Why do we have child support in cases where the mother solely chose that the child was born and the father had no say?

[–]DougDante 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (13 children) | Copy Link

[–]DougDante 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

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

All the money would go to an account in the child's name that the parents must justify the use of.

In my humble opinion you can't say child support should go to rent or food if you would be paying the same rent and food anyway. That's why both should be paying just as much child support.

You get where I'm coming from? Say I'm a man who rents a big 5 room apartment and buy food for at least 3. Since I can afford that I shouldn't be getting child support help to pay for what I can already easily provide. That should all go to supporting the kid in their bank account. I should also be paying an equal amount into that bank account.

The reality is that if I who would be having those things in surplus anyway get money on top it's not going to support the child. This is the case with many women and that's why they should also be paying child support.

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

All the money would go to an account in the child's name that the parents must justify the use of.

That's a terrible idea and very hard to implement. So if a mother brings the child to the doctor for some sort of issue, she should have to justify that? In order to do this she would have to prove she took the child to the doctor, and this sounds like an overstepping of the government that could easily violate someone's right to privacy. And will the father be told what she's spending the money on? If so, that's even more egregious. This is the type of idea that comes out of pure ideology IMO, without thinking about the real-life consequences of doing stuff like this and how hard (and costly) it would be to actually implement.

In my humble opinion you can't say child support should go to rent or food if you would be paying the same rent and food anyway.

Except children need space. It's not a matter of simply getting an apartment or house, size has a great impact on the cost. Also, when would a mother ever have a child and still need the same amount of food as if it was just her?

That's why both should be paying just as much child support.

The person who does not have custody of the child does not see the day-to-day costs. The person who does have custody of the child does see those day-to-day costs. When the child is with the mother most of the time, the mother will be paying much more in food for that child than the father will.

You get where I'm coming from?

Yes. I think your mind is in a good spot, but you are purely thinking about ideology. You need to think pragmatically about what you are saying and how it will impact the real world.

Since I can afford that I shouldn't be getting child support help to pay for what I can already easily provide.

Why are you buying food for 3 if it's just you?

The reality is that if I who would be having those things in surplus anyway get money on top it's not going to support the child.

The reality is that even if you could buy food for 3, you wouldn't if it was just you. You would only buy food for 3 if you actually needed food for 3. This is a rise in your costs, even if you could afford food for 3 all along.

What you are actually saying is that the only time the non-primary parent should have to pay anything is if the primary parent can't afford to pay for the child. So if the child costs $15,000 and the primary parent makes $15,000, the non-primary parent should have to pay $0 and the primary parent should have no money left for themselves at all. I see this as punishing the primary parent, and would lead to people not wanting to be primary parents, which is bad for everybody.

This is the case with many women and that's why they should also be paying child support.

I'd urge you to take a step back from the woman vs man narrative and look at it as primary parent vs non-primary parent. The real issue is that men can't become primary parents, or evenly shared parents, even if they want to because of the injustice against men in the judicial systems.

[–][deleted] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I've seen in fridges of people who live alone and there's easily food for three in most. Same with living space. Most people living alone, unless they're very poor, live in apartments with several rooms.

The amount of food a person has at any given time is really irrelevant. It's about the cost of replenishing the food. People tend to have more food than they need at any given time because they want options, and they want that food to last them more than a day.

Usually a child's necessities are covered and don't really incur any extra cost.

Not only is this usually not true, it's never true.

Also you can't forget that having a child around is first and foremost a privilege and not a cost.

First, it's obvious that having children around has a cost. Children are not free. Second, I have no problem with considering the ability to have a child around a privilege, but that's really irrelevant. Both mothers and fathers have an obligation to take care of the child whether they are around that child or not, as long as they have custody.

You're parting with some of your surplus, as you should, for the privilege of a child.

This is what happens when you think about equality between men and women without considering the child's rights. We should not discourage parents from wanting custody. It is being responsible to take care of your children. I actually think most fathers understand this, and the problem isn't that they are supporting their child but how much they have to give in which they feel the mother does not spend on the child. And this is why capping child support and introducing other child support reform would help. Child support is a very difficult topic to deal with, and I guarantee if we got into the details on this subreddit that MRA's would wildly disagree about how to reform child support.

You're parting with some of your surplus, as you should, for the privilege of a child.

Primary parents already do this for the most part.

[–]SigmundFloyd76 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FigNinja1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Into a limited-use account to ensure that the child's (supposed) entitlement to support from both parents was protected.

So lets say a mother has primary custody of the child, both the mother and father have to pay, say $10,000 per year to this child support account. But lets say the mother only makes $12,000 per year. She should not have $2,000 to live in while there is $20,000 earmarked for the child? It seems like this is bad for the mother, father, and child. I don't get how it's good for anybody.

By making both parents responsible for satisfying support orders in a verifiable way

You do realize that the primary parent has a lot more costs from things like school, so this is completely unnecessary, right?

you also remove the risk-free ability of custodial parents to exploit the current lack of protection to abusively inflate the ordered support.

This honestly tells me you don't understand how child support currently works at all. Women don't "exploit" child support in the way that you are saying. Sure, some say men are fathers that aren't actually fathers, but your idea doesn't solve that problem at all. And it's not the mothers that determine a child support need, it's the court that determines how much child support a father should pay.

These kinds of ideas that are frankly quite stupid do a lot of damage to the MRM. A feminist would point to your idea as being anti-woman, and they would have a point. You blame women for things they don't even do.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

As it stands now, a custodial parent can request a $20k support order with little risk of being held responsible for seeing that the child's needs are met (including even when the child's ordered support is paid).

Are we talking about a country outside of the USA? I can't speak for other countries, but in the USA primary parents do not request a support order of a specific amount, and I've never heard of a primary parent doing this in any country. Everything I know about the situation is that the court orders the custodial parent to pay a certain amount.

Tell that to my ex. Or anyone else who has a horror story from their lived experience.

So your ex took you to court for a specific amount, and the court made a decision of whether she should get child support or not based on the amount she requested? That seems bizarre. Are you absolutely sure the court didn't look at your income and determine the amount based on your income?

N.O.W. briefly had an outline of all the ways custodial parents can use the courts to harass and abuse a noncustodial parent... though couched in a gendered narrative as opposition to "Father's Rights" groups.

This has nothing to do with what I said.

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

[permanently deleted]

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

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

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

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

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

[–]thetruthbetold1 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (84 children) | Copy Link

Because children should be financially covered by both parents. I think when child support becomes too much it takes the financial responsibility off the parent with the child, which is why I'm for child support reform that would cap the child support, but I'm not for eliminating child support at all. From talking to other MRA's, most seem to be against eliminating child support completely.

Also, men and women both choose to have sex. A "consequence" (not necessarily negative or positive) of this is that the woman can get pregnant. Both parties know this. We should not relieve individuals of the financial burden by pushing the costs onto society.

This has a hint of abortion rights, so on abortion, women should be the sole decider on whether they get abortions or not. They carry the fetus/child and the risk is to their bodies. Men should not be playing roulette with a woman's body while ignoring her wishes.

[–]Adrelinen 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (83 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomjoads -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

[+]tomjoads -11 points-10 points-9 points 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[+]tomjoads -9 points-8 points-7 points 11 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[+]tomjoads -8 points-7 points-6 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

2:00 in and I already see massive problems with what she is saying.

To say that there isn't a push for men to prevent women from having abortions is absolutely false. There absolutely is that push, especially among pro-lifers. I'm not sure how she justifies denying that.

She groups some pretty reasonable arguments in with obviously ridiculous ones that have high emotion, so lets separate those.

About men having their choice when they had sex, this is actually a misrepresentation of the argument that men had a choice when they had sex. This is a subtle but important distinction, because she goes on to say these arguments don't seem to apply to women. But this absolutely does apply to women. Both men and women are taking risks and making decisions when they choose to have sex.

So that is a risk and decision we need to recognize that both sides have, and then move on to the issue of what happens when the woman actually gets pregnant.

Then she goes on to mention some options women have such as safe havens and adoption, but these are actually different issues. IMO, she unfairly groups many different issues together. Many of us who believe that women should have the right to abort and that men shouldn't have any say over it don't also believe these other things are right, so she's not talking about how abortion is currently wrong as much as she is talking about how these other issues are wrong. This is just like when people argue in favor of marijuana and point out it's less harmful for you than cigarettes, but that isn't necessarily a pro-marijuana argument as it could very well be an anti-cigarette argument.

So that's my first 2:00 of the video, and I'm going to stop because this is already getting long.

[–]Adrelinen 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]tomjoads-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomjoads-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]tomjoads0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomjoads0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]tomjoads0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]khal534 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]khal534 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]atheist4thecause -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

So women are allowed choose to abort, but men have to face the consequences?

The decision to have children does not start with the decision to abort or not. It starts with decision to have sex. So yes, if men have sex and the consequence of that (which many men would consider a positive consequence btw) is having a child, both parents should be responsible. In regards to the separate issue of abortion, women should not be held hostage to pregnancy that could literally kill them, and men should not have a say on what level of risk of issues women should take on.

Even if the woman lies to him about birth control?

These are the types of arguments feminists make IMO. If you want to make lying about birth control illegal, then I would consider that reasonable, but even if a woman lies the man still makes decisions to protect themselves or not, which ways they protect themselves, how much they have sex, etc. The child (which is the part you seem to fail to look at) needs to be financially supported, and the child should not be punished for the woman lying about being on birth control.

Even if she actively steals his semen

This is slightly different, because the man is not making a decision here, so I see it as reasonable for the man to be able to cut ties with all of it. She's basically using him as her personal sperm bank at that point.

Even if she rapes him?

See above. The man doesn't have a choice here, so I see it as reasonable for the man to be able to cut ties in these cases.

Each gender should have the same level of rights when it comes to abortion.

Absolutely not. Men and women are not the same, and men and women do not take on equal risks during pregnancy.

While men shouldn't be able to force a woman to abort

So then you agree that men and women should not have the same level of rights when it comes to abortion.

they should be able to financially remove themselves from a child who they don't wish to have

In cases of stolen semen and rape, I agree. I think both of those are breaking the law (I'm not sure what the stolen semen falls under if anything), and both of those remove the decision from the man, but both of those are also pretty rare and much different than the norm so they shouldn't be grouped in with general rights of abortion and father obligation.

Also, in these cases I think fathers should be able to do more than financially remove themselves. They should be able to completely cut ties with the child, and in fact, if they choose custody of the child then I think they should have a financial obligation to that child because they then made a choice.

[–]MRMRising 8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

False, here in the USA the Rowe vs. Wade decision has separated the decision to have sex from the decision to have a child. Also, Roe vs. Wade is a Gender neutral decision, its about the legal right to chose, the medical procedure of abortion.

This is legal, and I was talking socially. I'll modify my statement slightly if it makes you happy, though. When men and women have sex they are making a decision to take on the risk of having a child, and with that, they take on the responsibilities if they actually have the child.

I'm not a lawyer, but this is what Wikipedia says on the decision:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), is a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court on the issue of abortion. Decided simultaneously with a companion case, Doe v. Bolton, the Court ruled 7–2 that a right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman's decision to have an abortion, but that this right must be balanced against the state's two legitimate interests in regulating abortions: protecting prenatal life and protecting women's health. Arguing that these state interests became stronger over the course of a pregnancy, the Court resolved this balancing test by tying state regulation of abortion to the third trimester of pregnancy.

So how would you counter that claim by Wikipedia?

EDIT: Let me add this: Even if you completely convinced me that legally men and women should be able to decide over if a woman should get an abortion or not, all you would have convinced me of is that the current way the government looks at abortion is wrong. It wouldn't change my stance one bit on how the government should handle these things and the rights women should have.

[–]Druk0ziz 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]MRMRising 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Druk0ziz 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]khal534 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]khal534 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago* (8 children) | Copy Link

The decision to have children does not start with the decision to abort or not. It starts with decision to have sex. So yes, if men have sex and the consequence of that (which many men would consider a positive consequence btw) is having a child, both parents should be responsible. In regards to the separate issue of abortion, women should not be held hostage to pregnancy that could literally kill them, and men should not have a say on what level of risk of issues women should take on.

Then women should have no right to contraception and abortion post-conception, to be on equal footing with men.

Keep your legs closed works for one: works for all, or none. No double standard.

They should be able to completely cut ties with the child, and in fact, if they choose custody of the child then I think they should have a financial obligation to that child because they then made a choice.

This makes no sense. Please reformulate.

Also, men should be able to refuse to support a kid regardless of what mom says. Regardless of how the sperm was obtained. The only thing I could say would be an exception is the father being the genitor (no being deceived into it) and taking an active "fatherly role" and being accepted as such by the mother. THEN he can't opt out, but that's after birth. If she wants him out of the kid's life (to raise the kid alone), she can't make him pay.

[+]atheist4thecause -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SchalaZeal01 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[+]atheist4thecause -6 points-5 points-4 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Adrelinen 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]atheist4thecause -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

A surprising amount to unpack there. I have an issue with this idea of consenting to parenthood. It's kind of looking at the problem backwards. If a woman gets pregnant, by default the man and woman would become parents. So they really shouldn't have to opt-in, they should have to opt-out.

I think we are having differences in the details more than the overall concepts to be honest. I actually disagree with how things are done right now. I think the man should have stronger rights from the beginning. A mother should not be allowed to give the child up for adoption or to the state without the father's consent.

Your framing just seems so backwards. You say a woman chose not to abort but I say a woman didn't choose to abort. Why would aborting be the default action?

I think in your argument for equality between the mother and father for an equal right to choose really loses sense of practicality. It's like you think we should assume people won't keep their child, and make people go out of their way in order to keep it. That goes back to how you frame a woman not aborting as an actual decision to consent. What if she said neither abort nor have the child? What if she contemplated the decision until she got too far along and abortion would have been illegal? You say that position is actually consenting to have the child.

I might have more opinions on this but it's late and I'm tired so I'm going to stop here.

EDIT: What's interesting is that your position seems more egalitarian, where you are treating men and women as the same. But men and women are not the same. Women carry the children. Should she not have more rights based around the pregnancy because of that?

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

If a woman gets pregnant, by default the man and woman would become parents.

No, by default the woman becomes a parent and the man is treated like an unnecessary piggy bank worth no more than his wallet.

So they really shouldn't have to opt-in, they should have to opt-out.

And when one fails to opt-out the other shouldn't be held responsible. It is the responsibility of the one that didn't opt-out.

I think the man should have stronger rights from the beginning. A mother should not be allowed to give the child up for adoption or to the state without the father's consent.

I agree that Men need to have more rights when it comes to children and parenthood. Right now the system is woefully stacked in favor of women.

Your framing just seems so backwards. You say a woman chose not to abort but I say a woman didn't choose to abort.

This is just semantic nonsense. If I chose not to eat breakfast then I am hungry, If I didn't choose to eat breakfast then I am hungry. Either way the consequences remain the same and I am the one responsible for making the choices about my body and it's nutrition.

Why would aborting be the default action?

Aborting would not be the "default action" it would be the action necessary for the woman to opt-out. If she brings the child into this world she is responsible for it.

I think in your argument for equality between the mother and father for an equal right to choose really loses sense of practicality.

Interesting, because I find that your argument does the same.

It's like you think we should assume people won't keep their child, and make people go out of their way in order to keep it.

This is incorrect. Let's break this down again:

If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't then the woman simply has the child and man signs paperwork terminating his rights.
If the woman doesn't want the child then she has an abortion or she works out a deal with the man to arrange a situation of mutual benefit.
If the woman wants the child and the man wants the child, then nothing happens they just have the child.

No work is necessary outside of the norm. I feel I in no way implied otherwise.

That goes back to how you frame a woman not aborting as an actual decision to consent.

Finally an accurate representation of my viewpoint.

What if she said neither abort nor have the child?

This is nonsense. An invalid option. The child will either be born or it will not. More nonsense semantics.

What if she contemplated the decision until she got too far along and abortion would have been illegal? You say that position is actually consenting to have the child.

Yes, going back to my breakfast example: If I chose not to have breakfast I would be hungry, if I simply waited around all morning and had to leave I would be hungry. The circumstances of the choice do not matter. There are two binary choices: Either I eat or I do not eat. A choice to do neither is meaningless as the consequences are exactly the same to the latter.

EDIT: What's interesting is that your position seems more egalitarian, where you are treating men and women as the same. But men and women are not the same. Women carry the children. Should she not have more rights based around the pregnancy because of that?

She does have more rights based around the pregnancy it's called abortion and birth control.

[–]atheist4thecause-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, by default the woman becomes a parent and the man is treated like an unnecessary piggy bank worth no more than his wallet.

Way to take what I said out of context to further your agenda. My biggest frustration with the MRM, and I'm sure feminists feel this too, is that too often emotion is injected into the conversation over dealing with the issues, just as you did here.

And when one fails to opt-out the other shouldn't be held responsible.

Yes, they should. Your way just leads to a lot of children left unpaid for, which makes no sense.

It is the responsibility of the one that didn't opt-out.

I disagree. You look at having a child as a right, but I look at it like an obligation. You are promoting irresponsibility, and punishing the child for the mother's and father's bad decisions.

I agree that Men need to have more rights when it comes to children and parenthood. Right now the system is woefully stacked in favor of women.

We're not talking about how it is right now because we agree the system needs changing. I proposed changes. Deal with them.

This is just semantic nonsense. If I chose not to eat breakfast then I am hungry, If I didn't choose to eat breakfast then I am hungry. Either way the consequences remain the same and I am the one responsible for making the choices about my body and it's nutrition.

There is actually a difference in how you think of the problem, which is why you don't like me wording it the way I did. There is absolutely no doubt that when a woman gets pregnant from having sex with a man, the two of them become parents biologically speaking. The child will have traits from both parents.

Interesting, because I find that your argument does the same.

Well, you didn't explain how it does so. Apparently, you think it's impractical for parents to financially cover their children.

Aborting would not be the "default action" it would be the action necessary for the woman to opt-out. If she brings the child into this world she is responsible for it.

Well, it's pretty easy to see how a woman having to abort a child in order to opt-out is not equal to a man getting to opt-out simply with papers. And you claim you want equality...It feels more like an agenda to rid fathers of responsibility.

If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't then the woman simply has the child and man signs paperwork terminating his rights.

This has many practical problems such as finding the father in time before an abortion can even happen.

If the woman doesn't want the child then she has an abortion or she works out a deal with the man to arrange a situation of mutual benefit.

It sounds like the woman is doing a lot compared to the man.

If the woman wants the child and the man wants the child, then nothing happens they just have the child.

And what if the man changes his mind?

No work is necessary outside of the norm. I feel I in no way implied otherwise.

So you think abortion is within the norm? It's pretty clear that your way puts a lot more on the woman than the man. I thought you were for equality? And btw, you forgot to think about the child.

Finally an accurate representation of my viewpoint.

Except women don't naturally abort. That is outside the biological norm, and it even causes psychological trauma.

This is nonsense. An invalid option. The child will either be born or it will not. More nonsense semantics.

The answer is simple: If the woman chooses neither to have the child or have an abortion (maybe she didn't even know she was pregnant, and yes, that does happen), she will have the child. A choice of no action is not an invalid option.

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

More nonsense. Highlights include:

Strike 1: Birth being an obligation. Being pro-life doesn't make you an MRM just because that puts you at odds with a commonly feminist view point.
Strike 2: Thinking that you can just ignore my opinion and that I should just accept your opinion verbatim.

See quote:

We're not talking about how it is right now because we agree the system needs changing. I proposed changes. Deal with them.

Note: You get a double penalty for being an intellectual moron. The system as it stands now does in fact matter. If you do not know how the system is you will not know the best changes to be made. But I'm sure you're afraid that people will come to realize the system favors women over men.

Strike 3: The "but birth is so hard on women and makes me make lots of sadface" argument.

Falls into the category of irrelevancy, the woman is pregnant, she now has a choice she can make. We are assuming she is a mature and capable adult who has the best interest of the child in mind. Forcing her to have a child she cannot support because she is "obligated too" is stupid and the only thing harmful to the child proposed so far (and it was done so by you). You further support your argument for harming the child by supposing it's okay because the woman's psychological well being is more important than bringing a child into this world where it cannot be properly cared for. The woman is an adult, seek help and deal with it there are many resources for women in this regard.

Strike 4: The "but the woman has to work so hard!" argument.

It sounds like the woman is doing a lot compared to the man.

The woman is the vessel carrying the child, this is a natural consequence. You sound very much like a feminist in the fact that seem ignore biological circumstances.

Women are women this is not men's fault. We cannot and should not be punished for the fact that they menstruate, are child bearers, or go through menopause. It is not our fault we did not make them. All the natural biological work involved by women in pregnancy is therefore irrelevant in the terms of this argument. Not to mention she would undergo significantly less danger by aborting the child than by carrying it to term.

Strike 5: The "but what if X irrelevant thing happens after the fact".

Stupid question, if it occurs after the fact then it is dealt with after the fact.

Namely, I'm pointing to this pointless line of questioning likely intended to make men seem untrustworthy.

My quote:

If the woman wants the child and the man wants the child, then nothing happens they just have the child.

Your response:

And what if the man changes his mind?

Obviously a stupid question. The issue of consent would only apply to the initial birth, we do not (even now though you wish to be blissfully ignorant of the current situation) have a system in which the man can just throw a child away after a time with it has passed (even if it is a result of adultery). This is already dictated by law.

Strike 6: Flawed logic about women being innocent of all wrong doing.

If the woman chooses neither to have the child or have an abortion (maybe she didn't even know she was pregnant, and yes, that does happen), she will have the child. A choice of no action is not an invalid option.

The hilarity of your hypocrisy is priceless. One moment its "Sex gets people pregnant and you should accept that" and then the next its "She didn't know sex would get her pregnant!". Furthermore, she does have many actions she could:

Take responsibility for her own bodily functions: By taking Birth Control, and pregnancy test if she is sexually active.

Just as the man should be responsible for following up with those he had sex with to make sure they are not carrying his child.

[–]atheist4thecause0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That wouldn't make sense. You said "Having a child" not "taking care of a child".

Lol. You love your semantic arguments. Read the surrounding conversation. If you want to talk about real issues I'm down with that, but I'm not going to play these semantic games with you. Make your decision on whether you want to continue this conversation or not.

If having a child in your care is an obligation and not a right then what about child abusers? Rapists? Murderers?

What the hell are you talking about? Not only have you misrepresented what I said, I specifically cleared up for you what I meant. What you are doing right here is why many people have a tough time taking the MRM seriously.

I'm just seeing lots of bullshit with this.

That's because you are injecting the bullshit into the conversation purposefully to make a point.

You're butted that' by saying having a child is an obligation not a right.

For the final time, I was talking about being financially responsible for that child. Why are you so desperate to hang onto how things were worded if you have a good point?

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Lol. You love your semantic arguments. Read the surrounding conversation. If you want to talk about real issues I'm down with that, but I'm not going to play these semantic games with you. Make your decision on whether you want to continue this conversation or not.

You sir are the one playing semantics, which you did from the get go.

If having a child in your care is an obligation and not a right then what about child abusers? Rapists? Murderers?

I misrepresented nothing, I linked to an image of the post and the content inside. Repeatedly I stated that we were discussing the consequences of an abortion (i.e. No child would be there to be taken care of). You never said anything along the lines of "I'm sorry, that isn't what I meant. I was implying that in the situation that a child is born it is an obligation to take care of it.", instead you pussy footed around the issue and denied that you said it all.

For the final time, I was talking about being financially responsible for that child. Why are you so desperate to hang onto how things were worded if you have a good point?

Fine, I accept that your statement was poorly worded and the statement didn't clearly represent what you believed and I apologize for my negative reaction.

We should be more succinct about this my point is as follows:

There are three groups involved in the childbirth process, each of which has varying responsibilities and roles.

Women:

Are the only ones capable of ensuring a child who cannot be cared for does not enter the world. Even if both parents are on good terms, only she can make this decision. She is unopposed in deciding whether the child will be delivered or not.
Are able to use a variety of birth control methods from Injections, Pills, and Intrauterine Devices to Tubal Ligation. The length-of-effect varies from 8 weeks to 5 years while Tubal Ligation is permanent.

http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/contraception-guide/pages/which-method-suits-me.aspx

If they find themselves in an unexpected pregnancy (perhaps their birth control failed, a condom broke, they forgot to take their birth control) they have three options for the child:

A) Abortion The child is not born, no one to take care of. This could be limited through support via the man or the government so long as it is reasonable and the woman pays her half.

B) Adoption The child becomes a ward of the state. The woman is absolved of legal responsibility and rights regarding the child and doesn't have to pay a dime. This however, accrues a debt to the state. The man holds no ability to prevent this (indeed it can happen and has happened many times without male consent, as you noted). I believe in this case the woman should have to pay the state as she did choose to have the child. Though I would a small charge to the male though nowhere near half as he did not have an opportunity to stop the birth.

C) Keep the child, Get child support from the father In this situation the woman keeps the child. In this situation she has neglected to utilize both of her options to forgo parenthood. The man has had no say in either of her choices and in many cases isn't even able to visit the child much less be given primary custody. In this situation it is not unreasonable for the father to want to be abandon the situation, in a way he is being robbed of not only he child but his livelihood.

Summary of Women's Situation: While they have the natural biological repercussions of their choices to deal with, these are not the cause of the man. Furthermore, a simple google search results in a myriad of help clinics, abortion counselors, and state funded aid groups all willing to assist her with any of her choices.

Men:

Due to biological dimorphism are unable to affect the birth process. This means they have zero say in the birth of the child. Regardless of whether or not they wanted it.
Have only two options in the form of birth control: Condoms which are too often linked to unexpected pregnancy, and Vasectomies which are not as of now reliably reversible.
In the event of an unexpected pregnancy they have no options. If the woman has the child they will pay, if the woman doesn't have the child they will not. If the woman has the child she can give it up to the state and leave the man to fend for himself in terms of getting his child.

Summary of men's situation: Men are unable to alter, prevent, or separate from the pregnancy at any time even if he knows he is unable to support a child financially. Furthermore, reproductive controls are limited and do not guarantee a pregnancy will not occur. This leaves the man with no options if the child is born especially in cases where the woman uses the child against him or was an abusive partner the man is essentially trapped. There are little to no aid groups willing to help him, he will likely be looked upon as a dead beat and if he is unable to pay the money she demands it will likely result in his imprisonment, revocation of his drivers license, and the neutering of his ability to procure gainful employment.

Government:

Funded by the tax payers, it is best to keep intervention and bureaucracy to a minimum as a long with them comes costs to the the tax payers.
Children given to the government may never find nurturing homes, being an adopted child myself (My situation is slightly more complicated making it not so relevant here) I understand the fear of not having someone to love and take care of you.

Summary of Goverment's Situation: Exists solely as an intermediary with the purpose of assisting those unable to care for themselves. It's desires coincide with reducing the burden on the state at all costs, even if it means a man pay's for a child that isn't his, or is jailed for outrages child support fees that he can't afford.

I advocate that:

A man should be able to "abort" legally. In this way he will sacrifice parental rights in order to forgo the legal ramifications of a child he is unable to support. This should happen before the child is born, finding out whether the woman became pregnant should be his responsibility and if the woman fails to respond to his inquiries (Dodging his calls, ignoring his voice mails, not answering her door) he should be allowed his legal abortion.

In the event that the two are unable to establish communication (e.g. She lost her phone, moved, etc.) then both should be required to pay child support. The joint account would garnish both of their wages equally and both would be given Default Shared Custody. This ensures a fair and equal time with both parents.

Theoretically this results in:

Less children being born into situations where the are not being taken care of as:

Women will be unable to leech of a man who has no say.
The well being of the child will be placed first and consideration of whether or not birthing the child is wise will be considered.

Less men being imprisoned for a situation they may have acted in all their power to prevent:

Child support will not be demanded from men who cannot pay it.
Establishing parental rights from the get go ensures that the father either has fair visitation (which has been shown to vastly increase the participation of fathers) or is able to forgo a situation he is simply incapable of assisting with.

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We have a few major differences. I think sex is a part of the birth process, you don't. You also seem to be tallying up that women have this and this and men only have this so women have like 6 options and men only have 3. I really don't see that as that relevant, and I think you have failed to show how allowing both sides to wash their hands of any responsibility of the child leads to a good thing for society. I've also already explained how I think men should have more say over adoption, and I'm against men having to pay for children that aren't theirs.

As for men being able to "abort" legally, you again claim he's sacrificing parental rights. What he's really doing is dumping parental duties. This is one of my biggest sticking points with other people in the MRM.

As for shared custody, there are many cases where shared custody doesn't work well, and this is something other MRA's won't admit.

This ensures a fair and equal time with both parents.

This really sums up why your whole thought process is wrong. All you care about is equality between the mother and father. You aren't considering what is best for the child one bit. I grew up in shared custody. It's very difficult on all parties. The children are constantly being pulled in many directions, and it leads to children not feeling like they belong anywhere. When children live with one parent over the other, they gain a sense of belonging.

In my situation, I used to get picked up every Tuesday, Thursday, and every other weekend. Then it become every weekend, because my father and mother lived 45 minutes away after moving. That was hard on my brother and I going every weekend 45 minutes there and then 45 minutes back. Eventually it became every other weekend. But you don't think about the child. All you see are hours spent together.

Less children being born into situations where the are not being taken care of as:

Your idea doesn't do this at all. Your idea will result in fathers "aborting" their rights away, which will cause mothers to abort their rights away because they don't want to pay for the child themselves, and more children will be left without parents. This is quite easy to see.

Less men being imprisoned for a situation they may have acted in all their power to prevent:

We could just stop putting men in jail for not paying child support, because that hurts all parties involved. Children can't see their fathers, mothers definitely won't get child support when the fathers are in jail, and fathers won't be able to better themselves while in jail.

[–]TomwaIvory2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

We have a few major differences.

Yeah I think we established that ;)

All you care about is equality between the mother and father. I don't understand why you have to be so outwardly hostile in your reply. This is both unnecessary and hostile, I do care about the children I do understand the consequences of child birth which is why I think we should support a system that encourages people to consider the situation they're bringing a child into.

That being said I will now address your points as reasonably as possible.

I think sex is a part of the birth process, you don't.

You are correct, we have myriads of ways to control pregnancy through prevention and abortion. Not only that what about sex between people who are infertile or who have undergone sterilization such as Tubal Ligation or a Vasectomy? Sex can be about many things, sexual pleasure, dominance, even deep seated emotional issues and traumas. I don't find it fair to claim it's only for making babies, I mean after all if that was all it was for why even have birth control at all?

That being said, as adults we must of course accept that their are consequences to are actions. If we have sex and something happens (and stuff does happen) their could be a pregnancy. At that point the parents each should have some way of handling their consent to parenthood. A mother has the ability to say "This child cannot be cared for and therefore it should not be born." because of this it is essential that we establish the father's consent before the child is born.

As it stands many men don't pay child support even if they can this happens for a multitude of reasons ranging from disdain to the mother to pure unadulterated greed, this doesn't mean we can ignore this about current system though. My sister should receive child support from her wealthy ex but does not she therefore cannot take care of her child without government aid which is becoming harder and hard to receive.

We have a flawed system in which regardless of the father's ability many children go uncared for, this is unacceptable and many of these children will become indefinite wards of the state, holding resentment towards men, women, and even society as whole. This is not an outcome we desire.

I've also already explained how I think men should have more say over adoption, and I'm against men having to pay for children that aren't theirs.

I acknowledged this and didn't state otherwise, my pointing that out was purely for informational purposes we aren't the only ones here after all. I have it in good faith that you do in fact believe both of those statements.

This ensures a fair and equal time with both parents.

This really sums up why your whole thought process is wrong. All you care about is equality between the mother and father.

This is not true, I care greatly about children and I live closely with my nieces and nephew many of which lack a mother or father in their life. You can tell how it damages them emotionally and mentally. Fair time with both parents is in the best interest of the child and the parent. It has repeatedly been shown that time with your father imbues discipline, and ensures a mentally sound individual. This is not just in terms of

"Four years later, those who had lived 30% time with their fathers were better off on all measures of emotional, psychological and behavioral well-being." http://www.acfc.org/acfc/assets/documents/Articles/Nebraska%20Lawyer%20Magazine.pdf

The overnights are important as well, visitation is not enough: "Overnights did not benefit or cause distress to the toddlers and benefited the 4 to 6 year olds." According the Yale Study. Same link see resource 12.

Every counter point to these arguments relies on one thing: Hostility between the parents. This is again something I believe will be reduced by my proposal. It ensures only those who want to be parents and are willing to risk their livelihoods to do so are able to.

When children live with one parent over the other, they gain a sense of belonging. What they get is a parent (usually father) who feel distances and shut out, this increases the likelihood of the father abandoning his child, creating a traumatic environment for the child. Additionally the benefits of watching a male role model are lost if he's only picking his son up every other weekend. It is unfair to the man, and the child.

Men are important, they must be included in their child's life just as mothers are.

In my situation, I used to get picked up every Tuesday, Thursday, and every other weekend. Then it become every weekend, because my father and mother lived 45 minutes away after moving. That was hard on my brother and I going every weekend 45 minutes there and then 45 minutes back.

I find it interesting you didn't complain about getting picked up regularly, you only complained about the drive after the visits became less frequent. While I understand that having separated parents is hard, you must understand that many children would kill just to be able to see their father much less go to his house. You're very lucky just for having a father involved at all much less one that loved you enough to put up with the distance, and the reduce time with you. Many fathers back off when they feel they aren't important, the visits are few and far between, they don't even really know him. It's heartbreaking to watch.

But you don't think about the child. All you see are hours spent together.

Again more accusations that I don't care about children or am unwilling to consider their well being, why is it so hard for you to believe that spending time with a father is just as important as spending time with their mother?

Your idea doesn't do this at all. Your idea will result in fathers "aborting" their rights away, which will cause mothers to abort their rights away because they don't want to pay for the child themselves, and more children will be left without parents. This is quite easy to see.

Clearly I disagree, as it is now we have a system that encourages women to burden the state, if we motivate crime it becomes a problem. We have made it easy for them: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052749/Our-Shameless-society-How-welfare-state-created-age-entitlement.html

The safety net is flawed and has become one of laziness especially for females who can abuse it simply by having a child and exiling the father. Furthermore, I would like to note that all of my options take place prior to birth (excluding women abandoning their child to the state), this means no father would be dropping his rights after the birth, in order for this to be possible we must ensure that fathers are given equal opportunity to participate in their childs life so that supporting them doesn't become something the father regrets.

We could just stop putting men in jail for not paying child support, because that hurts all parties involved. Children can't see their fathers, mothers definitely won't get child support when the fathers are in jail, and fathers won't be able to better themselves while in jail.

And nobody will pay child support at all have you even questioned why they put this in place at all? We have to tackle the problem at the root: Fathers are being alienated from their children, and women are birthing children that neither party can care for.

[–]atheist4thecause1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Except trading one's time and labor for money (to support an unwanted child) is not a risk-free enterprise, either.

And women are expected to do this as well, with or without children. Men more often choose more dangerous jobs, just as women more often choose jobs that pay less.

The extreme gender inequality in work-related fatalities,

Which is created by a man's choice of work. My father worked construction, a relatively dangerous job, because he liked it. He was good at it. He wanted to take the risk.

when stacked together make nonconsensual parenthood for slightly more deadly for men than for women.

Sometimes we have obligations we don't like such as taxes. Children aren't always unwanted, but for the men that have children and don't want them the costs of the child are obligations much like taxes. I don't see a problem with that, because allowing men out of this obligation hurts the child. An abortion does not hurt the child because the child never existed.

Btw, you are pushing this men vs women narrative. As I've said before, the problem is not that the non-primary parent has to pay child support, it's that the courts are slanted in favor of making women the primary parents even when the men want to be the primary parents. Solving this issue will cause child support to be paid more equally towards men and women.

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

[permanently deleted]

[–]atheist4thecause 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Many women feel an "expectation" to have children as well. Presumably you see the nonsense in handwaving away a personn's choice on having children with "well, we expect that it's something you would do anyway".

Let me ask you this: Are you claiming that men choose dangerous jobs because they get a women pregnant?

nd the gender inequality in workplace fatalities can also be attributed to women over competing for the "safe" jobs. Men might "choose" a potentially deadly job over poverty (particularly wiyh all those "expectations" you mentioned), but many would choose a less dirty/dangerous/demanding job...

You basically admitted my point. Men choose a dangerous job over poverty and women choose poverty over a dangerous job. That's basically what you just said.

Women who intentionally bring an unwanted child into the world when they know they lack the resources to support it should be met with condemnation

Another way of saying this is women who choose the dangers of pregnancy over the dangers of abortion to her. Also, you are free to condemn the mother of your children for keeping instead of aborting all you want, but she should not be forced legally to abort because she doesn't have the money to pay for the child. That's what we call a genocide, especially because it would unfairly target minority groups, and I'm pretty sure it would be internationally illegal. Our country would literally take a political hit for this kind of action, and would have humans rights watchdogs all over us as a country.

People respond to economic incentives. Remove the ability to effect an exploitive transfer of wealth via unblanced custody demands and the problem begins to fix itself.

Or you know, cap child support with child support reform instead of encouraging both sides not to keep their children. After all, that's what you want, right? You want the ability to wash your hands of your children because you will then have more money, an economic incentive. That doesn't make it morally right.

[–]registereduser2 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments