Then you ought to presume irresponsibility in men and adjust policy to place the responsibility on the shoulders of the one party to the transaction that has any hope at all of acting in a responsible manner, right? 
Are you really advocating oppressive child support laws, hoping that the side effect will be condom use? That doesn’t seem ridiculous to you? Women do have the choice to reject lovers who won’t use condoms, and if they don’t, then it’s their own health at stake.
Then educate people about the salutory effects of condom use. Don’t promulgate draconian legislation in another area, hoping that it will affect HIV contraction. That’s a rather haphazard, slipshod way of addressing the AIDS crisis, and it’s penalizing a rather large group of people, with the hope that somehow, mystically, you will affect AIDS transmission. Without some sort of cite that people use condoms more because they fear having to pay child support (which, frankly, I doubt), I think your logic holds no water at all.
Yet it’s the men who you want to punish for both genders’ mindless sex drives. You are not proposing equally restrictive but only tangentially related legal consequences for women. Does that seem right to you?
Men still have to pay child support on child conceived through condom failure. I don’t understand what your point is here.
Actually, the most contagious blood borne pathogen is hepatitis C, and rigorous condom use does cut down on transmission. As for AIDS rates going up if you give men equal reproductive rights, well, I don’t think you should promulgate unequal treatment under the law because you are hoping for a semi-related positive side effect. This rationale is currently being used to deny gays marital rights (if they got married, they’d be eligible for join health insurance, which will drive up costs, so we should oppose gay marriage). I find such logic abhorrent in whatever context it’s used.
Thank God this is all academic and there isn’t the slightest chance in hell that any of these sleazy schemes to legitimize the abandoment of children will never EVER come to fruition.
That’s what they said about gay marriage.
With the same consideration for equal rights, I might add.
(And who is endorsing the abandonment of children? That ain’t synonomous with “not having to pay child support”.)
This has nothing to do with equal rights. It’s about being responsible for your own children. You guys need to get past the idea that it has anything to do with a gender battle. Both partners are equally responsible for the babies they create. Abortion is a false issue since it does not involve a baby.
Support your own babies, bro. Don’t expect ME to pay for them.
The bottom line is: a woman can decide, after she conceives, that she doesn’t want a baby, for whatever reason that she wants, and in the first trimester, opt out of being a parent. After conception, a man does not have that option, even if he took all possible precautions to prevent the conception. That is the disparity that is at issue here. The question is, can the disparity be remedied, and should it be? Clearly there is a difference of opinion here, which likely will not be reconciled.
Piffle - this has nothing to do with you paying for anything. if that was your real motivation you’d be twice as pissed that people give up their babies for adoption - those children become actual wards of the state and become an actual burden on the taxpayer (for at least a brief time). Babies with deadbeat dads are just a burden on the woman, and if that translates to an increased burden on the taxpayer -and that’s an IF- in that case it’s likely that the women would have been a burden anyway, so you can’t blame it all on the man anyway.
Whining so persistently that males should really really have to pay child support is nothing more than a lopsided punitive anger at perceived irresponsibility - lopsided because you should be equally berating those women for not choosing to abort or keeping their legs crossed. It’s got little or nothing to do with concern for the public coffers.
This I don’t get. How do YOU get to pay for them ?
The perceived “disparity” is dictated by biology. The man has total ability to avoid conceiving. No choice is taken away from him by allowing women autonomy over their own bodies.
Here’s another thing – even if he impregnates a woman despite attempts to use contraception, how is that the taxpayers’ fault? Why should WE have to pay for that little accident? We didn’t even get to bust a nut.
I hope, then, that you’re OK with there being a persistent and understandable glass ceiling, in that professional women who choose to have children must necessarily sacrifice at least a year of hard work at their career, as dictated by biology. At the higher executive levels, this translates to a paucity of women at the top, with those who do make it to the top largely being childless.
I mean, that’s better than FORCING YOU to subsidize childcare as is done in Europe. It’s just biology, right? Let’s be consistent.
If child support laws are oppressive, change them. All I’m advocating is keeping men responsible for their role in reproduction. That does not sound ridiculous to me. That sounds extremely sensible.
I’m not promulgating draconian legislation. Apparently you’ve wasted time arguing against a straw man.
On page 7 I provided a cite that fear of pregnancy was the most of important motivation for condom use. I’m surprised you think that fear of child support isn’t at the forefront of men’s minds when they have protected sex. Given that these laws are so oppressive and draconian, they’d be idiots for not thinking about this everytime they have sex, right?
Why is it up to me to propose anything? I don’t want to punish anyone; I’m just not so very eager to volunteer my tax dollars for other people’s irresponsibility. If you and others think the status quo is unfair, it might be a good idea to propose a solution that has a better cost-benefits ratio than what we have in place now.
Well, they wouldn’t if we allow men to “opt out”. So even if women made all their sex partners wear condoms, we’re still expecting her to shoulder the responsibility for any unexpected failures. This does not sound fair to me.
Well this unequal treatment is what’s in place already, so I’m not going to have to hope for anything. Anyone advocating for things to be changed needs to hope that that change won’t come to bite them in the ass later.
Try arguing with something more robust than emotional appeals. If its the truth, I could care less if you find such logic abhorrent. All I’m challenging is the stupid notion that society would be better off if women were made to be 100% responsible for reproductive decisions and consequences. There is no evidence that this would the case.
You against any kind of social security, welfare or nationalized health insurance too ? i.e. you’re not unemployed, homeless and didn’t break a hip, why should YOU have to pay for that ?
Abortions aren’t free either, people. I know most of us here probably have $300-500 dollars lying around, just waiting to be used for this month’s abortion. But people most likely to have unwanted children do not. Poverty is a big reason why children are unwanted in the first place.
So if the advocates are hoping that women will start using abortion as a way of compensating for male’s irresponsibility, who is going to pay for that? The abortion fairy?
Nonsense - the woman could have kept her pants on too. There’s nothing biological that makes him more reponsible for having failed to do so than her.
If anything, the biology dictates that the woman should be completely responsible for the pregnancy and it’s outcome, because the biology dictates she is the one with complete control over whether it happens or not.
Here’s the thing - how are you paying for them?
Little old me? Yeah, OK.
No, you’re advocating child support laws to fight AIDS transmission. “Sensible” is not the word I’d use for that policy concept.
Considering that I believe that current child support laws are draconian in many ways, no, I’m not arguing against a straw man at all.
Yet so many people still wind up having unplanned pregnancies. Why is that?
For the same reason that it’s up to me to change the child support laws, obviously.
That is what is being proposed in the OP of this thread, and which you are against, for reasons that I find somewhat bizarre. Solutions have been proposed in other threads. I don’t see the laws changing any time soon, though, for political reasons mostly.
It’s not an emotional appeal. It’s a direct parallel to illustrate your faulty logic. I see no emotion whatsoever in my argument.
I don’t expect you to care about what I find abhorrent, but find it abhorrent I do, because it’s you who is using faulty reasoning. I am not arguing for making women 100% responsible for reproductive decisions and consequences, and how you got that from what I said escapes me, unless you are not really reading what I wrote. I’m arguing that, if a woman can opt out of being a parent after conception, a man should be allowed the same option. You disagree, which is fine, but that does not make me stupid or appealing to emotion, and more than you are.
I totally support a mandatory fine of either 1/2 or even the full cost of an abortion from every man who wishes to avoid assuming the rights of a father (and all that entails). This would be required, and paid to the woman, even if she elected to bear and keep the child. (Though if she gives the kid away we should probably take it back and give it to the state.)
I even mentioned slapping him with a punitive fee for not being the one having to undergo the surgery.
Well, I’m not going to engage you if you’re going to insist I’m advocating a position that I’m not. All I’m pointing out is the potential consequences to society that would like come if male disincentives of unwanted pregnancy are removed. That’s not advocating anything. That’s just stating things as I see them. Big difference.
For all I know, you’re perfectly okay with people getting AIDS and hep C and becoming wards of the State in exchange for “abortion rights” for men. If you’re fine with that as a consequence (because as you said “…it’s only on them.”), more power to you.
I’m all for having the guy forced to chip in for half of that, maybe even more since he’s not the one getting the pain and risk.
Admittedly, that aspect of the issue isn’t gonna sway me - here, baseline national health care covers 70-80% of the cost, 100% in the case of minors & people at the lowest income level who apply for total medical coverage.
Very ironic, in light of this:
So by that logic, I’m most definitely no longer engaging you.