- Joined
- Jun 23, 2009
- Messages
- 133,631
- Reaction score
- 30,937
- Location
- Bagdad, La.
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?
I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.
So you never ejaculate except for procreation right?
Are you saying your jizm is too precious of a commodity to ever waste???
The man can make the same argument. So, if he wants a kid then women can keep on aborting them and prevent him from having one. The woman only has to get pregnant once to have the kid she wants.
I understand and have understood quite well. I told you before, however, that this hypothetical exists outside the realm of reality and allows for discussion and debate void the moral quandary normally associated with the problem. You in fact agreed to it. Is this becoming more clear? I think most understand the system and why it is set the way it is. In fact, if you were to set this down to reality and say "in reality, if it came to a vote to let fathers off the hook for child payments, would you vote in favor of the law" you would be seeing a different set of answers. I don't think that any pro-lifer would honestly endorse a system wherein the welfare of the child would be put in such grave danger. In reality, the pro-lifers (I should say on the whole, there's probably a non-zero number that would go the other way) go after the dead beat dad. You fathered him, you pay. We're not willing to actually let a person off the hook when a child is involved; the child must be cared for. That's the reality, and that will remain the reality.
The exercise of these sorts of hypothetical is to allow us to explore more the philosophical base. We aren't going to actually let dads get away without paying, so in the context of the hypothetical we can make arguments to the contrary based on basic philosophy and reason without worry of actually hurting a child. There is no real child. My arguments are in this light. What is fair, what is just? While the reality of the world may prevent the pure hypothetical from being realized as the rights and liberties of others must always be considered, the hypothetical frees us from that constraint. Does that make sense? In that light, I use your arguments and logic to show why the man should be given freedom to divorce himself from consequence, the same as woman have now in reality.
You can buy them on the black market, or abduct them from 3rd world countries.
I'm not Catholic. Sperm isn't human life. Left to its own development it won't make a human. It must combine with an egg to create human life. By what you say, the menstrual cycle should be considered abortion. And that's clearly non-sense.
It's certainly worth a heck of a lot more than yours.
Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.
Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.
I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.
Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.
Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.
(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)
and therefore up to her if your jism becomes a baby.
That doesn't solve the problem if I want the kid to have my good looks and brains. :lol:
The law as it stands gives the woman the right to decide to have the child or not...Whether she decides to keep the child or have an abortion its still the mans child...he still fathered the child...If he didnt want the child he had the option of making sure he didnt get her pregnant....PAY DUDE , I dont want to pay for you to make piggynasty.
Irrelevant and off topic...This situation is way past people being irresponsible and making a baby. Or about who should have done what. Or somebody is being mistreated or unfairly made to be responsible for making a baby that is born.
Start a new thread that deals with, "once kids areIf a child is outside the womb...then and only then can "Child Support Payments" become an issue. Children are 100% dependent. Doesn't make a damn who mom and dad are. It doesn't make a damn what they believe about their role in that kids future is...or isn't.If somebody wants be a loser parent? Be one. But if I had my way. I would hunt them down like rabid dogs and they would be responsible for the well being of that child.There is a severe problem with people who condemn others for abortion who are willing to see a child born...and once it's born gripe about who the hell is responsible for it...and who has to provide support.Kids become invisible to people who can't take responsibility for their actions.
What a bunch of emotional garbage... she can have an abortion. That is whole point of the thread.Why don't we get drunk and screw baby. WHAT? You're pregnant? Get lost bitch - it ain't my problem! Oh Yeah? In my court it is - bitch. Deadbeat dads would quickly become Bubba's girlfriend in jail.
Nope, it's up to biology and timing.
Its up to her biology which includes her mind (decision).
As has been pointed out, we already have 21% of the children in this country not being properly cared for. Why would we want to add to that number?
Okay, I can compromise. I agree that it's not fair. People should have the ability to opt out of parenthood if they aren't ready. It's why I am pro-choice. Ultimately I must concede that pro-choice must also protect the father as well. I mean, what about his choice? I'm not sure that even financial support can be considered parenthood though. A single mom could just as easily saddle up with another man who can be cooperative in helping her to care for her child, all the while the biological dad is paying support. In thinking of it this way, we can start discussing what it means to be a father. Is it merely financial support? I don't think so. Perhaps letting biological fathers choose if they want to be parents can offset the deadbeat dad phenomenon. Instead of a child always relating to their dad as someone who is never there for them, we can cut the unwilling party loose and then let a better situation take hold.
Unfortunately it seems like the majority of single mothers stay single. There are a lot of men out there who would get together with a single mom and help her to raise a kid that's not even his, but I'm skeptical that these kinds of men are greater in number than those would want nothing to do with the baggage of a kid that isn't theirs - or hell, a kid that IS theirs.
I do understand your use of logic... but I can't help but tie it back to reality. I'm not trying to swindle logic here in order to be right. I just don't see how, reproductively and biologically speaking, men and women are equal. Women cannot easily back away from parenthood because the child is attached to them from the get go. Yes, they can have the kid and give it up for adoption... but that is still her situation to deal with. The man can be in Timbuctu by then for all we know.
Even philosophically, I don't agree that a woman's right to choose looks the same as it does for a man. Men have never had to fight for personhood rights, or the right to control their bodies. Women from day one have not been equal and, until recently in history, have been the property of men. All worthwhile research points to the fact that the status of women and children affects the status of entire civilizations. It's the whole reason behind the UN mandate on bettering women and children. It's not a sexist or discriminatory policy. The fact is that we live in a patriarchy and women are easily trampled upon - maybe less so in America, but look around the world and you will see that we are the exception rather than the rule.
Female reproduction is intimately tied to the health of civilizations. They have the right to choose because they have the biological imperative. Men can sleep around if they want and until the advent of genetic testing, they could get away with it. I see child support laws as compensating for centuries of paternal neglect. A woman can't just toss her child - she will be charged with abandonment, neglect, or even attempted murder. But men have done just that for centuries and now that family courts are trying to prevent it, men are getting pissed at having their parental responsibilities thrown back in their faces. In reality, they are being shown the world that women have always had to live.
(Again, I know there are deadbeat moms out there, but I already demonstrated with statistics that it's not the norm.)
Did you run out then???
Quality over quantity, son.
What? ****, I had that backwards.
That's why females are naturally attracted to the alpha males.
Anyone who breeds a child, should be held legally responsible, by law, for the welfare of that child; the father and the mother.
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish? Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?
It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!
...right over their heads. :roll:
This argument is true of women as well. If they didn't want to have a child, she had the option of making sure she didn't get pregnant. The woman isn't just some idle participant, she made choices too.
How come most people with this argument ignore the fact that the woman is chooing to have the child against the man's wish? Also, why do poeple ignore that she can simply have an abortion if she doesn't want to support the child on her own?
It's like ZOOOOOOOOOOM!
...right over their heads. :roll:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?