You need to talk with one of your parents or a big brother or sister.
Okay, so far the only argument against the pre-coital opt-out form is “I don’t want to have an honest discussion about this with a girl until after I’ve gotten laid.”
Not really convincing me, here. Nor are you convincing me that your argument is about justice and all that, and not just trying to get rid of the last shred of responsibility men have over their kids.
Your right that opt-in makes sense from a legal standpoint. But from a “What’s best for society” standpoint it doesn’t. It’d lead to more kids raised in poverty, which is bad for our society in a number of ways.
Anyway, let’s remember that all of these scenarios are exceptional. The vast majority of sex is between people that have some degree of trust and understanding. And the vast majority of women having casual flings have no interest in having children and go to great lengths to prevent it. And usually if a man does not want children with a casual fling, he uses a condom, which do not break the majority of times. 0Which is why the vastly vast majority of casual flings do not lead to pregnancy, much less childbirth.
Most deadbeat parents wanted their children. Many were married at the time. The idea that single parents got that way as a result of drunken one night stands is not accurate.
So it’s not like you are trying to correct some vast wrong that screws over tons of people. You are trying to correct what is essentially a made-up problem, with measures that would have HUGE implications for some very real problems- such as children being raised by poor single parents.
I just have to say, this is quite possibly the most surreal thing I’ve read in at least a week.
No one seriously doubts that the rate of illegitimate births has increased drasticly over the last half century. If you want me to believe otherwise, you’re the one who’ll have to come up with evidence.
Not a fair trade at all. It leaves us with too many fatherless children and too many unattached young men. The best anti-poverty program of all is marriage and family.
Actually, at least in the nineteenth century, they often had the help of abortifacients which were freely and legally available, often advertised in women’s magazines as cures for “blockage.” Abortion was originally outlawed in the United States to protect the life of the mother, not the fetus, since abortion was more dangerous than carrying a baby to full term, and many husbands and boy friends bullied their wives and girl friends into getting abortions.
A single parent is better for the child than a bitter, forced, resentful, mismatched marriage any day of the week.
THey also bullied them into having children, thus controlling their ability to get an education, a job, etc. Luckily, we’re talking about the 21st century here. Abortion is no longer the back-alley dangerous operation it once was.
Ptooey. Generally speaking, children are better off when their parents remain together even when the parents aren’t happy about their marriage.
I have no idea what your point here is supposed to be.
There are millions of children of divorce who will beg to differ with you.
I am merely offering up a counter statement. For every example in favor of your examples, there is one in favor of the opposite argument. That’s all.
Screw that. You really just don’t know what you’re talking about.
In other words, you had no point. You were merely being contrary. And this is beginning to sound like a Monty Python sketch. Buh-bye.
Well what was YOUR point? It came off as an anti-abortion schpiel based on the fact that women were (and sometimes are) bullied into abortions. So what?
Concluding the original “Roe v. Wade for Men” suit, Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox proclaimed:
American society has reached a sad state of affairs when our elected officials, who are charged with the utmost in responsibility in matters pertaining to the laws we all are subject to, make, with straight faces, patently false proclamations in support of ideologies they personally favor, rather than revering the concept of “Equal Justice Under the Law”.
Attorney General Cox’s proclaimation is simply not true, but, rather, something in a make-believe world, kind of like when legislatures and judiciaries pretend that a child has a “right” to support.
When a birth mother makes the “choice” to give her child up to an adoptive parent, she is free of any further responsibilities to her child, regardless of the future hardships that may befall that child. Now, some make the point that a mother cannot give up a child for adoption without the father’s permission, but that is not a valid point in the context of this discussion. Here, we are talking about men who do not want to be fathers, so we can assume that they are not going to object to adoption. So, as a practical matter, it is the mother that makes the choice to put the child up for adoption. (The child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.)
Birth mothers have another option to relieve themselves of the burdens of parenthood with the newly enacted “Safe Haven” laws, that allow birth mothers to abandon their infant children at specified, state-sanctioned locations, on a no-questions-asked basis. Nope, the state is not concerned about the presence of a biological father there. (The child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.)
Furthermore, in our contemporary society, sometimes birth mothers make the “choice” to raise their children by themselves. There is no law that requires a birth mother to name the biological father. The State does not care if a child is raised fatherless. (The child does not have a right to support from its biological parents.) No, the only time states recognize the so-called “right” to support from a child’s biological father, is when the birth mother wants financial assistance with the “choice” that she unilaterally made.
There has been at least one documented case where a man and women were engaged to be married. The woman became pregnant. The couple agreed to get married and raise the child together. The woman changed her mind and sought an abortion. The man objected and sought an injunction from the court. The court declined citing the privacy precedent set in Roe, and the child that the man wanted was aborted. Here’s where the problem in the law exists.
When a biological father’s “clear responsibility”, as Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox puts it, for the support of a child is dictated by the “choice” the birth mother makes out of concern for her desires, while the birth mother has no reciprocal obligation dependent on the desires of the biological father, an inequity in law is created that is repugnant to the concept of “equal protection of the law”.
No, the father’s obligation is dicated by his responsibility for the existence of the child. He agreed to that obligation when he came.
In the original case, the Michigan AG attempted to use the same red-herring, and insinuated that women were prevented by biological fathers from putting their children up for adoption and then forced to pay the biological fathers child support.
The attorney for Matt Dubay put his case on the line by demanding the Michigan AG to provide just one example of a mother being denied putting a child up for adoption and then being forced to pay the father child support.
The Michigan AG could not produce one example.
Okay, so what is the damning conclusion that you draw from this? That men never try to gain custody of kids their mothers don’t want? Or that the law somehow prevents men who do want custody from getting what they want?