ and know that it already does a better job at this than I ever could and so you are just trolling, or you haven't read it and expect me to summarize it for you, will probably not even read that, and just waste more of our time.

So you would have to prove to me you are acting in good faith by reading the FAQ on the right and reporting back with what you don't understand, if you still feel the need to discuss that here.

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Seifer_Almasy -4 points-3 points-2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Mytecacc -19 points-18 points-17 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 16 points17 points18 points 12 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

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

Not arrogant at all. It's a fact. If a woman decides, there will be no life. If a woman decides the life will be allowed to happen. The beginning of that 'life' in the theoretical sense is when the woman makes the decision what she is doing.

This isn't some scientific post, I'm not arguing what science says or what studies say, I'm saying it doesn't matter what science or a scientist says.

What matters, in the end, regardless of any other fact, or study or whether you like it or not, is what the woman decides. If she decides that there isn't to be a life, then there isn't going to be a life. Period. Done. End of line. You can't change that. (well, you can change the law I suppose...)

NOTE: This is not a commentary on IF abortion is right or wrong, or IF a woman or a man or some combination should or should not have a right to get/seek/help/have/perform an abortion.

[–]Daemonicus 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 12 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

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

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

[permanently deleted]

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Mytecacc -7 points-6 points-5 points 12 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]Rejjn -16 points-15 points-14 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]lilana11 -8 points-7 points-6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]GltyUntlPrvnInncnt 6 points7 points8 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[+]griznatch -21 points-20 points-19 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]earl_sleek1 points 12 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[+]griznatch 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, but you have a choice whether or not to inject your half of the requirements into the apparatus do you not? Women don't just magically become pregnant. It requires 2 consenting adults to create a child (aside from rape). Don't get in the habit of having unprotected sex with a woman you don't trust with your life and 99% of these problems won't happen. Allow me to rephase my previous comment.

How about not depositing your genetic material into her, repeatedly, in the first place.

I haven't had any problems with child support, visitation rights, custody battles, etc. because I've been very careful not to produce any offspring. Under no circumstances will I father a child without the express intent to do so with a woman whom I've been with long enough to know will want to raise a happy healthy child in a loving 2 parent environment as much as I do. If that means I get my dick wet less often, thats a small price to pay. If everyone else was just a little more picky about where they left thier gametes there'd be a lot less problems. But don't let my logic get in the way of your 'mens rights' beliefs.

Title	Suck it up and pay
Author	dichtbringer
Upvotes	1565
Comments	471
Date	September 19, 2013 2:06 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1mplpc/suck_it_up_and_pay/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/suck-it-up-and-pay.1163463 https://theredarchive.com/post/1163463

Comments