FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Article on Forced Fatherhood in the NYT (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Article on Forced Fatherhood in the NYT
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What I'm suggesting is we pay single parents from a gov. fund reguardless of the other parent's payment status. Remove the relationship all together.

You just said in response to how to handle the current system, where so many absent parents don't pay their parental support fees:

quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Same thing when people don't pay their taxes...Uncle Sam puts on his ass stomping boots.

And while that post didn't have a quote, it most certainly seemed to be a response to my question directed at you.

I'm not following your line of thought... it seems that you just switched your position a great deal? Which of course is perfectly fine, but I'm not sure what the position is anymore, and why it changed.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
"To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

This didn't happen. You could argue that it *seemed* to happen at first, but the issue was quickly addressed - A long time ago. Not only by me, but by Dogbreath as well. And we two are the two people who have done the great majority of the debating on the "other side".

That a side forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation doesn't mean that they always forget it. It also doesn't mean that it can't be brought up to them and subsequently addressed. It just means that there's a pattern in how often it is not addressed. You even see shades of it here. I was both not surprised and glad to see the issue brought up.

and This Thread does not encompass the entirety of a side. We are not the sum total of the experience of this argument. I've had a lot more of the sum total of the experience of this argument, especially considering what work I have done for single mothers and survivors of abuse. Now, a bit of those oopsiedoodle tendencies did leak through, enough for me to look at this thread and remain pretty clearly on the side of extreme skepticism for the approach to reform that originates from the outrage of men's rights groups over one of the instances in which men are on the wrong side of a social privilege disparity.

Anyway, so basically I guess you thought I was saying that nobody in the thread addressed the issue of the children. Or even if you didn't think that, you inexplicably forged a position predicated on the idea that I had. Calling me a liar with bad memory then followed. Should I counterfire with snark about reading comprehension, or can we skip that part and just instead maybe say "Okay maybe being a dick with my language right off the bat was not exactly productive."

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My opinion on this subject was mostly formed when talking to kids who consider "dad" as "that asshole mom is always yelling at on the phone about the child support", the person who took the brunt of the blame for their family's financial situation, in many cases, a man who lived in another state *who they never met.* Even the ones with financially supportive fathers still viewed him as a jerk, or resented him. I remembee a group leadee starting a prayer by saying "Heavenly Father..." and watching these kids stiffen at the mention of the word "father." It causes all sorts of confidence and maturity problems, and diffifulty relating to and forming healthy relationships with men in general. (boys and girls, sexual and nonsexual) I found children with dead fathers or no fathers to have far less of these problems than children with absent fathers - which is why I believe single parent households are far better off being just that - exclusively single parent. If the biological father is unwilling to have any part in the raising of the child, forcing him to pay for that child (and forcing that child to be dependant on his payments) causes an incredibly hostile home environment. I would have no problem paying the equivilent child support via taxes.

I find it rather bitterly ironic that if every single argument I make isn't exclusively about "the children" but is instead about, say, equality and reproductive rights, I am somehow ignoring the needs of the children. I've talked about my work with at risk children enough in other threads that I thought wouldn't be automatically accused of ignoring their needs.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Tuukka
Member
Member # 12124

 - posted      Profile for Tuukka           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by Tuukka:
"To draw off of what squicky said, it is extremely telling that we're having a conversation where one side is saying that the child's interests are of paramount importance and the other side oopsideoodle forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation at all."

This didn't happen. You could argue that it *seemed* to happen at first, but the issue was quickly addressed - A long time ago. Not only by me, but by Dogbreath as well. And we two are the two people who have done the great majority of the debating on the "other side".

That a side forgets in a repeatedly patternable fashion that the child's interests are part of the equation doesn't mean that they always forget it. It also doesn't mean that it can't be brought up to them and subsequently addressed. It just means that there's a pattern in how often it is not addressed. You even see shades of it here. I was both not surprised and glad to see the issue brought up.

and This Thread does not encompass the entirety of a side. We are not the sum total of the experience of this argument. I've had a lot more of the sum total of the experience of this argument, especially considering what work I have done for single mothers and survivors of abuse. Now, a bit of those oopsiedoodle tendencies did leak through, enough for me to look at this thread and remain pretty clearly on the side of extreme skepticism for the approach to reform that originates from the outrage of men's rights groups over one of the instances in which men are on the wrong side of a social privilege disparity.

Anyway, so basically I guess you thought I was saying that nobody in the thread addressed the issue of the children. Or even if you didn't think that, you inexplicably forged a position predicated on the idea that I had. Calling me a liar with bad memory then followed. Should I counterfire with snark about reading comprehension, or can we skip that part and just instead maybe say "Okay maybe being a dick with my language right off the bat was not exactly productive."

The issue of the rights of children has been addressed repeatedly.

The insulting behavior you committed was that after the "other side" provided many, very long and throughout arguments to support their position, you decided to sweep it away by giving them a false position, which demanded that they are either lying, or intentionally deceitful (Which is the same thing as lying).

No, you didn't call the "other side" liars. Except you did exactly that in every possible way except for using that specific word. Which is the exact same thing as calling someone a liar.

So trying to get on a high horse is not going to work that well here.

Regardless, I don't really care what you have talked with other people elsewhere and how it affects your subjective interpretations. I don't care what you think you can read between the lines. That is all just assumptions in your head. If you re-read the post you just wrote, you are all but admitting that you are imagining stuff that nobody has actually said. You are feeding your own pre-conceived notions about what you think someone must think, even if in actuality they are not thinking it at all.

None of that should enter this kind of debate.

Anyway, ultimately the point is, that everyone can read this thread, or re-read if they want. The few hundred people who eventually read this discussion know what has been said. It's irrelevant what I say, or you say, because they will ultimately be the judge, if there is a judge.

So let's continue the real discussion.

Posts: 273 | Registered: Jul 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay, I hopped on my laptop because obviously trying to post on my phone wasn't working too well.

Here is what I was trying to say (no changes, just clarification).

If you are a single parent, you receive monthly moneys (based on the cost of living in area you live) towards costs associated with child rearing (i.e. rent, food, power, gas, car payment, etc) directly from the government. This would be available also to widows and widowers. These moneys would be in no way, shape or form reliant upon the other, none care giver parent paying into said fund.

Now, if you are the non care giver parent, you must pay into the fund, subject to penalty of law, just like taxes. Whatever lack in funds there is between the paying parent and receiving parent would be made up with taxes. In no way shape or form would a single mother have to contact, speak with, yell at or demand money directly from a dead beat dad. She gets her money from the U.S. government, on time, every time. But if dad doesn't pay into the fund, he is on the hook with Uncle Sam and his ass stomping boots.

Thus children never have to suffer from a lack of money, and yet the system is designed to be funded mostly by the non care giver parent.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that's not a bad way to handle it, Stone_Wolf_. Some states have a middle ground where the state tries to collect and relay payments, but I think I'd prefer payments to be guaranteed by the state and collections to be a separate matter.

Tuukka, I think I missed the part where only parents who renounce parental rights would thereby put their children on the government's time. I admit that's not as bad as what I thought was being proposed. I still think that makes it too easy for irresponsible men to foist a bunch of kids on the state, though. This is already a problem, of course, in cases where the father isn't known or has no wages to garnish. I think it would make that problem somewhat worse by making it *very easy* to escape the responsibility, whereas now it's kind of hard (you have to move around a lot or avoid having a normal job etc., if you don't want the state taking part of your pay).

Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

quote:
Aris unfortunately hasn't been around to comment since his first posts, and thus hasn't been able to respond how important he thinks the rights of the child are (That particular issue was raised after he had left the discussion).
Any "rights of the child" that can be reduced to a paycheck can easily be reduced to a paycheck from the state, rather than a paycheck from the biological father.

I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.

This makes sense only under an ordering of priorities which is:
(Desires of the Mother) take precedence over (Needs of the Child) which take precedence over (Desires of the Father).

In fact even the people who mention "child's rights" will in the next paragraph justify their position using the balance of rights and advantages and privileges between the genders -- for example Stone_Wolf after the paragraph about how supposedly Dogbreath was forgetting the 'innocent party' went on to say this:

quote:
Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.

That's how easily one switches from remembering all about the child-as-a-relevant-party to completely forgetting it's a party in the situation. Discuss abortion or adoption and it's about the woman's rights. Discuss father abandoning responsibility and it's about the child's rights, instead?

Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in Finland.

quote:
I don't think anyone has suggested that children should be on welfare by default. Can you quote that, I can't find it?
I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but I'd support it -- children should be financially supported by the government by default. See my Finland link above.

quote:
My female cousin lied to her boyfriend about her birth control for the purpose of forcing him to stay with her. It does happen, and it is despicable.

But if their relationship doesn't work out, he still made that child and should help him (boy baby) in this world.

Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.

And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Stone_Wolf: Oregon uses a system pretty much identical to that. It works really well and is probably the best I've seen in the US.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If you re-read the post you just wrote, you are all but admitting that you are imagining stuff that nobody has actually said.
Wow, that doesn't actually remotely logically follow at all.

I guess that's all I need to know about how you are going to jump to interpret my words.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Back home at my computer now, and I wanted to flesh out a subject I briefly touched on earlier - that forced fatherhood is an antiquated concept that is no longer morally acceptable in modern society. (Though I believe fatherhood should be strongly encouraged)

Let's look at the time period when child support came into existence in the USA. Most states began passing comprehensive child support laws in the late 19th century, and the USA passed it's first federal child support law in 1950. Some factors:

1) Women had little to no choice in whether or not they wanted to be pregnant. Contraception was not commonly available, abortion was illegal, adoption was somewhat of a novelty, and mostly limited to orphans. Bastards were heavily stigmatized, and if she was married and the father wanted to keep the children, she had no chance in hell of getting rid of them. (legally, I mean) Leaving a marriage wasn't very economically feasible which leads me to:
2) Few women were able to earn a living wage, and that was mostly very menial labor as cooks and servants, or as teachers and librarians. To choose to not have children, by which I mean, to choose abstinence (by not marrying), meant you would live the rest of your life in near poverty and face heavy social stigma for being a "spinster" or "old maid."
3) Unmarried or divorced women with children were considered "damaged goods" and they had a very, very hard time finding (another) husband.
4) Therefore, the male in a sexual relationship had almost all the power - financially and socially.
5) A man who left his wife or a man who knocked a girl up and didn't marry her was essentially condemning her and her children to a life of poverty, since she had *no choice* but raise the children, and was extremely unlikely to earn enough money to comfortably support them, and was unlikely to marry.
6) To help create social equality, and to protect and support knocked up/divorced women and their children, the concept of paternal responsibility was enforced. Since men had vastly more money, or at least, were far more likely to be able to *make* money than women, and they knew full well the unavoidable consequences of having sex with a woman, they were expected to use that money to support her and her children, even if they (the fathers) didn't actually act as parents to said children.

The basic takeaway, though, is that child support was created to create and enforce *equality* (or some semblance thereof) between the sexes - men had the option to choose whether or not they wanted to be parents, women did not. Therefore, that option was taken away from men as well, so neither sex had the option.

Stay with me...

Now let's look at the present day.
1) Women are able to choose whether or not they want to be pregnant 100% of the time. Birth control is highly reliable and cheap, and abortion is legal. Adoption is common, and with gay marriage becoming legalized in more and more states and gay families becoming far more prevalent, it's about to get a hell of a lot more common.
2) Women can pursue any career and are, on average, capable of earning similar (though unfortunately often not equal) wages as their male counterparts.
3) When two people have consensual sex, it's done with the full volition of both parties. Women are not penalized for remaining abstinent, for not being in sexual relationships, or for choosing not to marry, or for choosing not to have children. On the contrary, women who don't marry often have far more successful careers and earn far more money than women who do.
4) Paternal responsibility is still enforced in exactly the same way as it was in the early 1900s. *Everything* else regarding sexuality, sexism, and reproductive rights has changed. Forced fatherhood has *not* changed at all.

So now we've seen a paradigm shift. Where once women had no choice in whether or not to be a parent, they now have a guaranteed choice. It would seem only logical, then, that in order to create an equal society once more that men would likewise be returned to the state of also being guaranteed that choice. It seems perfectly logical, and yet this archaic, now immoral tradition of forced fatherhood is so deeply engrained in our social conscience that the mere mention of abolishing it creates an irrational outrage from many people, even after being told why it's immoral. Often these people, despite being fiercely pro-choice, will say things that are almost identical to what pro-lifers say about abortion. "If he didn't want the responsibility, he shouldn't have had sex!" "it's for the good of the child" "it's his own damn fault for not being safe, and now he has to live with the consequences." Somehow, some way, men are still assigned the bulk of the responsibility for a pregnancy and are not allowed to relinquish that responsibility, despite in many cases (especially one night stands) being more or less sperm donors.

Some caveats:

I consider marriage (unless otherwise specified in a prenup) to be, among other things, a contract to care for your children. I don't think a man should be allowed to disavow responsibility for his wife's children. And I don't think, if he divorces his wife after the child is born, that he should have the right to disavow responsibility. The reason is simple: she bore that child under the contractual agreement that you would play an equal part in caring for it - you shouldn't be allowed to break that contract.

I think single mothers and fathers who cannot make enough money to adequately support their children should receive child support from the state.

I think if a man disavows responsibility, he must do so before the child is born - or if he didn't know about the pregnancy, do so as soon as he finds out. (say within 30 days) It should be notarized and be legally binding. If a man accepts that responsibility, he should *never* be allowed to later relinquish it. Like with marriage, he chose to accept that responsibility.

I think females should have the exact same rights to disavow responsibility as men, if for moral or other reasons they choose not to have an abortion. They should do so before giving birth (or within 30 days after giving birth), and it should likewise be notarized and legally binding. Should she do so, the state should first offer custody to the father. If he denies responsibility, the child should be taken is as a ward of the state until it's adopted.

I firmly believe that this concept of voluntary parenthood will have a positive impact on our society. I also believe it will not cause a significant rise in abandoned children or single parent households. People who choose to marry and raise children don't do it merely because they're legally forced to do so. Many, many, many people who *can't* have children wait years to adopt children for the privilege of raising them. Heck, I'm too young to really afford children, but I desperately want to have them, and would in a heartbeat if I thought I could take care of them. Just playing with my little nieces and nephews makes me long to have children of my own to love and care for, and I can't wait until I'm ready to do so. But my own preferences shouldn't be shoved down other people's throats.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You know I've never really given this any sort of thought, mainly because I don't know a single father who even pays their child support, but now that I do, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't have to.

They chose to have sex, and are no longer the primary care giver. Why should they not have to own up to their actions? Everytime I have sex, both me and my girlfriend face the possibility that the pill doesn't work, again there is no reason every person who chooses to have sex should not have to face the same possibility.

And facing that possibility means facing the reality thàt if a child is born both parents will have some level of financial commitment.

I like the idea that the state could pick up the slack left behind by deadbeat dads/moms, but I don't like the idea that the fathers could have only as much financial commitment as any other tax-payer. Why should every tax-payer have to pick up the slack because you wanted to get your dick wet?

Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T:man
Member
Member # 11614

 - posted      Profile for T:man   Email T:man         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

5) A man who left his wife or a man who knocked a girl up and didn't marry her was essentially condemning her and her children to a life of poverty, since she had *no choice* but raise the children, and was extremely unlikely to earn enough money to comfortably support them, and was unlikely to marry.

I don't see how this isn't still pretty much true for a huge segment of society.
Posts: 1574 | Registered: May 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Women have access to ubiquitous and cheap contraception, as well as abortion and adoption. If they give birth, it's entirely their choice to do so.

As far as the "left his wife" part, see the appropriate caveat. I think child support should always be paid in case of divorce by whichever party doesn't care for the children, since they were already taking care of the kids at that point.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In anticipation of the next argument - "men have access to ubiquitous and cheap contraception too!" - yes, this is absolutely correct. It's entirely their choice to knock a girl up, just like it's entirely said girl's choice to get knocked up. It's the equal responsibility of both parties, and both parties should logically have the same ability to relinquish that responsibility.

Please don't take this offensively - I'm not making assumptions about what you are or aren't going to say, it's merely a response I thought of as soon as I posted, so I figured I should address it.

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
At the end of the day, it's all about what's best for the child.
Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No, what's best for the child is simply the most important thing to consider. See post 102, for example, on why I think my proposed arrangement would be better for the child. The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
Any plan that could reasonably guarantee me a better outcome, via legislation, for kids in single parent families, I'm automatically down for. And yeah, this is an ideal case.

People are just really skeptical that said ideal case would actually happen through this layer of concern. I'm welcome to seeing some or any real proposed legislation that doesn't just stop at benefiting the biological fathers.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Aris Katsaris
Member
Member # 4596

 - posted      Profile for Aris Katsaris   Email Aris Katsaris         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Why should every tax-payer have to pick up the slack because you wanted to get your dick wet?
Are you against public education and universal healthcare? I'm in favor of those things (the latter, even more so than the former). Which means that a tax-payer *does* pay for every new child born, an investment towards a better society.

Again I ask (something that NOBODY has yet answered) if you object to new mothers having the right to put up children for adoption.

The adoption system already means that someone else will pay for the child that the sex of two strangers conceived (or if you only understand it only when put in your own crude terms, a man wanted to get his dick wet, a woman wanted to get her pussy wet, they decided to cooperate in getting their dicks and pussies wet at the same time.)

Posts: 676 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dog--Would you agree that if a man and woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, the man should cover half the cost of the medical care to give birth to the child, even if he relinquishes his rights to that child. After all, if the mother relinquishes her rights to the child at adoption, she still has costs and responsibilities to make sure the child is born as healthy as possible.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:

...I imagine when you go home with a girl you met at a club, you aren't agreeing to marry her. Or riase her children. You're merely consenting to engaging in sexual intercourse with her - if she chooses not to use protection (or make you use protection) and decides not to terminate the pregnancy, then that's wonderful for her! But you shouldn't have to spend 18 years paying for her child if you don't want to be a father. You're not using her and leaving her - she took just as much pleasure from the act (I hope) and was just as aware of the consequences as you were. And she has the choice to become a parent or not - you should have that choice too.

Not her children. Every bit as much his children as hers.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system.

It is not coming from a position of biological parity. Pregnancy is not, as a biological reality, provided in a way which allows for any sense of meaningful 'fairness' or 'equality' in this. You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
So? Who said we need to do that? We're not talking about awarding men rights to determine whether a woman gives birth to a child. Repeat: not a single person has advocated that. We're talking about a man's right to accept the legal responsibility of parenthood once the child is born. There are mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood. They do not exist for men.

This is (a) an inequality, and (b) a problem with several (I think) fair solutions. You don't think it's our biggest problem? BFD. Who's saying otherwise? That's a moronic reason to not discuss it.

Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
El JT de Spang
Member
Member # 7742

 - posted      Profile for El JT de Spang   Email El JT de Spang         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The simple fact that the child's interests are most important and should come first isn't a valid reason for supporting an immoral or discriminatory system, especially when changing said system would have no negative impact on the child, and probably have at least some positive impact.
Any plan that could reasonably guarantee me a better outcome, via legislation, for kids in single parent families, I'm automatically down for. And yeah, this is an ideal case.

People are just really skeptical that said ideal case would actually happen through this layer of concern. I'm welcome to seeing some or any real proposed legislation that doesn't just stop at benefiting the biological fathers.

Agree 100%. I would loathe any solution that benefits the biological fathers at the expense of the child.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Chris Bridges
Member
Member # 1138

 - posted      Profile for Chris Bridges   Email Chris Bridges         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just pointing out...

Birth control is not 100% effective. No birth control is. Birth control that one party is sabotaging or actively refusing to use (as in the previous examples) is 100% ineffective.

Abortion is legal, but it's not as easy to get anymore and getting tougher all the time as laws get passed restricting access, setting early deadlines, creating more hoops to jump through and more fees to pay, defunding Planned parenthood and regulating clinics completely out of business. In several states now if you can't afford to travel, you won't be getting an abortion.

Adoption is available and easier than it was, but it's still biased toward healthy white babies. Putting your child up for adoption is no guarantee it will result in what's best for the child.

This is not to comment on the ongoing argument, just to point out that three flat assumptions that have been made are not as clear cut as presented.

[ June 18, 2013, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]

Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Mauve:
Dog--Would you agree that if a man and woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, the man should cover half the cost of the medical care to give birth to the child, even if he relinquishes his rights to that child. After all, if the mother relinquishes her rights to the child at adoption, she still has costs and responsibilities to make sure the child is born as healthy as possible.

Yes, absolutely. Mostly because many women who don't want to keep their children are not be comfortable with abortion for moral or other reasons. As others have said this is an inherently unequal situation - women carry the baby, men do not. So enforcing financial equality in this aspect is perfectly ok, IMO.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by El JT de Spang:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
The point is that women get the choice as to whether or not they are parents, from a legal standpoint. Men do not. This is, definitionally, not a fair system.

It is not coming from a position of biological parity. Pregnancy is not, as a biological reality, provided in a way which allows for any sense of meaningful 'fairness' or 'equality' in this. You can't create a situation in which both biological father and biological mother have to sign off on a pregnancy in order for it to be permitted to come to term.
So? Who said we need to do that? We're not talking about awarding men rights to determine whether a woman gives birth to a child. Repeat: not a single person has advocated that. We're talking about a man's right to accept the legal responsibility of parenthood once the child is born. There are mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood. They do not exist for men.

This is (a) an inequality, and (b) a problem with several (I think) fair solutions. You don't think it's our biggest problem? BFD. Who's saying otherwise? That's a moronic reason to not discuss it.

Everything about this post confuses me. I think you're missing the point of most of what I am saying here but more important, I think, is to note that there's no sense to be made of the statement "mechanisms in place that allow the mother to choose whether they accept the rights of legal parenthood" — wellllllll okay? isn't really the issue.

It's that a bunch of men feel that it is an injustice that they are forced to accept a burden of legal parenthood. It's not they are allowed to choose to 'accept the rights of legal parenthood,' it's that they feel it is unjust that they are 'forced to accept the burden of legal parenthood' — that women get to decide this for them.

If we're talking about the right to accept rights of fatherhood as a man, yeah, there are mechanisms for that. You can fight for custody, for instance.

as for the rest of my words, the point is that since men and women have biologically different and fundamentally unequal stakes in pregnancy, you can't force parity by demanding that men and women be considered and treated equally by the law. There are a lot of positions which rely on this terrible line of thought, even unintentionally. If anyone wants to disagree with the position itself, plainly stated, that'll be QUITE A THING.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

as for the rest of my words, the point is that since men and women have biologically different and fundamentally unequal stakes in pregnancy, you can't force parity by demanding that men and women be considered and treated equally by the law. There are a lot of positions which rely on this terrible line of thought, even unintentionally. If anyone wants to disagree with the position itself, plainly stated, that'll be QUITE A THING.

You are not taking away anything from women by giving men the right to deny legal paternity. How do people go from "men and women have biologically different and unequal stakes in pregnancy" to "men should have no legal way out of having fatherhood decided for them?"

It's even wrong to say that a man is 50% responsible for the child, because his contribution is merely fertilization. Every day that follows the woman is making a decision to keep the child. She can get morning after pills...or an abortion as soon she realizes she's pregnant. Or give the child up for adoption, in which case it might be fair to ask the man to, at the most, contribute to her during the pregnancy. Differences in biological roles should not mean granting one gender the right to decide for the other gender a major, life altering unasked for burden.

At the very the least, the fact that a man cannot force a woman to give birth to his child should have a corresponding right for men: They cannot be forced to become fathers.

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's an interesting topic to think about, but it's not going to go anywhere, because this issue does not affect the well off and the elites. It's only working and middle class men most affected by this.

In the 60s, many elite women wanted the right of legal abortion for themselves and for their daughters, so their agitation for it actually had an effect. Elite men on the other hand just don't care about Forced Fatherhood, so it isn't going to go anywhere.

[ June 18, 2013, 11:58 PM: Message edited by: Sa'eed ]

Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
sa'eed is proving my point something powerful

I'm not happy i get to rub that in anyone's face, but here we go!

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sa'eed
Member
Member # 12368

 - posted      Profile for Sa'eed   Email Sa'eed         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:


It's that a bunch of men feel that it is an injustice that they are forced to accept a burden of legal parenthood. It's not they are allowed to choose to 'accept the rights of legal parenthood,' it's that they feel it is unjust that they are 'forced to accept the burden of legal parenthood' — that women get to decide this for them.


Oh, they don't have a problem with it being decided for them. They have a problem with women deciding for them, because these bunch of men are patriarchy supporting sexists.
Posts: 668 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whelp, there goes the thread.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Misha McBride
Member
Member # 6578

 - posted      Profile for Misha McBride           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I expected it to happen on page 1 to be honest.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ak
Member
Member # 90

 - posted      Profile for ak   Email ak         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The answer for both men and women is like Louis C.K. says "... (to) decide whether to have sex with their *brains*" Contrary to his assumption, both men and women can and should do this from their earliest sexual experiences. The powers of creation are enormous and life changing. That's why one should use them very carefully. Children are 100% dependent on their parents to make wise choices about when to bring them into the world by having sex. Nobody is guaranteed responsibility-free sex in this life, but babies really should be able to trust their parents to give them a stable life in a strong family where they're wanted and loved. Life can happen to anyone, but at least you can start out with that expectation. You have the power to truly screw up the life of the new person you could bring into existence by choosing to have sex with the wrong person, (or by being the wrong person yourself).

Birth control works except when it doesn't. I know of dozens of unplanned pregnancies among my acquaintances. Birth control can't really work as well in real life as they claim from studies. I think Nature conspires with our hindbrains, or something, to get people pregnant. After all, all your ancestors going back billions of years are the ones who *did* get pregnant. Think about that.

So, are you prepared to provide for this possible new person you may create by having sex? If yes, then proceed. If no, then masturbate instead. This is called life. It doesn't revolve around you, and you're responsible for your actions.

Nobody is guaranteed responsibility-free sex. Choose whether or not to have sex using your *brain*. Do you understand this? If yes, you're old enough and responsible enough to have sex. If no, you're still a kid and not old enough to have sex. I should draw a flowchart. This is all very, very simple.

Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Wow, that's not condescending or arrogant at all. One question, though, how do you propose going about telling people whether or not they are allowed to have sex? How do you suggest we enforce this idea - castration, maybe? Because that sounds like a *great* idea to the overwhelming problem of absent fathers - just think more!
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ak
Member
Member # 90

 - posted      Profile for ak   Email ak         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Natural consequences are all the enforcement the idea needs. Education about all this should happen in multiple formats and locations, by parents, schools, churches, the internet, posters, books, scouts, tv, etc. so that kids have the least chance of ignorance causing them to make mistakes that mess up their own lives and their kids' lives. The decision is up to them, then they live with the consequences, which are still generally much more significant for mothers than fathers, despite gains made in the last century.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ak said one must ask themselves if they are ready for sex. One can not "enforce" common sense.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
My "think harder" stick says otherwise.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Use it too much it becomes a "think slower" stick...use it more than that and it becomes a "murder weapon".
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

quote:
Aris unfortunately hasn't been around to comment since his first posts, and thus hasn't been able to respond how important he thinks the rights of the child are (That particular issue was raised after he had left the discussion).
Any "rights of the child" that can be reduced to a paycheck can easily be reduced to a paycheck from the state, rather than a paycheck from the biological father.

I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.

This makes sense only under an ordering of priorities which is:
(Desires of the Mother) take precedence over (Needs of the Child) which take precedence over (Desires of the Father).

In fact even the people who mention "child's rights" will in the next paragraph justify their position using the balance of rights and advantages and privileges between the genders -- for example Stone_Wolf after the paragraph about how supposedly Dogbreath was forgetting the 'innocent party' went on to say this:

quote:
Women carry 100% of the baby, men 0%, women suffer 100% of the risks of pregnancy and birth, men 0%. In the end we are giving the "fair" choices to the correct party. And as a result the party with the least on the line has the least control. Perfectly fair.
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.

That's how easily one switches from remembering all about the child-as-a-relevant-party to completely forgetting it's a party in the situation. Discuss abortion or adoption and it's about the woman's rights. Discuss father abandoning responsibility and it's about the child's rights, instead?

Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in Finland.

quote:
I don't think anyone has suggested that children should be on welfare by default. Can you quote that, I can't find it?
I don't know if it has been mentioned already, but I'd support it -- children should be financially supported by the government by default. See my Finland link above.

quote:
My female cousin lied to her boyfriend about her birth control for the purpose of forcing him to stay with her. It does happen, and it is despicable.

But if their relationship doesn't work out, he still made that child and should help him (boy baby) in this world.

Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.

And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.

I just wanted to say that I'll be addressing this when I get some free time on the 'puter...can't possibly do it on my phone.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ak:
Natural consequences are all the enforcement the idea needs. Education about all this should happen in multiple formats and locations, by parents, schools, churches, the internet, posters, books, scouts, tv, etc. so that kids have the least chance of ignorance causing them to make mistakes that mess up their own lives and their kids' lives.

Yeah I don't think I want my kids' sex education to have anything to do with the internet or churches, both of which have a supremely reliable habit of mucking the problem up worse for kids and generally being terrible at it.

I want whatever sex education they have that doesn't come from us to come from comprehensive non-shamey health and sexuality curriculum at school.

Posts: 15417 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:

I want whatever sex education they have that doesn't come from us to come from comprehensive non-shamey health and sexuality curriculum at school.

+1

I remember talking to a girl who forgot her pill for two days, so (she told me) "I just took 3 the following day." I can't count the number of guys who don't know preseminal ejaculation contains some sperm. I'd guess lack of education is probably the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancy amoung young people, it's a pretty huge problem in the US.

*EDIT* I realize my post may be a little unclear. I'm referring to how schools in the U.S. are usually actively sabotaged in their attempts to teach adolescents how to have sex safely and responsibly. Instead they receive abstinence only education - basically, they get told "this is how it works, don't do it until you're married." So when these young adults become sexually active (in high school, or as adults) they usually are not well equipped to have safe sex - any education they have on the matter is second hand at best. This isn't even going into all the more complex consequences, like shaming and making kids think sex is "dirty" making teens less likely to have a healthy attitude towards sexuality or practice safe sex, and so forth.

[ June 20, 2013, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]

Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Abortion and forced fatherhood are both necessary evils.

Some days I look around and realize how much humanity sucks, right down to our crappy genes.

And some days I notice how well we do for ourselves despite that fact. I'm surprised at how little animosity there is in this thread, despite the complications of arguing principle vs. reality.

Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think you all are overestimating the difficulty of getting a new ID and social security number.

Come on down to a border state sometime. Two thousand dollars will buy you a new identity so genuine that your own mother won't recognize you. If you're strapped for cash and need a temporary bridge, a lot less then that will get you documents sufficient for employment.

You might have difficulties down the road when it comes to retirement, but some guys when faced with a woman who insists on dumping a kid he doesn't want on him, with all the ruination that implies, aren't going to be thinking long term.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I can't count the number of guys who don't know preseminal ejaculation contains some sperm. I'd guess lack of education is probably the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancy amoung young people, it's a pretty huge problem in the US.
It's a minor miracle I survived high school without becoming a parent.

Sex ed at my high school was sorely lacking. And at 17, I wasn't particularly interesting in any research that wasn't hands on.

Posts: 21897 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Aris Katsaris:
quote:
Dogbreath, you are looking at this cockeyed. Look at it from the point of view of the child...you know, the innocent party, the one who made no choice in the matter (to have sex and make children). Having sex leads to children, or at least the risk of children. If a person isn't mature enough to deal with the possible ramifications of sex, then they bloody well shouldn't have sex!.
That same argument would apply for banning BOTH abortions AND banning the right to put up a child for adoption.

Are you in favor of banning those things? If not, please justify why in those cases the point of view of the child doesn't matter.

For abortion, yes a potential child does have a stake in being born, which should be taken into account. Unfortunately that stake is less then the stake the mother has of body sovereignty. It is by far a greater evil to have the government force women to have a child against her will then to end a potential life before it ever was. And here is one of the main reasons why:

quote:
Every minute, at least one woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth – that means 529 000 women a year. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.
As for adoption, well, I just don't see the argument.

quote:
I think the "rights of the child" claim is frankly a pretense -- though I'm not sure if it's a conscious or unconscious pretense. Either way when the issue is about *mother* rights (right to abortion, right to put up a child for adoption) the child's rights are never mentioned by the same people who mention the child's rights when the issue about father rights.
I explained the "right" to abortion. As to the "right" to putting a child up for adoption, how is it even a little bit in favor of the child to force them to be with parents who do not want them vs. adoptive parents who -do- want them? Would it be more fair if someone gave up a child for adoption to have to pay a special tax until such time as they are adopted? So if a woman gave up a child then both parties still have to pay? I'd be fine with that.

quote:
No, the party with the least control is the *child*. The *child* suffers the majority of the risks of pregnancy and birth.
Not even remotely. A woman who risks her life and health in pregnancy and birth is risking her established life, not a potential life. Does a potential life deserve consideration? Absolutely. More then an established life? Not a chance.

quote:
Anyway, there's no conflict for me, because as I said any parental check can be replaced by a government check, or better yet a direct offer of government goods and services as in [URL=http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/finlands-baby-boxes-a-nations-156825]Finland.
I'm not a socialist. But if that blows up your skirt, fine. I still disagree.

quote:
]Are you *sure* you want to argue that victims of a crime should be help morally responsible for the consequences of that crime? Replace "fraud" with "rape", and your argument could be used to argue that raped women should raise their rapists' babies.
Not legitimately. Birth control is not 100%, so in having sex with my cousin, he knowingly put himself at risk of being a father. That she lied to him and vastly increased that risk -is- dishonest and deplorable, but that's about as far as it goes.

quote:
And their relationship working out? From a moral perspective I'm sorry to say that I consider your female cousin to be indeed the moral equivalent of a rapist (or worse), same as with a man who'd deliberately inseminate a woman against her will -- yeah, even a woman who has consented to sex does not need to imply consent to reproduction.
This is utter nonsense. As I just said, any sex has a risk of pregnancy, and when both parties accept that risk and consent to sex they have made their bed. Rape victims do not consent to any risk, they are victims of rape Or are you really suggesting otherwise? If I were you I would strongly recommend reexamining my moral stance if you really believe that of those two things that sabotaging/lying about birth control is worse then rape.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh baloney. Any time you eat meat or spinach or dairy at a restaurant, you run the risk of getting food poisoning. And the owner certainly isn't forcing the food down your throat. It sure as hell doesn't mean you're consenting to be poisoned, though. Consenting to sex is *not* the same as consenting to having, birthing, or raising a child.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's a shame that you're against this kind of socialism. I would have thought most people could get behind the idea of making sure all children are properly taken care of, regardless of who is at fault for the child not being taken care of in the first place.

I'm going to be honest here. If I were to knock up a one night stand, I'd look her straight in the eye and tell her that I would help pay for an abortion, but that if she makes the choice to have a child then she'll be entirely by herself. I'd tell her this nice and early, so she had plenty of time to make her choice. If a fake identity is required, so be it - I'm not about to allow some random woman to ruin my life because she wants to have a child.

If it were to happen in a long term relationship, then I would probably act differently. Having to pay for two homes instead of one, and having a partner you can trust to work with you instead of against you, mean a lot.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Every minute, at least one woman dies from complications related to pregnancy or childbirth – that means 529 000 women a year. In addition, for every woman who dies in childbirth, around 20 more suffer injury, infection or disease – approximately 10 million women each year.
Hold on. Let's keep the stats within the context of the discussion. In the US:

Maternal mortality: 650 deaths per year on average
Approximate number of births: 4 million*

It's an unfortunate possibility but an incredibly unlikely one, and the weight it carries in an argument should be proportional.

*2010 data

Posts: 563 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
Consenting to sex is *not* the same as consenting to having, birthing, or raising a child.

Sure, but consenting to sex comes with the risk of conceiving a child. And since that risk is always present one must accept that consenting to sex is consenting to the possibility of creating offspring. Maybe you wish it wasn't so, but nature doesn't care about your wishes, and neither do I.

quote:
Originally posted by Obama:
It's a shame that you're against this kind of socialism. I would have thought most people could get behind the idea of making sure all children are properly taken care of, regardless of who is at fault for the child not being taken care of in the first place.

The idea I proposed had all children taken care of, but with people who caused these children to be made and in need in the first place to foot the bill (or most of it). So, it isn't that I'm not down for providing for children, it's that I don't think it's okay for people to create children in the world and then just waltz off Scott free. Yes, the children should be taken care of, but it just doesn't matter what your intentions are, if you had consensual sex then you should be on the hook for the outcome.

quote:
If I were to knock up a one night stand, I'd look her straight in the eye and tell her that I would help pay for an abortion, but that if she makes the choice to have a child then she'll be entirely by herself.
This is immoral and wrong and I feel you are not honorable or principled. Not that you necessarily care what I think.

quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Hold on. Let's keep the stats within the context of the discussion. In the US:

Maternal mortality: 650 deaths per year on average
Approximate number of births: 4 million*

It's an unfortunate possibility but an incredibly unlikely one, and the weight it carries in an argument should be proportional.

*2010 data

Fair enough. While that does change the frequency it sure doesn't change the stakes.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, sorry. I have both honor and principles. One of them is not allowing other people to make life changing decisions on my behalf.

Having sex is not giving consent to have children. It is consenting to have sexual intercourse. Birth control and abortion mean that a child never has to be an inevitability. It is a choice.

You might as well say that jumping out of a plane is giving consent to splatter on the ground and die. But it's not, because we have parachutes. Just like we have birth control and abortion.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Obama
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And consent to the possibility of fertilizing an egg is not the same as consent to raising what comes of it if the woman chooses to bear the child.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2