Personal thoughts on abortion and parenthood

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6
 

Gethsemani:

Bentusi16:

As for forced child support, there's an easy solution to that (most cases, I'll get to that in a moment.) Don't have sex. Don't be an idiot. Don't do one night stands. Use protection. For Christ sakes, know the person well before you do. When you have sex, guys and girls, you're making a choice that can change your life drastically. Men are just as responsible and liable in that act. If you chose to have sex with a woman and understand the potential that she could become pregnant, that's your choice. That's your problem. I have no sympathy for men who complain about that. You made a choice. Deal with it.

Again, this shifts TOTAL RESPONSIBILITY to the male; the female is stripped of any responsibility for her actions and is allowed (and actively encouraged by society) to set responsibility fully on the male; this is wrong.

Pay attention to what you're saying please.

Surely, that's not what he is saying. The woman is still just as responsible for becoming pregnant as the man is that made her pregnant. While the man has to pay child support, the woman has to actively take care of a child at great expense to her own personal freedom for at least 18 years to come. I'd call taking care of a child a pretty big responsibility and doing so because you had unprotected casual sex should probably be the posterchild for "taking responsibility for your mistakes".

You have misunderstood me.

What I'm trying to say is that in reality the responsibility is equal. Both sides are equally guilty of doing something stupid.

But what you and others have said overwhelmingly is that it is the mans fault that the woman got pregnant. It's on the male not to have sex, not the woman. yes, she's got responsibilities to the child as well, but as far as society and many people are concerned it's the guys fault the situation occurred in the first place.

As always, reverse the situation: A man is left with a child he wanted but the woman didn't. How many women are going to be paying child support in this case?

How many men ARE paying child support in this case?

Admittedly, the woman can just have an abortion before the child is born, but that's not an option for the man is it?

In fact, perhaps my point is that the woman has the ability to wipe away all responsibility but a minor fiscal payment through an abortion. She has the ability to do that. The man does not, in any way, have that ability.

Gethsemani:

chaosord:

If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

What you are saying is, "For every month that baby was in her body, she should get two years of payments from the man who put it there. Even if it was her choice to leave it there and even though she choose to take on the responsibility of being a single parent instead of giving up that right. BECAUSE, DAMN IT, SHE WANTS TO BE A MOMMY EVEN IF SHE CAN'T AFFORD IT! BECAUSE SHE'S A WOMAN, DAMN IT!"

Sorry but that just doesn't fly with me.

It doesn't fly with you because you fail to realize that for every year the man pays child support the woman is raising a child. I pointed this out before and you didn't address it then either. There are plenty of reasons to not have an abortion (medical, ethical, religious, conscience-based) or want to adopts away a baby. You are, once again, belittling the emotional duress a woman is under when she finds out that she is unwanted pregnant. You are failing to realize just how hard many of these choices (abortion, adoption, keeping a baby) are really hard, especially in a society which loves to compare abortion to murder and adoption/leaving the baby in a foster home as proof you are a bad mother (and in extension a bad woman) on top of the stigma of having your baby taken care off by the authorities.

Instead, you are bemoaning that the man has to take a financial responsibility for a child he helped conceived and continually paint the mother out as "too weak" to do what has to do if she suffers an unwanted pregnancy. The fact that you had to make a massive strawman about "female superiority" in all caps instead of addressing the argument just really shows the extent of your misogynism; failing completely to understand the situation of the mother because the man is inconvenienced by having to take responsibility.

Found this post on reddit, its kind of where I am coming from here, "

Easy.
Women already have the right to abandon children under Safe Haven laws, of which all 50 states recognize - that a woman with a child can simply drop off her baby somewhere and walk away from it, without being required to inform the father.
One solution would be to allow the father to opt out in the exact same manner.
Regardless of the morality of child abandonment, it still remains an option for a woman to say, after birth, "I do not wish to be a mother," and have the law reinforce and support that choice. An option that men do not have, which cannot be explained away by a simple statement of "biology isn't fair."
Understand, nobody is forcing the woman to become a mother. She has every choice, every step of the way, even after the child is born. Abortion, adoption, abandonment, etc.
Extend just a sliver of that choice to men who truly do not want to be fathers, and you've got a fair way to give him 50% choice without affecting the mother's right to choice.

"

chaosord:
Found this post on reddit, its kind of where I am coming from here, "

Easy.
Women already have the right to abandon children under Safe Haven laws, of which all 50 states recognize - that a woman with a child can simply drop off her baby somewhere and walk away from it, without being required to inform the father.
One solution would be to allow the father to opt out in the exact same manner.
Regardless of the morality of child abandonment, it still remains an option for a woman to say, after birth, "I do not wish to be a mother," and have the law reinforce and support that choice. An option that men do not have, which cannot be explained away by a simple statement of "biology isn't fair."
Understand, nobody is forcing the woman to become a mother. She has every choice, every step of the way, even after the child is born. Abortion, adoption, abandonment, etc.
Extend just a sliver of that choice to men who truly do not want to be fathers, and you've got a fair way to give him 50% choice without affecting the mother's right to choice.

"

Sure it's "easy," after you've gone through the nine months of frequent doctor visits, ultrasounds, prenatal vitamins, changed diet, limited lifestyle, missing work, and classes and educational materials for those who have never been a mother before. Pregnancy is neither "easy" nor inexpensive.

CityofTreez:
I'm fine with pro-choice up until the first heart beat. After that, I don't think it should be legal. (Expect special circumstance)

This, but with with the cut off point of "When the fetus can feel pain" rather than "first heartbeat." Reason being that is (IMO) much easier to argue for it to be illegal when it can feel pain, but that it can be argued for it to be the womans choice before it can feel pain. This way, it is more humane for both sides because it still allows choice, but will keep the unborn from feeling pain. And its at least a month in, so you should know by then that you were pregnant and had it taken care of already. The only reason it can be justified is if will kill the mother to give birth, but I realise that that is a moral tightrope, and I think it can be sumed up by saying "would you rather take the chance that BOTH the mother and child die to try and make the child live, or will you kill the child to save the mothers life?" to which I take the second option, but I realise that some may disagree.

Lilani:

chaosord:
Found this post on reddit, its kind of where I am coming from here, "

Easy.
Women already have the right to abandon children under Safe Haven laws, of which all 50 states recognize - that a woman with a child can simply drop off her baby somewhere and walk away from it, without being required to inform the father.
One solution would be to allow the father to opt out in the exact same manner.
Regardless of the morality of child abandonment, it still remains an option for a woman to say, after birth, "I do not wish to be a mother," and have the law reinforce and support that choice. An option that men do not have, which cannot be explained away by a simple statement of "biology isn't fair."
Understand, nobody is forcing the woman to become a mother. She has every choice, every step of the way, even after the child is born. Abortion, adoption, abandonment, etc.
Extend just a sliver of that choice to men who truly do not want to be fathers, and you've got a fair way to give him 50% choice without affecting the mother's right to choice.

"

Sure it's "easy," after you've gone through the nine months of frequent doctor visits, ultrasounds, prenatal vitamins, changed diet, limited lifestyle, missing work, and classes and educational materials for those who have never been a mother before. Pregnancy is neither "easy" nor inexpensive.

Its someone's reply to another person on the subject. I don't quote mine so I left that in there. The main point still stands. I do believe the context was on fixing the double standard.

chaosord:
Its someone's reply to another person on the subject. I don't quote mine so I left that in there. The main point still stands. I do believe the context was on fixing the double standard.

It isn't "quote mining" if I'm taking something you said you agreed with and pairing it with an opinion you expressed previously (not approving of abortions of convenience).

In the context of your conversation with Gethsemani, I do agree with Geth. You can't say, "If the woman can't pay for the child, she could have chosen to not have sex" and then not apply the same to the man. At that point, both have made the same decision. What happens then is equally their doing. And as with anything else in life, if they disagree with what happens next they go to court. And no matter how much you try to ignore it, you cannot deny that the amount of money and time the woman puts into the child by raising it is MUCH more costly than the man's investment. You can't say it's a "double standard" when it all started with the same, consensual decision.

Again, child support is for the benefit of the child. Denying the money is punishing the child as much as the woman, I said that before, and that is a point you continue to avoid addressing in this whole thing. When it comes to abortion you are so concerned about punishing the child for the woman's desires, but when it comes to the man's desires suddenly it's alright to punish the child.

So if you're going to continue with this line of argument in regard to child support, you're going to have to explain how it's not punishing the child.

Lilani:

chaosord:
Its someone's reply to another person on the subject. I don't quote mine so I left that in there. The main point still stands. I do believe the context was on fixing the double standard.

It isn't "quote mining" if I'm taking something you said you agreed with and pairing it with an opinion you expressed previously (not approving of abortions of convenience).

In the context of your conversation with Gethsemani, I do agree with Geth. You can't say, "If the woman can't pay for the child, she could have chosen to not have sex" and then not apply the same to the man. At that point, both have made the same decision. What happens then is equally their doing. And as with anything else in life, if they disagree with what happens next they go to court. And no matter how much you try to ignore it, you cannot deny that the amount of money and time the woman puts into the child by raising it is MUCH more costly than the man's investment. You can't say it's a "double standard" when it all started with the same, consensual decision.

Again, child support is for the benefit of the child. Denying the money is punishing the child as much as the woman, I said that before, and that is a point you continue to avoid addressing in this whole thing. When it comes to abortion you are so concerned about punishing the child for the woman's desires, but when it comes to the man's desires suddenly it's alright to punish the child.

So if you're going to continue with this line of argument in regard to child support, you're going to have to explain how it's not punishing the child.

Let's say you and I live together and one day I come home with a pet, without talking to you first, is it alright for me to force you to pay for it? Remember its for the benefit of the pet.

The whole "its for the good of the child" thing is a red herring. It is a very shallow and flawed justification for removing a person's right to consent.
1) The mother is not always the best option for the child. Even more so if she, claims, to need extra money from someone else is order to raise said child.
2) Forcing someone else to pay for the woman's choice to be a mother, on her own, is just wrong. Its slavery. Imagine the outrage if we forced the same upon women.
3) Even if both parties use protection and if fails the man is still held liable for the woman's choice to be a mother. Also wrong.
4) If the woman really wanted what was best for the child and she know she was unlikely to be able to raise it on her own. She would give it up. You know, put the child's needs before her desire to be a mother.
Honestly stop hiding behind, "Please think of the children!" bs.

Also give this a read http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2012/08/effeminition-feminist-logic-editorial.html#.UPt1cifLQ-Z

chaosord:
Let's say you and I live together and one day I come home with a pet, without talking to you first, is it alright for me to force you to pay for it? Remember its for the benefit of the pet.

The whole "its for the good of the child" thing is a red herring. It is a very shallow and flawed justification for removing a person's right to consent.
1) The mother is not always the best option for the child. Even more so if she, claims, to need extra money from someone else is order to raise said child.
2) Forcing someone else to pay for the woman's choice to be a mother, on her own, is just wrong. Its slavery. Imagine the outrage if we forced the same upon women.
3) Even if both parties use protection and if fails the man is still held liable for the woman's choice to be a mother. Also wrong.
4) If the woman really wanted what was best for the child and she know she was unlikely to be able to raise it on her own. She would give it up. You know, put the child's needs before her desire to be a mother.
Honestly stop hiding behind, "Please think of the children!" bs.

Also give this a read http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2012/08/effeminition-feminist-logic-editorial.html#.UPt1cifLQ-Z

You're ignoring what I'm saying to you. You explicitly said, in your exact words to bleys2487 on page 5, "If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either." And then after that you mention or not keep the baby. You could have just left it at keeping the baby, but you first say she could have chosen to not have sex. How come you blame the woman for the situation at the point of having sex, but not the man? This is the contradiction I'm trying to get you to answer for. As for your 1, 2, 3, and 4:

1. Okay...and? I don't get what you're trying to say here. Yes there are bad mothers out there, but child services exists for that reason. And if she isn't abusive or neglecting the child, how is less money going to make the situation better? Would you take children away from their parents and say they can't have them back unless they're making over x amount per year? What exactly are you getting at by pointing this out?

2. I am very sorry, but by a fact of biology the woman has to take over the duty of caring for the child during pregnancy. That's just how these things work, and no amount of bellyaching is going to change that. If you are going to stick with what you said earlier about the woman making her choice when she made sex, then the man made the same choice when he had sex as well. Period.

Also, bringing up your feelings about child support and rape, it's also illegal to hold someone prisoner against their will unless they commit a crime. Again, I think the man made his choice about having a baby when he forced the woman to have sex with him. The imprisonment and payments that occur afterword were completely his doing.

3. I agree that is a tough situation, but again you set the bar for the woman's choice at having sex. If the bar isn't at the same place for the man, that is also wrong.

4. I don't know how much you know about the foster system, but very often the foster system is even worse for children than being raised in a poor household. There are many people who foster kids just so that they can get all of the government benefits for doing so, and have the convenient front of looking like a charitable person. Sure being poor sucks, but the foster system is a total crap shoot. Maybe you'll get a good one, or maybe you'll get cooped up in a dirty household with 5 other unadopted kids and adults who want to see as little of you as possible.

Lilani:

chaosord:
Let's say you and I live together and one day I come home with a pet, without talking to you first, is it alright for me to force you to pay for it? Remember its for the benefit of the pet.

The whole "its for the good of the child" thing is a red herring. It is a very shallow and flawed justification for removing a person's right to consent.
1) The mother is not always the best option for the child. Even more so if she, claims, to need extra money from someone else is order to raise said child.
2) Forcing someone else to pay for the woman's choice to be a mother, on her own, is just wrong. Its slavery. Imagine the outrage if we forced the same upon women.
3) Even if both parties use protection and if fails the man is still held liable for the woman's choice to be a mother. Also wrong.
4) If the woman really wanted what was best for the child and she know she was unlikely to be able to raise it on her own. She would give it up. You know, put the child's needs before her desire to be a mother.
Honestly stop hiding behind, "Please think of the children!" bs.

Also give this a read http://breakingtheglasses.blogspot.com/2012/08/effeminition-feminist-logic-editorial.html#.UPt1cifLQ-Z

You're ignoring what I'm saying to you. You explicitly said, in your exact words to bleys2487 on page 5, "If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either." And then after that you mention or not keep the baby. You could have just left it at keeping the baby, but you first say she could have chosen to not have sex. How come you blame the woman for the situation at the point of having sex, but not the man? This is the contradiction I'm trying to get you to answer for. As for your 1, 2, 3, and 4:

1. Okay...and? I don't get what you're trying to say here. Yes there are bad mothers out there, but child services exists for that reason. And if she isn't abusive or neglecting the child, how is less money going to make the situation better? Would you take children away from their parents and say they can't have them back unless they're making over x amount per year? What exactly are you getting at by pointing this out?

2. I am very sorry, but by a fact of biology the woman has to take over the duty of caring for the child during pregnancy. That's just how these things work, and no amount of bellyaching is going to change that. If you are going to stick with what you said earlier about the woman making her choice when she made sex, then the man made the same choice when he had sex as well. Period.

Also, bringing up your feelings about child support and rape, it's also illegal to hold someone prisoner against their will unless they commit a crime. Again, I think the man made his choice about having a baby when he forced the woman to have sex with him. The imprisonment and payments that occur afterword were completely his doing.

3. I agree that is a tough situation, but again you set the bar for the woman's choice at having sex. If the bar isn't at the same place for the man, that is also wrong.

4. I don't know how much you know about the foster system, but very often the foster system is even worse for children than being raised in a poor household. There are many people who foster kids just so that they can get all of the government benefits for doing so, and have the convenient front of looking like a charitable person. Sure being poor sucks, but the foster system is a total crap shoot. Maybe you'll get a good one, or maybe you'll get cooped up in a dirty household with 5 other unadopted kids and adults who want to see as little of you as possible.

Consent for sex is not equal to consent to parenthood. If both parties had equal say in the matter of childbirth then it would be. Or if human beings did not have sex for fun.

It would be like me punching someone the face and you paying for it.

chaosord:
Consent for sex is not equal to consent to parenthood. If both parties had equal say in the matter of childbirth then it would be. Or if human beings did not have sex for fun.

It would be like me punching someone the face and you paying for it.

If consent for sex is not equal to consent to parenthood, then why did you say it was in that post that I quoted?

It's not that I don't understand your point, so you don't have to keep trying to explain what you mean. That isn't the problem, here. It's that you've said other things that contradict that point, and I want those things explained.

Lilani:

chaosord:
Consent for sex is not equal to consent to parenthood. If both parties had equal say in the matter of childbirth then it would be. Or if human beings did not have sex for fun.

It would be like me punching someone the face and you paying for it.

If consent for sex is not equal to consent to parenthood, then why did you say it was in that post that I quoted?

It's not that I don't understand your point, so you don't have to keep trying to explain what you mean. That isn't the problem, here. It's that you've said other things that contradict that point, and I want those things explained.

How so? Can you make a list please? I'll try my best to clear it up.

al4674:

I think calling it a medical procedure is misleading. Pregnancy is not some disease that needs to be treated - it is a natural anatomical process vital to the reproduction of our species. Abortion is conducted with the purpose and intent of terminating a life, not healing a malady.

It's a procedure, carried out by medical professionals, just because you disagree with it doesn't make that any less so. A foetus isn't a 'life', if you want to debate the subject learn that first.

Bentusi16:

You have misunderstood me.

What I'm trying to say is that in reality the responsibility is equal. Both sides are equally guilty of doing something stupid.

But what you and others have said overwhelmingly is that it is the mans fault that the woman got pregnant. It's on the male not to have sex, not the woman. yes, she's got responsibilities to the child as well, but as far as society and many people are concerned it's the guys fault the situation occurred in the first place.

As always, reverse the situation: A man is left with a child he wanted but the woman didn't. How many women are going to be paying child support in this case?

How many men ARE paying child support in this case?

Admittedly, the woman can just have an abortion before the child is born, but that's not an option for the man is it?

In fact, perhaps my point is that the woman has the ability to wipe away all responsibility but a minor fiscal payment through an abortion. She has the ability to do that. The man does not, in any way, have that ability.

And I think you misunderstand me. I am not saying the woman is not "at fault" here, in fact I have gone out of my way to emphasize that the woman is just as responsible for having unprotected sex or failing to use contraceptives as the man is. However, the woman has the ability/responsibility/obligation to also consider alternatives to giving birth to the child, which makes sense since it is her body the fetus is developing in.

I realize this is kind of a bad deal for men, since their only way of being sure of not ending up as a parent by mistake is to keep from having sex. On the other hand, the suggested solution (that men should be able to "opt out") is the equivalent of taking all responsibility away from men. But as I've said before, we should not downplay just how hard this situation is for the pregnant woman, who have to decide what to do with the fetus growing inside of her. Abortion, adoption and giving away is all easy to talk about, but all studies on the psychology of unwanted pregnant women suggests that these decisions are the equivalent of a major life crisis.

As always: The ideal situation would be if both potential parents sat down and talked things through with each other and made a plan that suited both. And I am in favor of having some kind of legal right for men to "opt out" in certain circumstances (such as failing contraceptives) if they can prove they've made an effort to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

In your reverse situation my response is still the same: The parent that isn't the caregiver of the child should be paying child support.

consent is a pretty big issue I have with this. there is exactly 1 reliable contraceptive for men that is not a possibly permanent surgery. women have multiple reliable options that while not "100%" they tend to be close to 99% except in cases of user error but here is the issue all of of forms are invisible to the man, he can't know, and arguably has no right to know if the woman took her pills on time. he has to go on her word that she is using the contraceptives she is on properly. where as with a condom it's rather easy to ensure that it gets worn every time. it's a highly visible tool and if pregnancy is not wanted and she is aware she missed a her contraceptives, to not inform him of the risk removes any chance of him having meaningful informed consent to the risk of pregnancy.

I see pregnancy as a state that only affects women, it's their body and their risk. And only they can ever know just how much a risk they are taking at any given time. that is in addition to the fact that at every step of the way they have complete control over how this will play out. they can get a morning after pill. they can get an abortion, they can put the baby up for adoption, they can legally abandon that baby. But what control does a man have? His only involvement in this whole ordeal is the sex, he has no rights AT ALL after "consenting to sex" but he as all of the obligations that a woman can rid herself of at any time, while he can't.

dystopiaINC:
consent is a pretty big issue I have with this. there is exactly 1 reliable contraceptive for men that is not a possibly permanent surgery.

They actually also have a injectable (under the skin) pill for men which is reliable, but it's heavily unpopular because it's basically a hormonal timebomb; you require monthly or bi-weekly (not sure) injections of testosterone in your balls, otherwise, your body will start developing female characteristics.

And I don't hold any medical degrees, but I'm pretty sure that if you need injections to not turn into half a woman, it's probably hurting things like your physical condition because of the drop of hormone levels as well.

It's no surprise the thing is unpopular due to the point where most people never heard of it.

dystopiaINC:
women have multiple reliable options that while not "100%" they tend to be close to 99% except in cases of user error but here is the issue all of of forms are invisible to the man, he can't know, and arguably has no right to know if the woman took her pills on time. he has to go on her word that she is using the contraceptives she is on properly.

That last bit is going way overboard man. It's unfortunately still true that if you father an unwanted child, you can legally get dragged into paying for it for years and years. Not just that, but children or not is a decision that requires the agreement of both parents.

Because trust me, there's some loonie women out there who think that forcing a child onto you will for instance keep you with them. Ussually mental problems or other forms of life troubles play a role in such decision. But still, those two things combined makes it a man's right to know. Otherwise, lying about contraceptives and forcing fatherhood onto someone through deceit, would not be deception (because he has no right to know). And that can't be right.

Things would be different if there was a legal right to walk away and renounce fatherhood, but there isn't.

chaosord:
If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would write that, while later on correctly observing that consenting for sex and consenting to parenthood are two different things.

bleys2487:
If the man was forced, that's a problem. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The prerequisite to be able to use that argument, is being entitled to dictate the sex life of every person.

Needless to say you're not entitled to that.

Blablahb:

dystopiaINC:
consent is a pretty big issue I have with this. there is exactly 1 reliable contraceptive for men that is not a possibly permanent surgery.

They actually also have a injectable (under the skin) pill for men which is reliable, but it's heavily unpopular because it's basically a hormonal timebomb; you require monthly or bi-weekly (not sure) injections of testosterone in your balls, otherwise, your body will start developing female characteristics.

And I don't hold any medical degrees, but I'm pretty sure that if you need injections to not turn into half a woman, it's probably hurting things like your physical condition because of the drop of hormone levels as well.

It's no surprise the thing is unpopular due to the point where most people never heard of it.

dystopiaINC:
women have multiple reliable options that while not "100%" they tend to be close to 99% except in cases of user error but here is the issue all of of forms are invisible to the man, he can't know, and arguably has no right to know if the woman took her pills on time. he has to go on her word that she is using the contraceptives she is on properly.

That last bit is going way overboard man. It's unfortunately still true that if you father an unwanted child, you can legally get dragged into paying for it for years and years. Not just that, but children or not is a decision that requires the agreement of both parents.

Because trust me, there's some loonie women out there who think that forcing a child onto you will for instance keep you with them. Ussually mental problems or other forms of life troubles play a role in such decision. But still, those two things combined makes it a man's right to know. Otherwise, lying about contraceptives and forcing fatherhood onto someone through deceit, would not be deception (because he has no right to know). And that can't be right.

Things would be different if there was a legal right to walk away and renounce fatherhood, but there isn't.

chaosord:
If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would write that, while later on correctly observing that consenting for sex and consenting to parenthood are two different things.

bleys2487:
If the man was forced, that's a problem. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The prerequisite to be able to use that argument, is being entitled to dictate the sex life of every person.

Needless to say you're not entitled to that.

Another poster was arguing that since its "hard" to raise a child on one's own a woman "needs" child support. Just pointing out that by that time she has already made a number of choices of her own free will.

Blablahb:

dystopiaINC:
consent is a pretty big issue I have with this. there is exactly 1 reliable contraceptive for men that is not a possibly permanent surgery.

They actually also have a injectable (under the skin) pill for men which is reliable, but it's heavily unpopular because it's basically a hormonal timebomb; you require monthly or bi-weekly (not sure) injections of testosterone in your balls, otherwise, your body will start developing female characteristics.

And I don't hold any medical degrees, but I'm pretty sure that if you need injections to not turn into half a woman, it's probably hurting things like your physical condition because of the drop of hormone levels as well.

It's no surprise the thing is unpopular due to the point where most people never heard of it.

dystopiaINC:
women have multiple reliable options that while not "100%" they tend to be close to 99% except in cases of user error but here is the issue all of of forms are invisible to the man, he can't know, and arguably has no right to know if the woman took her pills on time. he has to go on her word that she is using the contraceptives she is on properly.

That last bit is going way overboard man. It's unfortunately still true that if you father an unwanted child, you can legally get dragged into paying for it for years and years. Not just that, but children or not is a decision that requires the agreement of both parents.

Because trust me, there's some loonie women out there who think that forcing a child onto you will for instance keep you with them. Ussually mental problems or other forms of life troubles play a role in such decision. But still, those two things combined makes it a man's right to know. Otherwise, lying about contraceptives and forcing fatherhood onto someone through deceit, would not be deception (because he has no right to know). And that can't be right.

Things would be different if there was a legal right to walk away and renounce fatherhood, but there isn't.

chaosord:
If she didn't want to have to need child support then she should not have had sex either. Or kept the baby.

I'm a bit puzzled as to why you would write that, while later on correctly observing that consenting for sex and consenting to parenthood are two different things.

bleys2487:
If the man was forced, that's a problem. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SEX WITH HER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

The prerequisite to be able to use that argument, is being entitled to dictate the sex life of every person.

Needless to say you're not entitled to that.

Never thought I'd see eye to eye with you. but your opinion in this thread has surprised me Blablahb. any way you might enjoy this video i just found. outlines my thoughts on this pretty well, it's 5 videos in total but i'll link the first one

Frission:

Sucks to be him then. He failed "to exercise his right to not be a parent". He has no rights. That's the truth to you. Is that all I need to say?

Actually, there's a very simple way to describe male and female reproductive rights. Female reproductive rights include the right to revoke parenthood, either during pregnancy or afterward, barring a short period late in pregnancy. Male reproductive rights consist of strict liability for sperm.

Frission:
If he was raped, as I said it's a different topic. He wouldn't have had the chance to exercise the right then, which could change things.Unless he was raped though he doesn't have many rights which does screw him over.

Actually, legally, no, there's no difference at all. This has led to things like sperm donors being pressed for child support with mixed results, even in cases where there was a signed waiver that explicitly waived any obligation to child support from the donor, and cases where victims of statutory rape have been on the hook for child support to be paid to the perpetrator (who of course never seems to get charged with statutory rape as a result, despite literally stating "that underage boy is the father of my child"), or cases where women are deliberately deceptive regarding their use of contraceptives or sabotage thereof. It doesn't matter *how* it happened, all that really matters as far as child support is concerned is that either that man is the biological father of the child, or has been deceived that he was such until he's on the birth certificate (because not having fathered the child is not an absolute defense against child support either).

Frission:
I wonder though. Why doesn't the man take care of the kid leaving the women to pay child support? Surely if you want to have a kid and you don't to have to pay child support, that would be an ideal situation.

That happens sometimes. My sister actually has a child support obligation. The kid was a toddler before they split up.

What we're talking about though is when the father doesn't want the child. Legal paternal surrender and the like literally isn't an issue if the father wants a kid. The mother can opt to abort, adopt, abandon, or keep the child and in all cases the father has no say, but is on the hook for child support if she chooses the latter option. I don't see how giving the father the right to back out is tyranny if such right is required to be exercised in a timely manner ("timely" meaning sufficiently quickly to still permit her to choose abortion if she so desires, or a minimum time from being informed of paternity).

evilthecat:

However, there are 100 guys whose crimes are reported to police (i.e. who are accused, in this extremely simplistic world where all rape accusations have a named assailant). Since I would assume being accused is kind of prerequisite for being falsely accused, the actual number is 2% of reported crimes.

The graphic intentionally is designed to minimize the appearance of that particular group, by making them part of "Rapists" but not part of "Reported Rapists". Would you consider it an equally valid method of expressing the data if out of our thousand little iconic guys, 100 were colored reported, an additional 20 colored faced trial, and an additional 10 colored jailed? No? How about if we placed the black guys in the top right corner instead? That's even worse, you say? The choice in the infographic is made to both explicitly minimize their representation, and to keep the casual viewer from considering even the possibility that someone might be accused but not guilty ("reported rapists", "faced trial", and "convicted" are all positioned as subsets of each other and of "rapists", yet somehow the falsely accused are both still "rapists" and as distant in a single direction as one can get from being "reported" -- I doubt that is not intentional).

evilthecat:
Also, you've somehow misrepresented how the statistics in this regard work. There is no "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in determining a false accusation since it is merely the absence of a crime. Police do not have the power to judge "proof beyond reasonable doubt", they do have the power to say whether a reported offence did not occur.

Since the original poster of the graphic referenced FBI numbers, here's what the very data linked says about "unfounded" cases of rape:

"The "unfounded" rate, or percentage of complaints determined through investigation to be false, is higher for forcible rape than for any other Index crime. Eight percent of forcible rape complaints in 1996 were "unfounded," while the
average for all Index crimes was 2 percent."

Of course the real meaningful numbers wouldn't be "false accusation" for most of the conversations involving the topic because of how it often gets defined, but "wrongful accusation" (persons accused who did not commit the crime -- it's worth noting that a large majority of Innocence Project cases that lead to release are sex crimes) or "malicious accusation" (persons accused for malicious reasons who did not commit the crime). That one can be found factually innocent (not "not guilty" but actually found to be incapable of having committed the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt) without the accusation being "false" is a big hint that maybe that number doesn't actually reflect the odds that one accused is actually guilty, while people still pretend that "not falsely accused" is synonymous or at least close enough to "guilty", especially when discussing rights and treatment of the accused.

Dijkstra:

It's only telling him to be careful of the choice he makes in the last stage in which it is reasonable for him to have one.

Why is "before it is conceived" the last stage in which it is reasonable for him to have any rights regarding the situation, while "even after it is born" is reasonable for the mother (through adoption or "safe haven" abandonment)? Why not something like "up to $ABORTION_LIMIT - $REASONABLE_AMOUNT, or 30 days after being advised of paternity, whichever is later"? The goal being of course to give the man a remotely equitable right to revoke parenthood, while still leaving the woman the opportunity to abort with full knowledge of the situation she's in, and trying to prevent either from "cheating" by trying to run out the clock on the other.

Lilani:

Again, child support is for the benefit of the child. Denying the money is punishing the child as much as the woman, I said that before, and that is a point you continue to avoid addressing in this whole thing.

Except nothing requires those funds be spent on the child, and the amount of child support given has nothing to do with the costs of raising the child.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked