And indeed in others, sex is a right of a male to take regardless of the female’s opinion. I’d like to think we have advanced beyond certain notions about sex. ZPG Zealot on the other hand seems to think differently.
I know it’s early, but if this doesn’t win the Understatement of the Year Award for 2011, I’ll be shocked.
I might have phrased it a tad differently in The Pit.
The entire western Judeo-Christian (and Greeco-Roman) spectrum more of less has held that belief for several millenium. There was a reason bastard is considered an insult.
Would that be the same entire western Judeo-Christian spectrum that frequently criminalized extra-marital sex?
Because the unfairness of the current system is the greater, more obvious crime. Simply put if the woman doesn’t bother to figure out she’s pregrant in time for an abortion or bother to notify the man in time so she can make an intelligent decision, she deserves whatever consequences her stupidity and lack of planning have caused her. Personally, I think if it’s just casual sex anyone expecting the pregnancy to mean something to the other partner is just delusional.
C’mon ZPG, be honest. You’ve said you don’t think kids have anything more than minimal rights. Why can’t you say what you really mean…
you mean “the child deserves whatever consequences the mother’s stupidity and lack of planning have caused it.”
Uh huh. So you think the solution to is to create a system that, in principle, is not only unfair to the woman (because it requires her to be 100% knowledgable about what’s going on in her body at all times), but is so convoluted and vague that it would be impossible to enforce. Yeah, you are really rockin and rollin in this debate.
Fortunately, society doesn’t have your lofty expectations.
And personally, I think it’s silly that you seem to think casual sex is the only kind of sex that could lead to an unwanted pregnancy. I wouldn’t be surprised if most pregnancies occurred within the context of a relationship (including marriage), not one-night stands. That you seem to feel more comfortable couching this in terms of casual sex–instead of the circumstance that probably applies more than 90% of the time, is very revealing.
But keep on rockin in the free world! With your stellar arguments in the ether, we’ll never see the day that men get “abortion rights”. Hallejuah for that.
No problem, if the mother cannot properly plan for her child, the child deserves whatever the results are in as much as we all can be said to “deserve” the circumstances beyond our control. I personally would have loved to have been born the child of a billionaire, but I wasn’t. Did I take my parent’s to court over this? Of course not. I accepted it as part of life and as soon as I was able went about doing my share to earn my way in the world.
Right. Extra-marital sex was for the most part forbidden and illegal, not viewed as something minor and inconsequential done for pleasure.
And since we’re in a western culture, arguing that western culture treats sex as only for pleasure when it’s the western culture that’s enforcing child support is hilariously stupid. “My culture is oppressing my culture!”
What is so convoluted and vague about if you are pregnant and unmarried, or pregrant and married, but have never had the discussion about what to do if you become pregrant, contact your partner while you still have time to get an abortion and make appropriate plans. It seems very simply. In the rare, very rare cases when a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant until a baby is actually coming out of her, there are orphanages and foster homes and plenty of good people who will take an unwanted child in without requiring him or her to lie about their origin.
I have no desire to engage you on it. But I just prefer you to express your ‘interesting’ outlook accurately rather than talking around it.
Usually just for married women, in the time before DNA testing it was the only way legitimacy was assurable and it was considered very important not to be stuck paying for someone else’s child. It was often unfair to women as wives were limited in their sexual partners and birth control was difficult if not illegal. But the laws and the technology have changed. We have the means to make sex about more than procreation and both genders should be allowed to use the technology and the law to protect their freedom.
Cite.
I highlighted where you say “if” and “but”. Straight out the gate you introduce convolutions into so-called simple system. All of this hinges on a woman knowing that she’s pregnant in time to contact her partner. The state can’t force a woman to know something that is perfectly possible for her not to know.
And why even put that “but” clause in there? In your universe, it doesn’t matter, because he still has to sign on the dotted line after she’s pregnant to be on the hook for child support.
Right. And the sky on the planet Xcisngtgoda4.2866 looks like purple grapes.
Pick up any book on prostitution, foundling homes, or concubinage in history.
Which means she should find out while there is still time for an abortion if he wants a brat. If he does get the child support negotiations hammered out legally like an adult. Most people don’t buy cars or real estate on verbal agreements alone, why is having a child somehow less a reason for caution. Actually, the way the law reads now in America if he has signed on the dotted line in regards to the marriage contract, he is stuck with paying for the brat (even if it isn’t his).
The confidence level of the difference between the level of unwanted versus wanted pregnancies doesn’t seem to be very relevant to whether or not that difference is “marginal” or significant or statistically significant. Or am I missing something?
Because its a really important adjective. One that shows that the effect is in fact not that signifciant and certainly not as significant as some of the posters on this thread have implied. Its certainly not the slam dunk, you must be an idiot if you disagree sort of evidence that should convince anyone unless they didn’t reason themselves into their position to begin with. Or do you think this report makes it crystal clear that the sort of effect taht people have been talking about is so clear that only the wilfully ignorant could disagree?
They say that increased child support enforcement was “MARGINALLY ASSOCIATED WITH” lower rate of unwanted pregnancies and that increased enforcement “MAY” increase responsible behaviour. The difference they are talking about is the difference between 4.8% versus 4.5% WOW what a monumental frikiing difference over a 20 eyar period. A 20 year period that I would remind you includes the discovery of AIDS when condoms became so ubiquitous that pornstars started wearing them.
how is that possible when i am quoting from it?
Really?!?!?! Then how can they state with such confidence that “If child support enforcement had not improved over time, men’s overall rate of unwanted pregnancy would have been 4.8%, rather than the observed 4.5%” How can they tell what WOULD have happened if child support enforcement had not increased and yet they have to be more circumspect about whether even MORE child support enforcement would have a similar effect? So they can’t tell the future but they can tell you what would have happneed in an alternate universe if things had been different?
There is no reason to cite a rebuttal to a position that hasn’t been proven. Remember YOUR side is the one that claimed that we needed child support payments because otherwise men would go around getting everyone pregnant.
If your point is that child support payments have SOME effect on male behaviour, sure, I agree. Any cost associated with a behaviour is going to deter taht behaviour just like increasing taxes by 4% on the filthy fucking rich is going to deter income generation by the filthy fucking rich but the effect is so marginal that it is almost nonexistant.
Limitations? I’m not a sociologist but I would have thought that any study that used a correlation between changes in unwanted pregnancy between 1982 and 2002 to conclude that increased child support enforcement caused lower unwanted pregnancy would at least mention the effect of AIDS and increased condom usage.
In any event, even if we take EVERYTHING the report says at face value, we are STILL talking about 4.5% versus 4.8%. The difference is even smaller when you limit the universe to unamarried men 3.1% versus 3.3%.
Like I have said several times. I don’t really have a problem with child support payments per se, I have a problem with the lame ass arguments being presented to defend them. Why not just admit that its unfair but we are going to burden the guy with supporting a child that he does not want while giving the woman the right to decide whether or not the child is born.
[struggle]must… not… bring… up… abortion… issue…or… mods… will… kick… my… ass.[/struggle]
What?!? So if I go to a sperm bank and mix the sperm with a donated egg, implant it in a surrogate, then the biological parernts are financially responsible for the child?