No. Apparently you were unclear. You said “Men have that right. It’s called a vasectomy” to which I responded “Oh, ok, you are advocating that men not have sex until they want to have children?”. Please tell me where I went wrong in understanding what you mean.
Ah, abstinence again. Do you abstain except those times when you are trying to create a pregnancy?
Maybe then you should explain the difference between that and “men should not have sex unless they want children” since there doesn’t seem to be much in the way of a difference. You do know that birth control fails, women lie?
I am an advocate for people taking responsibility for their own choices. Simply engaging in sex does not and never should indicate an desire to create children. When a pregnancy does occur, it is all the woman’s choice as to whether or not she is going to have a baby. Since the man has no choice in the matter, it is simply not his responsibility if she decides to have a kid without his consent. And no, contributing sperm is not consenting to creating a kid.
I’ve always thought that men wouldn’t use it because they would be afraid it would mess something up in their willies. Apparently even the spectre of having to pay child support won’t get them past that! :rolleyes:
They have the same right to make decisions that allow for their desired outcome. That doesn’t always work out, but life is a bitch sometimes.
As I said, he ought to make sure that he knows her well enough and has a good enough relationship with her that he knows what her choice would be, or perhaps even have some influence over it. If he’s just sticking it anywhere, then he’s not being as responsible as he ought to be. That, to me, is where the analogy to drunk driving comes in…there is taking a risk, and then there is taking a RISK. If you are always a careful, sober, sensible driver, your chances of getting killed in a crash are much slimmer than if you drive drunk or otherwise recklessly. If you are careful about choosing your partner and diligent about birth control, your chances of having an accidental pregnancy is much slimmer than if you aren’t.
There’s nothing the least bit misogynistic about making the statement that women are the ones who get pregnant. And, as you say, there are plenty of women who would abort the second they found out they were pregnant…any guy who has the same attitude ought to hook up with one of them. What’s so hard about that?
Nor does it extend to children. That’s pretty unfair, too, don’t you think?
I don’t know how it’s relevant what the mother knows or doesn’t know. She can still make a crappy decision that hurts the child…how is that fair to the kid?
I confess I am mostly skimming the parallel conversation going on here, so my apologies if this is obviously about something else.
But.
I hope you don’t mean this about me. I am sincerely trying to figure this out. I admit to starting almost from zero and I am not here to defend any position but to put some substance behind a throw away comment on a recent IRL conversation.
I really appreciate the patience and the efforts of people like pravnik and yourself in trying to make the matter accessible to me. I am a bit of a slow student, but I am really trying.
I understand what the law is, what I don’t get is why the law is the way it is. It supposed to be in the best interests of the child, but the definition of that seems to be extremely flexible.
You don’t think it’s loony that one person can stick another person for 18+ years of debt against his will? Pretend we aren’t talking about a baby - would it not be loony to have laws that allow a woman to go buy a house she can’t afford and then force her boyfriend or ex husband to be responsible for the mortgage? And don’t come back with “but it is a baby” because it isn’t one until it is born. Up until then, it is only a choice the woman is making, a completely selfish one if the father doesn’t want the baby. Why is it not loony to let her choose to have a baby she can’t afford, but nothing else?
This makes no sense at all. Like this it is just a punishment to B (and again, please notice that B could also be the mother), not something in pro of the child. I am much more comfortable with this:
This is pretty much what I was presenting as my ideal scenario. If this is how it works, then I am happy and find this fair. That in some places the implementation of it is not perfect and that there is some bias that favors women is just a minor detail. At least the logical basis is there.
No, I never even implied that, but I am surprised it took this long for someone to jump to that erroneous conclusion.
It would be if they weren’t so rare. Far too many women are only interested in a man as a sire for her children - they aren’t even interested in him as a father. He is merely a sperm donor, then a wallet. If the man doesn’t step up to the plate right away WRT having children, then the woman just quits taking the pill or whatever then has an “accidental” pregnancy. Then there are the women who have an “accident” in order to hold onto their husband or boyfriend. (Of course, this all assumes that the couple in question are even up on how a pregnancy happens - today’s teens seem to be lacking there.) Basically, if a woman wants to have a baby, no matter what she may say otherwise she is going to make it happen and any man in her bed is at risk of being made to pay for her decision.
Biology has nothing to do with the lack of equal rights. Women have the unilateral option of having or not having a baby, men should have the option of saying right away that they don’t want the baby and therefore not have to pay for it. It’s not all placed on the woman as long as she isn’t the only one deciding having a baby is a good idea.
What? How can a child be involved in pro- or anti-choice?
I’m kind of hoping that women will quit being so ME ME ME about having babies and not have them if they were forced to pay for them all by themselves (in situations where there is no male that also wanted the baby). Somehow I’d really like to see people quit supporting all of this selfish breeding - the octuplet mother is a good start.
Then please tell me what you meant by this sentence:
He dared not to be happy in his marriage, consequently, he no longer lives with his children, and now he’s being punished for it. How else am I supposed to read that?
They aren’t rare…you said yourself there are “plenty” of them.
You’d think if it was true that women are this conniving, that men would have figured it out by now.
They can’t, that’s the point…everybody has a choice but them…they’re just stuck with whatever shit they’ve been dealt out. I guess life’s not fair.
It’s funny, I kind of agree, but It would be nice if BOTH men AND women should quit being so ME ME ME when it comes to having irresponsible sex, but we can’t always get what we want.
Incidentally, if you think that having to support children by themselves would make women think twice about having those children, why doesn’t the fear of having to support children they don’t want make men think twice about it, too?
Sorry - I was snappy. I am glad you think the system is fair - as in your later post. It just surprised me to see you say you thought it was unfair, while not knowing what it was. As it turns out, it seems you support the system as is (though I would be the first to agree there are unfair things that are involved in the way the system is implemented…)
You were wrong (though I don’t believe it was an accidental misunderstanding) because you see things as direct opposites. My point was, and this is God knows what time I have said it, that if you want to be absolutely certain you bear no responsibility for a child, you have a way of ensuring that. There are other alternatives, that come with greater or lesser chances of avoiding a child. Balance the risks. Stop running whining that you should be allowed to do whatever you want and not face any consequences of that action.
No - I take balanced precautions based on the situation. And accept, that if that does not work out as I intend, I have responsibilities I don’t run away from. Because that is what being a grown up involves.
The difference is bloody obvious. I don’t intend to have a car accident, but I drive my car. Why? Because the utility of driving outweighs the negative utility of an accident multiplied by the probability of that accident. I also drive carefully. I don’t drive drunk.
So when I have sex, I take precautions. They don’t always work. If I hit ice on the road, and drive into the side of another car, I accept responsibility. I don’t run away crying claiming that I didn’t want to hit someone, and that I shouldn’t have to pay for it. Again, you base the precautions on your view of the risks. I drive faster on a dry, empty road than in rush hour during a rain storm.
So if I am having sex with someone, the precautions I take will be determined my analysis of the situation. If I don’t know the girl that well, I am going to wear a condom, in the full knowledge that it may fail. If it fails, and a child results, it isn’t the kid’s fault that the rubber broke. And the kid deserves my support. Again - that’s part of being a grown up.
And if the girl lies to me - that’s a risk I take. If it is a one night stand, and she tells me she is on the pill, I’ll still wear a condom. If it is a long term relationship, and she is lying to me deliberately to get pregnant, well, I think I should have a cause of action against HER. But not against the child. Again, the child didn’t chose to have a lying mother. It might be the damages from that cause of action are exactly equal to the child support payments. But that doesn’t alter my responsibility for those payments.
It’s back to being an adult. I don’t stick my dick in places without accepting there might be consequences.
I’m suggesting he’s responsible for the consequences of choices he made because he knew of the potential when he made his choice. He’s responsible because without his genetic contribution that child couldn’t exist.
It’s mostly females who get custody because it’s mostly females who want custody of their children. Your “fair” solution would completely release men from any responsibility. I find it bizarre that you seem to advocate women’s rights {seems is the correct term} and now use women earning less to support your argument that men are financially oppressed. If men do make more then paying child support must not be some horrible burden.
I’m not ignoring anything. Biological reality is not an inequality that the courts can fix. It’s a fact of life. That’s we call it that.
She doesn’t find someone else. They already found each other. Earlier I explained the points at which choices are made. When a woman discovers she is pregnant it’s her body, so she gets to choose. Because of the nature of the choice {it’s not do I want a pet} and biology she gets to make it WITHOUT absolving the contributing father. Because men know this at the get go so they are still responsible for their choice to risk pregnancy. It’s like knowingly entering into a contract in which the other party has more options than you do. Once you knowingly enter into it it’s too late to cry “oh wait, no fair” I repeat , your solution absolves men from any and all responsibility and consequences and is in no way about equal choices.
I’m associating choices and consequences. You’re suggesting men get to play and not pay if something unplanned happens as a result of playing. You’re suggesting they get to act irresponsibly without regard to possible consequences.
Are you listening to yourself? Did you think about that last sentence as you typed it? Why are you insisting that the standards you set for women don’t apply to men, and then trying to label it as “fair” and “equal” Not everyone is so cavalier attitude about abortion or adoption. So women should suck it up concerning those choices but men shouldn’t have to concerning intercourse or birth control. So no woman should have a child they can’t afford on their own, but men should be able to wave off parental responsibility as they please. Yeah, that sounds like equality.
btw unless you have some serious cites your calling it a completely selfish decision on her part doesn’t cut it. and somehow men wanting to have sex with no possible parental responsibilities somehow isn’t selfish, it’s just fair?
How the hell did you get that out of a sentence about responsible humans. Do you think a woman keeping a child is avoiding responsibility? Ludicrous.
What choices do men have other than never having intercourse unless they want to create a pregnancy?I’m not sure why sex without risking pregnancy isn’t a reasonable suggestion. There are lots of fun sexual possibilities that do not risk pregnancy. That would give both genders the chance to suck it up, maybe at the same time. But choices? Several. Vasectomy which are sometimes successfully reversed. If they can’t reverse it they can just suck it up and adopt or not have kids. Why isn’t this a viable and perfectly fair option given your attitude about women? Being much more cautious about who they have sex with and what birth control is being used. Discussing the abortion option before they have sex. Dating women who enjoy non vaginal intercourse. Some of these things are not 100% effective but I’m pretty sure if followed unwanted pregnancies would go waaayyy down.
So don’t equate the two as you previously did.
What you’re referring to didn’t come up. Yes I’m aware women can and do trick men and get pregnant on purpose. Just as I’m aware of how men can and do lie to get sex. The relevancy of those facts is marginal in this discussion.
Nothing you’ve suggested is remotely like a fair and equal handling of the possibilities. Rather than make things equal you just want to make them unequal in favor of the man. That brings us back to what has been explained over and over. The situation can’t be equal. The laws are set up to consider the rights and welfare of all parties involved at specific points. The choice to have or not have intercourse and knowingly risk pregnancy is equal. If pregnancy occurs the womans right over her own body reigns. When a baby is born the welfare of the child takes precedent. That IMO is the best balancing of rights in a situation where biology precludes perfect equality. Shifting the burden of responsibility from shared to entirely on the woman isn’t more equal.
I’ll point out that while you keep painting men paying child support as some horrendous burden they have to bear, lot’s of men pay regularly and do fine. They don’t live in squaller or eat PB sandwiches daily. Because the formula is based on their income it’s usually something they can handle with few serious problems. In comparison you treat a woman’s choice about her body and her baby and the babies welfare as if it’s no big deal and pale in comparison to this grave injustice to men.
In this case it absolutely does. Since the biology and the choices are not equal the law can’t make them equal.
Giving men that option does not result in equality.
I have no idea what this means. It is all placed on the women because at the specific point where the choices are equal {should we have sex knowing the potential risk} your suggestion removes all responsibility from the man and places it on the woman. He gets to play with complete disregard for any parental possibilities.
There are two different aspects of child support being discussed here - whether a man who never wanted children should have to pay at all, and how much any man who did want them should have to pay. If you weren’t so bent on trying to make me out as some kind of villian, you would have noticed the context my comment was in.
Plenty of women who are willing to have an abortion when they don’t want a child. Not as many women who never want any ever.
You’d think wouldn’t you? I don’t know if it is because the men are thinking with their small heads or if they are just unable to fathom that sort of deceit - probably both.
If life is fair to anyone, it is fair to children…
Why is it that so many people assume that the man must be the irresponsible one if an unwanted pregnancy occurs?
Make men think twice about getting pregnant? Remember, they have almost no control over the situation, other than giving up sex.