Originally posted by Bardock42
But isn't that kinda what adoption is?
in theory, adoption give children to people who are willing to take care of them, versus just altogether abandoning any responsibility for the kid.
like, at least with adoption, you are taking responsibility to find a place for the child
Originally posted by inimalist
in theory, adoption give children to people who are willing to take care of them, versus just altogether abandoning any responsibility for the kid.like, at least with adoption, you are taking responsibility to find a place for the child
Well, you already found that person, the other parent. But yeah, I see your problem, I can't see any easy solution, but that one person has to provide for the child against their will strikes me as wrong.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you already found that person, the other parent. But yeah, I see your problem, I can't see any easy solution, but that one person has to provide for the child against their will strikes me as wrong.
oh ya, like i said, I don't know how we could make a perfect system, there just seem to be glaring problems with how it is going now, or, imho, the idea that one of the parents can just wash their hands of the whole situation (I think we disagree about the father's say in the pregnancy in the first place... though, i dont think a father should be allowed to force a woman to carry a child to term... damn, this one is tricky...)
Originally posted by inimalist
all im saying is that, without some kind of restriction, this allows for exploitation of women.
All I'm saying, the law shouldn't hold men financially responsible for babies if the law isn't willing to hear their voices in cases of abortion.
Now if some dude wants to send money for a kid he helped create, no problem. It should be a choice, not a legal binding stipulation.
Originally posted by Robtard
All I'm saying, the law shouldn't hold men financially responsible for babies if the law isn't willing to hear their voices in cases of abortion.Now if some dude wants to send money for a kid he helped create, no problem. It should be a choice, not a legal binding stipulation.
that seems to just legalize deadbeat fathers though
I can't really accept that men can just wash their hands of any responsibility for a child just because they don't want to
until men have the ability to become pregnant, it is never going to be strictly equal, and i wish i could think of a way to make it more fair, but I can't agree with strictly voluntary child support.
however, if you pay support, you get time with the kid, I'm totally in favor of that
Originally posted by inimalist
that seems to just legalize deadbeat fathers thoughI can't really accept that men can just wash their hands of any responsibility for a child just because they don't want to
until men have the ability to become pregnant, it is never going to be strictly equal, and i wish i could think of a way to make it more fair, but I can't agree with strictly voluntary child support.
however, if you pay support, you get time with the kid, I'm totally in favor of that
It does just that.
I don't like it from a moral point of view. But it's the fair thing to do, considering they have no say in abortion cases.
From what I see, if it is a womans body, then she is reponsible for the upbringing. If the guy wants to stick around great, if not he should be responsible in anyway unless he wants to.
In sex it is up to the woman to decide if it will happen or not, otherwise it is rape.
That being the case she should be on her own and expect nothing from the man unless he wants to do it.
Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
In sex it is up to the woman to decide if it will happen or not, otherwise it is rape.
Unless you're saying accidental pregnancy should be treated as rape I'm not sure what you're point is here. Two people can get together without the intention of having a child and produce one anyway. Both of them are equally responsible for that.
Originally posted by inimalist
the problem with the "personhood" thing is that it is just an entire mess of special pleading. Personhood means a lot more than simply "the right to life".Tac specifies "like a child", but even that is problematic. Children have rights that a fetus does not (what defines a child anyways, anyone under 18? [sic]), and even then, the fact that "child" and "adult" can be differentiated means that it is just as possible to differentiate between "child" and "fetus"
Right to life is a big part of person-hood, though. Being a person demands you have a right to life. So the question isn't "is the fetus a person", it's "should it be treated like one?"
Not saying I want to get into a debate about the status of a fetus. We've done that song and dance already on the abortion thread, so no sense in getting into it here.
My point was that that is the question that should be asked. The fact that the kid might grow up poor or that he might have to live in several families is completely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is acceptable or not.
Originally posted by Bardock42
I think she should have the right to separate that person from her body, if that leads to that person's death that is unfortunate, but not her problem.
I've heard this line or reasoning already in the abortion thread and completely disagree with it. This line of thinking leads to far too many unjust situations.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
But it doesn't mean they should live either. Having kids is something biological and not some magic trick, any person and any animal (for the most part) can crank out kids. Doesn't mean all should at any time.
You are still missing the point. You claim that aborting fetuses is okay because those fetuses might grow up in bad situations. But that isn't an acceptable reason to kill anyone! For starters it is not absolute that the child will have a hard life. Even if this is strongly possible. By that line of reasoning NO ONE should be allowed to be born because EVERYONE has the possibility of having a hard life. You don't know how it will go until after you are born.
Second, most people would rather have a hard life than no life at all. Who are you to make that decision for them?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Right to life is a big part of person-hood, though. Being a person demands you have a right to life. So the question isn't "is the fetus a person", it's "should it be treated like one?"Not saying I want to get into a debate about the status of a fetus. We've done that song and dance already on the abortion thread, so no sense in getting into it here.
My point was that that is the question that should be asked. The fact that the kid might grow up poor or that he might have to live in several families is completely irrelevant to the question of whether abortion is acceptable or not.
no, totally, but now you are giving some special status to "right to life" over all other rights
I'm not saying it isn't important, however, I really don't think a rights based approach is the most appropriate for the abortion issue
I think you and I probably agree more than disagree. I wouldn't be against a woman I was with having an abortion, but it would be a HUGE deal to me, without a doubt, something that I would remember and probably recognize annually like a birthday. However, at the end of the day, its not my business what a woman does with her body, and, though I know this is the weaker argument, it is something that laws will never get rid of.
I sort of realized years ago that the law isn't the same as being moral, it is far more concerned with pragmatics. I do actually think abortion is very immoral, but not having it done with coat hangers and in back alleys seems the most pragmatic decision.
Originally posted by inimalistDoesn't matter in this case, the reason she can "abort" is that it is her body, but having a kid and forcing a man to send her money has nothing to do with her body. She more irresponsible than he. It's not good for the kid or for the father. Women abort when it is convenient for them with no repercussions. Should be equal rights.
yes, i agreed that there are problems with the system as is, but a full opt out system allows men to exploit women with no possible repercussions.the reason a woman can opt out is that it is her body
What they should do is have the man sign a waiver when he is alerted of pregnancy or the kid and give him about 90 days to decide if he wants rights. If he opts out he gets no rights.
How are the men exploiting women? Women are exploiting men all of the time for billions of dollars and not to mention the numerous men who pay for kids that aren't theirs. With the ability to opt out it wouldn't happen. A person is stupid to think that a person having sex with you means they want a kid and or marriage from you with no discussion beforehand. You don't need some broad deciding your future.
Originally posted by Tha C-Master
As far as I'm concerned men don't need as much say in the operation, they need to be able to opt out legally if they don't want to have a kid, instead of being forced into being a parent and being forced to pay out.
👆
I am in full agreement of this.
However, I would like to submit that a very specific restriction be applied to this "opt out": the men must make a legal declaration with their local county courthouse before two "or" conditions are met:
1. The pregnancy is not past the "abort" stage AND the man has enough money to pay for the abortion. If this is true and the woman still wants to keep the child, he should be legally exempt because he is forced into keeping the child under the current system.
OR
2. Two parties agree (the man and woman OR the man and a third party) that the man did not find out about the pregnancy until after the abort window has passed so he gets to opt out (some women have come around at the 5th or 6th month mark to let their "man" know that the child is his.)
#2 would provide the most legal trouble by far. This is where you would get into "he said she said" bullshit. We already have a "robust" small claims court so it could be worked out there.
I GREATLY look forward to the "excellent" male contraceptive (MC). Vasectomy is definitely not an option for everyone. Pulling out is not one either. Relying on birth-control is not one either. I see this as an old sexist problem that does not favor men, currently. If there was a cheap, safe, and easily reversible option for men to avoid producing offspring, they would be lining up on the streets. It's not like I'm making this stuff up: Dr. Carlon Colker gets asked a stupidly large amount about future and current male contraceptives (he writes for MD.) Sure, that may seem anecdotal, but after thousands of inquiries from readers (and it comprises a significant percentage of his inquiries), it's difficult to deny the male interest in a good MC.
Still...my fascist idea of not being able to have children until approved by the state is "good" idea to me. 313
Originally posted by Symmetric ChaosBecause she is in full control of the situation and the man has no control over a kid being born and has less options of birth control. He did play a part in her being pregnant, but a kid is born because she wants it to be born regardless of what he thinks. Women have more power over these situations, more power=more responsibility.
People keep coming back to this. How is she more irresponsible? You need two to tango. The man is exactly as responsible for the result as the woman in the case of accidental pregnancy.
Numerous women lie about being on birth control, poke holes in condoms, dump the contents of used condoms into themselves etc. It's impossible for a man to be absolutely sure he won't be forced into fatherhood unless he has a vasectomy, which is permanent and they won't give it to younger people or men who don't have kids.
And numerous men act like assholes to women too.
Your argument boils down to "It's not fair that women have full biological control over the baby" and literally speaking it's not fair, no, though frankly that is far harsher on the women than the men of this world.
But it is completely irrelevant. All men KNOW the risk they are running when they have sex with someone and that's just how it is. If they don't want to face up to the responsibilities of getting a woman pregnant, they shouldn't have slept with her. That is 100% and absolutely the end of the line because there is no question whatsoever of men having a legal say in a woman's decision to abort and any attempt to make that so is utterly immoral. You may not like the idea of men being forced to pay out for kids they did not want- but tough. It is the ONLY acceptable alternative and there is not a single man in that situation who did not know what he was getting into.
This is another one of those conversations where I can be thankful that those in power are not, and never will be, stupid enough to give this sort of idea the time of day.
What about it? Women and men both act like assholes to each other, but what does that have to do with a woman having a kid and using it to extort money from a man? Men get no special protection under the law and women shouldn't either.
And my argument isn't that. I'm not saying a man should force a woman to abort, a man should have the ability to opt out just like a woman does. It isn't harsher to women. Women can choose to have a kid or not whenever they please. The child support laws here allow women to serve men papers late which means they pay child support even though the kids aren't theirs and *even* if they have a DNA test. We already have an article here of women having kids and aborting. People have kids for their own self motive and that's being shown now.
I feel that two people should discuss what happens if an "accident" occurs, and if the woman wants to keep it, he shouldn't bother with her. This is why I tell men they should avoid single mothers on top of other reasons. If she gets pregnant she'll keep the kid.
And that's an over the top notion. Why would someone having sex means they want to have kids. Very few times in someone's life do they have sex to have kids, most of the time they have sex for pleasure. They should take responsible precautions but forcing a man to be a father against his will is *not* acceptable and it doesn't make sense either. The decision has nothing to do with the "welfare" of the child, because the kid isn't better off growing up without a father in the first place. So it is about women getting money from men. It has nothing to do with the "best interest of the kid".
Not only that but you have men paying for kids that are not theirs. A man could date a woman and a woman could tell the court he was like a father figure and get him to pay for a kid that came from another man. Nothing right about that either, but as long as we have this utterly feminist state stupid laws like this will continue to come out. Women can lie, poke holes in condoms, and basically commit fraud to get money and it should stop.
Originally posted by dadudemonRight I think that it should be a 90 day mark (or something like that) for him to opt out, and he has to be notified legally (what women do with child support is send the papers to a phony address and the man has no idea and then he's *forced* to pay after a certain amount of time has passed). That or whenever he's notified (so you won't have some golddigging ***** come around 5 years later and trying to get money out of you), if he opts out he forfeits all rights.
Wow. Great idea!👆
I am in full agreement of this.
However, I would like to submit that a very specific restriction be applied to this "opt out": the men must make a legal declaration with their local county courthouse before two "or" conditions are met:
1. The pregnancy is not past the "abort" stage AND the man has enough money to pay for the abortion. If this is true and the woman still wants to keep the child, he should be legally exempt because he is forced into keeping the child under the current system.
OR
2. Two parties agree (the man and woman OR the man and a third party) that the man did not find out about the pregnancy until after the abort window has passed so he gets to opt out (some women have come around at the 5th or 6th month mark to let their "man" know that the child is his.)
#2 would provide the most legal trouble by far. This is where you would get into "he said she said" bullshit. We already have a "robust" small claims court so it could be worked out there.
I GREATLY look forward to the "excellent" male contraceptive (MC). Vasectomy is definitely not an option for everyone. Pulling out is not one either. Relying on birth-control is not one either. I see this as an old sexist problem that does not favor men, currently. If there was a cheap, safe, and easily reversible option for men to avoid producing offspring, they would be lining up on the streets. It's not like I'm making this stuff up: Dr. Carlon Colker gets asked a stupidly large amount about future and current male contraceptives (he writes for MD.) Sure, that may seem anecdotal, but after thousands of inquiries from readers (and it comprises a significant percentage of his inquiries), it's difficult to deny the male interest in a good MC.
Still...my fascist idea of not being able to have children until approved by the state is "good" idea to me. 313
This will be a good idea, and I fully agree on the birth control part. Men need more options, and not only that if women couldn't get money from men by doing this (or by divorcing and taking anything) they'd be screwed and many of them would have to get up and work for a change, instead of just cranking out kids and getting money from the government or from a man, which is welfare as far as I'm concerned. Anyways let's hope for these changes. If men grow a set and start asking for these things we'd have changes. Instead we have these states being run by manginas and butch dykes who look to give women every advantage possible.