Current Events > If men have no legal say in if women keeps baby, should they HAVE to pay C.S.?

(+) Yeah! (+)

haloiscoolisbak posted...

I keep hearing life isn't fair/biology isn't fair

Then I guess it's badluck that were not seahorses and the women in our species carry the child(joking)

Biology isn't fair of course but laws should be. And forcing an unwilling father to pay for the 'consequences' in this scenario for years and years is unfair

Unwanted pregnancies by default aren't fair.

Child support is the most 'fair' solution that can be found under unfortunate circumstances.

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

And forcing an unwilling father to pay for the 'consequences' in this scenario for years and years is unfair

Forcing the child to live in poverty because you want to be a deadbeat is more unfair.

Tenlaar posted...

What's "with it" is that you're repeating the most common right wing anti-abortion argument, which is "if you don't want babies then just keep your legs closed." It's a bad argument when they use it and it's a bad one when you use it too. I don't consider "women have to accept the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy and the associated consequences if they have sex so if it happens she'd better just be ready to step up" to be a valid argument in the year 2020, and the same argument is not more valid when applied to men.

Personally, the comment strikes me as sarcastic. Mainly because when I've seen this topic posted before, the pro-birth men are the same ones who like the idea of not paying child support if they don't want to. It is petty satisfaction to throw the same stupid arguments back at people. Same thing as saying maybe corporations should have cut back on that Starbucks and avocado toast when they whine about not doing well financially right now.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

Forcing the child to live in poverty because you want to be a deadbeat is more unfair.

Then we come to an agreement.

If she doesn't want a kid but is simply afraid of an abortion because God, okay fine but I'm only paying 25-75

If she legit wanted a kid and I knew that going in then 75-25 me, I fucked up

We gotta be flexible

---

I just want the fairness pie to be sliced up with consideration

50-25-25(50 to the kid, 25 to the parents)

Some people want 75-25-0

Some want 50-50-0

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

I keep hearing life isn't fair/biology isn't fair

Then I guess it's badluck that were not seahorses and the women in our species carry the child(joking)

Biology isn't fair of course but laws should be. And forcing an unwilling father to pay for the 'consequences' in this scenario for years and years is unfair

The only person that needs fairness is the child. Unless we're going to issue fathers/guardians to every child whose birth father wants out, holding both both parents responsible is the only fair thing to the kid.

Men have no say whether a kid is born or not and they just need to deal with it and hope the woman aborts if they want out.

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

Then we come to an agreement.

If she doesn't want a kid but is simply afraid of an abortion because God, okay fine but I'm only paying 25-75

If she legit wanted a kid and I knew that going in then 75-25 me, I fucked up

We gotta be flexible

It's up to you and her to be flexible and reach an agreement that's fair to the child. Not everyone else.

How would the courts figure any of that shit out.

---

Wtf are u nerds even talking about?? This was just some shit ive been working on for my act that's been killin at open mics

---

hockeybub89 posted...

Yes.

Sucks to suck, men.

No it's great to suck men. How you avoid all this in the first place.

---

Cleo_II posted...

I have said that sex has consequences for women and men. That is a fact. Adults should make careful decisions regarding sex and pregnancy. Im not sure what else to say to you because you seem to be foaming at the mouth to try and make this a political thing when it isnt. Ive said my piece on this. Make what you want of it, Im done with your mental masturbation.

You're not actually defending the shitty reasoning behind your argument. You're arguing that people who don't want kids should literally never have sex, they should have to spend their entire lives denying the natural instinct because birth control cannot be 100% effective. It's a shit argument. You're allowed to make shit arguments, of course, but you're going to get called out for it and it doesn't actually make you seem superior to adopt a superior attitude.

TheOtherMike posted...

Forcing the child to live in poverty because you want to be a deadbeat is more unfair.

To be fair, it is the mother forcing that upon the child if she exercises her right to choose to keep the child and cannot financially support it without help.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

To be fair, it is the mother forcing that upon the child if she exercises her right to choose to keep the child and cannot financially support it without help.

And it also the father who is forcing that on the child if he can help and chooses not to.

---

Darmik posted...

And it also the father who is forcing that on the child if he can help and chooses not to.

So they are both at fault for something that could have been prevented by a choice only the mother can make. In that case let her deal with the consequences of her choice.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So they are both at fault for something that could have been prevented by a choice only the mother can make. In that case let her deal with the consequences of her choice.

got him

---

haloiscoolisbak posted...

got him

Nah, pay for your kids lol

IfGodCouldDie posted...

So they are both at fault for something that could have been prevented by a choice only the mother can make.

Nope. Fathers can prevent unwanted pregnancies too. It's up to both parties to prevent one.

Once one happens it's up to the Mother if she wants to have an abortion or not.

If she decides that she's keeping it it's up to the Mother and Father to decide how they're going to each support the baby.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

In that case let her deal with the consequences of her choice.

You're arguing that fathers have absolutely no liability for unwanted pregnancies they're responsible for.

Doesn't matter if they slipped off a condom during intercourse on purpose or simply lied about their intentions of being a father before he found out she was pregnant. Who cares? It's not their problem.

That's the reality of what you're arguing for. Why would men bother to be responsible when there's no consequences or responsibility if a pregnancy happens?

---

Darmik posted...

Nope. Fathers can prevent unwanted pregnancies too. It's up to both parties to prevent one.

I have literally said this multiple times in this topic already.
Darmik posted...

Once one happens it's up to the Mother if she wants to have an abortion or not.

If she decides that she's keeping it it's up to the Mother and Father to decide how they're going to each support the baby.

Except that if she decides to keep it the father actually does not have any choices, unless he decides he wants to be a father.

Darmik posted...

You're arguing that fathers have absolutely no liability for unwanted pregnancies they're responsible for.

Why are you acting like they are the only ones that should be responsible for it? The mother is the one that gets to make the decision, so she should be the one that takes on the responsibility. If she knows the guy is going to stick around and be a father, great. If she knows that he won't, it's probably best to not have the baby or give it up for adoption.
Darmik posted...

Doesn't matter if they slipped off a condom during intercourse on purpose

This would be fucking rape, so I think the mother fucker should serve hard jail time in that scenario.

Darmik posted...

or simply lied about their intentions of being a father before he found out she was pregnant. Who cares? It's not their problem.

This is a scenario where they both obviously consented to unprotected sex with intentions to have a kid, if the guy up and bails on her after that she should do everything she can to take him for everything he is worth, not the same as an accidental or unwanted pregnancy.

Darmik posted...

That's the reality of what you're arguing for.

It's absolutely not the reality I am arguing for and I don't appreciate you trying to twist what I have said to paint me in some negative light. I am fully open to having discussions with people dispite whether or not we will agree but I do not enjoy having conversations with others if you are going to attempt to paint me in a way in which I condone raping or lying to anyone.

Darmik posted...

Why would men bother to be responsible when there's no consequences or responsibility if a pregnancy happens?

Why does all the responsibility have to fall on men when women are the only ones that get to make a choice?

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Except that if she decides to keep it the father actually does not have any choices, unless he decides he wants to be a father.

Yes. That's how it goes.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Why are you acting like they are the only ones that should be responsible for it? The mother is the one that gets to make the decision, so she should be the one that takes on the responsibility. If she knows the guy is going to stick around and be a father, great. If she knows that he won't, it's probably best to not have the baby or give it up for adoption.

Both parties are responsible. You are arguing that one doesn't need to be. Not every woman is willing to have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

It's absolutely not the reality I am arguing for and I don't appreciate you trying to twist what I have said to paint me in some negative light. I am fully open to having discussions with people dispite whether or not we will agree but I do not enjoy having conversations with others if you are going to attempt to paint me in a way in which I condone raping or lying to anyone.

The point is those scenarios are the consequence of pursuing a world where fathers have no responsibility for their unwanted children. It frees men from having to care about getting women pregnant because they will not be liable regardless of what the woman chooses to do.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Why does all the responsibility have to fall on men when women are the only ones that get to make a choice?

Giving some money to support a woman and his child is not all of the responsibility falling on them. Far from it.

Women are the only ones who get to make that choice because the child grows inside them.

---

This is a hot issue and no, if the man wants nothing to do with the woman or baby it's on her.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Except that if she decides to keep it the father actually does not have any choices, unless he decides he wants to be a father.

Biology is unfair.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

It's absolutely not the reality I am arguing for and I don't appreciate you trying to twist what I have said to paint me in some negative light.

It absolutely and indisputably is the reality you're arguing for, whether you acknowledge it or not. If men could opt out of child support the reality is that there is no liability for fathers of unwanted pregnancies. None.

TheOtherMike posted...

This is a stupid question.

So it should be easy to answer then.

---

How did this stupid ass topic get 150+ posts

---

TheOtherMike posted...

It absolutely and indisputably is the reality you're arguing for, whether you acknowledge it or not. If men could opt out of child support the reality is that there is no liability for fathers of unwanted pregnancies. None.

And if women don't want to deal with that, they should take special care not to get pregnant, going so far as to not have sex. If they get pregnant and they're on their own, life's not fair.

---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

How did this stupid ass topic get 150+ posts

Because "I as a man have the moral right to 'financially abort'" is about as popular of an internet circlejerk as "black people are moral failures because of absent fathers"

---

Darmik posted...

It's not about the man and it's not about justice.

It's about giving that child a fair opportunity to live their life.

I don't think it should be separated though. If the dude wants nothing to do with the kid, why should he care what's "best"? In his mind, it's not his problem because he does not want it and is going through a process to make sure he's not attached in any way.

---

Cleo_II posted...

I personally dont think that women should bear all the physical risks of pregnancy alone. I think we should design a system where we can hook mens brains into it so they can feel every cramp, nausea attacks, back aches, or birth pains. Also if the woman dies in childbirth, so should the man. It will be like the matrix but for pregnancy.

Its only fair.

I know you know that this is an incredibly stupid post.

---

shnangyboos posted...

And if women don't want to deal with that, they should take special care not to get pregnant, going so far as to not have sex. If they get pregnant and they're on their own, life's not fair.

Dipshit mentalities like this are exactly why child support is not and should not be optional.

Frolex posted...

Because "I as a man have the moral right to 'financially abort'" is about as popular of an internet circlejerk as "black people are moral failures because of absent fathers"

...wow

---

TheOtherMike posted...

Dipshit mentalities like this are exactly why child support is not and should not be optional.

Oh, that argument only works one way, I see.

---

dave_is_slick posted...

...wow

problem?

---

Why is "biology is unfair" an argument for men having no say in abortion but not an argument for children sometimes being raised by single moms w/o help, which is biologically quite typical in the animal kingdom?

---

"Biology isn't fair" is a bullshit deflection from actually discussing the issue anyway, because this isn't a matter of how fair biology is, it's a matter of how fair society tries to be in the face of those biological realities.

Kolibri X posted...

Sex has consequences.

And you're a clear example of that. You should've been swallowed.


---

dave_is_slick posted...

I don't think it should be separated though. If the dude wants nothing to do with the kid, why should he care what's "best"? In his mind, it's not his problem because he does not want it and is going through a process to make sure he's not attached in any way.

Because he is biologically the father. That process does not exist.
Tenlaar posted...

"Biology isn't fair" is a bullshit deflection from actually discussing the issue anyway, because this isn't a matter of how fair biology is, it's a matter of how fair society tries to be in the face of those biological realities.

Society is trying to be.

Either you're being 'fair' to two people or one. You can't pick both.

---

tehzeldafanboy posted...

Why is "biology is unfair" an argument for men having no say in abortion

How exactly would men "have a say in abortion?"

Tenlaar posted...

it's a matter of how fair society tries to be in the face of those biological realities.

Child support is society being as fair as it can in the face of those biological realities.

TheOtherMike posted...

Child support is society being as fair as it can in the face of those biological realities.

No, it's not. The fairest way for it to be would be women having the choice between parenthood, abortion, adoption if both parties agree, or surrendering rights and responsibilities to the father while men have the choice of parenthood, adoption if both parties agree, or surrendering rights and responsibilities to the mother combined with a robust system of social safety nets that ensure that no single parent has to struggle because of it.

Tenlaar posted...

No, it's not. The fairest way for it to be would be women having the choice between parenthood, abortion, adoption if both parties agree, or surrendering rights and responsibilities to the father while men have the choice of parenthood, adoption if both parties agree, or surrendering rights and responsibilities to the mother combined with a robust system of social safety nets that ensure that no single parent has to struggle because of it.

Which would result in even more deadbeat dads than already exist, further overloading of the foster system, and the taxpayer at large being responsible for the bill. This is simply not a viable option, leaving child support as the fairest solution.

Darmik posted...

Yes. That's how it goes.

So what's the point of the discussions than?
Darmik posted...

Both parties are responsible. You are arguing that one doesn't need to be. Not every woman is willing to have an abortion or give a baby up for adoption.

I'm not arguing anyone doesn't need to be, I'm arguing that when one party has no right to make a decision they should at least be afforded the right to opt out of the consequences of that decision.

Darmik posted...

The point is those scenarios are the consequence of pursuing a world where fathers have no responsibility for their unwanted children. It frees men from having to care about getting women pregnant because they will not be liable regardless of what the woman chooses to do.

Those are scenarios that already exist in a world where we already force men to pay child support and there is no reason to think that these kinds of things would skyrocket just because men are given the right to choose whether or not they suffer the consequences of someone else's choice.
Darmik posted...

Giving some money to support a woman and his child is not all of the responsibility falling on them. Far from it.

Women are the only ones who get to make that choice because the child grows inside them.

Do you consider a woman to be irresponsible if she decides to get an abortion?

---

TheOtherMike posted...

Biology is unfair.

What does that have to do with what we are taking about?
TheOtherMike posted...

It absolutely and indisputably is the reality you're arguing for, whether you acknowledge it or not. If men could opt out of child support the reality is that there is no liability for fathers of unwanted pregnancies. None.

And in that regard women are still free to choose whether or not they want to have a baby and try to raise it on their own, give it up for adoption, or abort it. Their life is only negatively affected if they so choose it to be. If they decide to abort or give it up for adoption they get to rid themselves of that same liability.

---

Darmik posted...

Either you're being 'fair' to two people or one. You can't pick both.

By giving both the man and the woman a choice is how you are fair to both of them.

---

TheOtherMike posted...

This is simply not a viable option, leaving child support as the fairest solution.

Oh, well since you said I'm wrong I'm totally convinced now, good job.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

What does that have to do with what we are taking about?

Everything. No one designed how organisms reproduce. Nature doesn't care about the disparity between the male and female of species. Men don't get a say in whether a woman aborts or not because the circumstances of biology simply don't allow him to. It sucks, but there's nothing that can be done about that.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

And in that regard women are still free to choose whether or not they want to have a baby and try to raise it on their own, give it up for adoption, or abort it. Their life is only negatively affected if they so choose it to be. If they decide to abort or give it up for adoption they get to rid themselves of that same liability.

So you are saying you want men to have no liability whatsoever. This is an incredibly stupid mentality.

Tenlaar posted...

Oh, well since you said I'm wrong I'm totally convinced now, good job.

You're welcome.

TheOtherMike posted...

Everything. No one designed how organisms reproduce. Nature doesn't care about the disparity between the male and female of species. Men don't get a say in whether a woman aborts or not because the circumstances of biology simply don't allow him to. It sucks, but there's nothing that can be done about that.

That still has nothing to do with what we are talking about. We are not talking about biology, we are talking about choices and who has the rights to make what choices and who should be held responsible for the choices they make.

So you are saying you want men to have no liability whatsoever. This is an incredibly stupid mentality.

Explain to me why.

---

IfGodCouldDie posted...

That still has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Yes it does.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

We are not talking about biology

Yes we are.

IfGodCouldDie posted...

Explain to me why.

I already did.

Also, in post 168 you said you were not arguing for a reality where men have no liability, even feigning outrage at Darmik for suggesting you were. Now you're asking me why that isn't a stupid idea. Might want to get your argument straight before you contradict yourself again.

Men and women have equal rights when it comes to abortion. That doesn't mean they necessarily have the same rights. The instant a man gets pregnant, he'll have just as much right to decide whether or not he gets an abortion and the woman will have the exact same right to make that decision for him. Abortion rights only apply to people that can actually have abortions. Saying that's unfair makes about as much sense as complaining that only blind people get seeing-eye dogs. It's the kind of child's understanding of the world that says we need to give seeing people blind-eye dogs to make up for society's protection of the rights of blind.

---

Frolex posted...

Men and women have equal rights when it comes to abortion. That doesn't mean they necessarily have the same rights.

You mean kind of like how gay people had the same right to marry people of the opposite sex that everybody else had? I guess they shouldn't have been complaining since they had equal rights, just not the same rights, according to your "logic" here.

TheOtherMike posted...

Yes it does.

Yes we are.

I already did.

What a lame response, can't even actually address the entirety of my post so you just cherry pick things that allow you to make responses that are not in anyway productive to the conversation being had.

Giving people the right to choose what they want to do with their lives and how they address the situations that arise is not entirely dependent on biology. Sure a physical abortion is, but that's not what is specifically being addressed in this subject. What is being addressed is whether or not a societal construct that we have created is entirely fair to the party that has no choice in the matter. As it stands it is not. The woman is given her right to choose because the fetus grows in her body, which is 100% fair and any human being that isnt a POS would agree. Now giving men that same right to choose whether or not they want a child does not in anyway detract from women's same right to choose. She still has her right to her body, men are just given an equilateral life choice in regards to the same subject.

---

Tenlaar posted...

You mean kind of like how gay people had the same right to marry people of the opposite sex that everybody else had?

When men can get pregnant this will be a valid comparison.