What about a man who believes a woman who says, “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill, we don’t need to use a condom”? Isn’t he just paying for his stupidity as well?
response part dos
No. Is this the* only* type of woman you’re talking about? What about the example I actually gave.
I know your scenario actually happens but how do you suppose the courts decide if she deceived him and got pregnant on purpose and dole out the appropriate justice? Do you have any realistic practical solution or are you just venting about a pet peeve?
I think this is it in a nutshell for you. The problem is you haven’t got any practical solution that you can describe in specific detail and then defend. All your suggestions so far have worse consequences than what you perceive as a horrid injustice. As I mentioned before. No solution is perfect. We try to choose one that encourages responsibility and considers the welfare and rights of everyone involved and then find the best imperfect balance. Too much welfare and support, yes some women and men abuse the system. To little and single mother’s, father’s and their children suffer when we could prevent it. Your suggestion may correct some unfair situations but it clearly creates a lot of others. A net negative.
I didn’t say you were. Any man who has intercourse willingly and knowingly risks becoming a parent. Same for the girls. You want to give men a good reason to be totally irresponsible about it while holding women to a completely different standard.
Why do I even need to explain this? Men and women being more cautious and responsible about birth control would result in fewer unwanted births. Do you need more specifics than that?
Yes occasional. Hundreds of unplanned babies are born. A pretty small percentage would be women who tried to trap a man into fathering her child.
Not as unrealistic as your suggestion. Unreliable at 70% because of precautions is much better than unreliable at 50% because of less precautions.
Ahhhhhh I see an ugly double standard on the rise.
So the best solution is to treat all women as if they’re doing this? What a unrealistic cynical view. Not only that, while you recently pointed out to** Sarahfeena** that we’re talking about two separate issues of child support here you are mixing them again.
Both men and women lie sometimes. Both men and women are irresponsible at times. for some odd reason you want to punish women for their transgressions much more than men.
What in hell are you talking about? Out of the thousands of men in this country who pay child support how many do you suppose can’t afford a 2nd hand car or a trip to the local park? Even without stats I’d say not many is a good guess. I’ve never met one and I’ve known a lot of Dad’s paying support.
“That kind of money” What a fucking joke.
Hey everybody. It’s another verse of the ridiculous extremes song.
Circumstance means kids with poor parents get less and kids with well to do parents get more, whether child support is involved or not. It’s that simple.
Correct. It isn’t *sticking * someone if they actually share the responsibility. A DNA test is the simple solution for that.
Of course not. That’s one I never suggested. I’ve made it clear that I believe their understanding of the risk makes them responsible whether they wanted a child or not.
I’ve tried to respond to your posts as written. I’ve asked specific questions in an attempt to clarify. When you avoid those questions and instead post incorrect assumptions about my position it doesn’t help me understand.
Just as two parties contributed to the making a baby. It’s an equal 18 year commitment for both parties. If the man simply sends a check and isn’t involved more than that, he took the easy way out. Logical and fair. I guess we agree.
I understand vasectomies should be considered permanent even though there is a 50% reversal rate. I was mimicking your cavalier attitude about women refusing abortion or adoption. If a women’s maternal desire to raise the fetus growing within her can be described as completely selfish I say a man’s desire to have his own genetic offspring rather than adopt is just as selfish. Especially if he is willing to jettison his genetic offspring at will when he doesn’t want them, per your suggestion.
I believe I understand your position. I think it’s unrealistic and even more unfair than the imperfect system we have now. Your suggestions mean we make women more responsible for their choices by making men far less responsible for there’s. That’s not an improvement.
I’m sincerely trying to understand your position. So far I strongly disagree and make no apologies for that. If you can’t explain or defend your position adequately {which seems to be the case} I’m fine with being done with it.
I believe you don’t and I think that’s a major part of the problem.
and more will die of malnutrition and insufficient health care. But hey, at least men are off the hook.
Which is really awful because? Seriously, if your main concern is to not pay women to have babies why isn’t it an obvious solution for men to not have the sort of sex that risks it. It seems incredibly inconsistent to your position.
As I said, there’s lots of really fun sexual activities that don’t risk pregnancy. Why aren’t those acceptable and far more responsible until you find a partner you want to have a child with?
How is this relevant to the discussion?
The ugly double standard appears again.
Nobody is assuming that. You seem to be referring to more rare extreme cases to justify your position. It ain’t workin’
I don’t know what the law is if a 16 year old male gets a 16 year old female pregnant. Do you have specifics? It sounds like a separate discussion.
Immaterial really. Do you think that condoms are all that effective as a sole source of birth control? I personally think that a man that doesn’t wear a condom deserves any STDs he gets, but that’s about it.
Annnd, that is what it boils down to - think of the children. Any adult or teenager is immaterial compared to the “needs of the children”. If a woman wants a baby no matter how unfit she is to be a mother, she can do it because once that baby is here, it is of supreme importance. A woman that wants a baby and her partner doesn’t can go right ahead and get pregnant and stick him with the bills, because we all need to “think of the children”. If you could wrap your mind around something other than “think of the children” you might see how completely unfair and criminal the support laws are.
The whole issue starts with a completely selfish decision. If society didn’t support and encourage women to make this decision, there would be fewer kids living in broken homes and on support.
You are dodging the question. Do you not think that deciding to keep a baby one cannot afford to raise alone, and having to force the sire to send money for, is a selfish decision?
No, I am saying that if women have all the power to decide if they want to stay pregnant (as they should) then men should also have some power to decide if they want to be involved in that pregnancy. Particularly since men have almost no control over whether or not a woman gets pregnant, other than a vasectomy or refraining from intercourse.
Except, you aren’t. You don’t seem to have any problem with women being irresponsible about having babies they can’t afford without outside financial help.
Depends on why he fired the gun. We are talking about consensual sex here, not just firing ones sperm into a crowd.
I’m pretty sure I’ve specified this every time but will try again. If an unmarried couple* is having sex and the woman gets pregnant, the man should be allowed to opt out of any resulting baby as soon as she tells him. If she then decides to have the baby, he is off the hook for any child support, and so is the state.
(I say unmarried because there are other laws that mess around with what a married man is responsible for WRT to any children born into that marriage. I say start with the unmarrieds and then move on to the marrieds.)
I don’t know what you are talking about - apparently you didn’t leave enough of the previous post in?
Real life.
No, the men pay - it is still rather rare that a woman who decides to have a baby on her own makes significantly more than the man does.
So you think 12 year old boys should be paying child support? And given the state of our “sex education”, you think 12 year olds have a good grasp of the penalties involved in sex?
Uh, well, there are plenty of stories out there about women who beat up and kill children they are getting support checks for.
Dunno - you didn’t leave enough of the post again.
Since you again cut the post, I am assuming you are advocating no intercourse unless one is trying to make a baby? If so, not too realistic… Sounds kinda fundie too.
That one doesn’t involve near the stupidity as believing a man who says they don’t need a condom because he’ll “be there for her if something happens”. The Pill is a far more effective method of birth control than a condom and women who don’t want a baby are generally on it or some other reliable form of birth control.
If it is a new relationship, the guy should wear a condom anyway due to the issue of STDs. If it’s a committed relationship where they have moved past the STD issue, he should be able to believe her when she says she is on the Pill and not trying to conceive a child. If she is lying, any pregnancy should be her problem, alone.
No, I quoted it in full. Here it is again:
Again, I’ve bolded the part I’m referring to. In this post, you are equating all the various reasons a man may not live with his children.
In regards to the rest of this…I am not cutting anything out of your posts. I just didn’t nest my posts in here as well, so you can easily see what you were responding to. I guess I could thread our conversation together if you need me to, so you can follow it:
Your personal observations don’t convince me. Can I get a cite, please? And while you’re at it, find me some stats on how many of these women fulfill this urge by tricking men into fathering children they don’t want.
By “pay,” I wasn’t referring only to money. But I think cosmosdan pointed out a bigger issue…you hold women to a much tougher standard than men. Women are supposed to know when a man is lying, but you don’t expect the same from a man when a woman is lying. Women are supposed to suffer every consequence of their bad decisions, but men aren’t. I don’t get it…why all the sympathy for the guys? You say that you don’t agree with feminism as it’s viewed these days…that’s fine, but I think it’s bizarre to go all the way in the other direction.
Let’s face it, none of what happened in that story should have happened…I think it’s best to stick to the original discussion, which was about grown men and whether they need to take responsibilities for their actions.
There are plenty of stories out there about women who beat up and kill children who they aren’t getting support checks for, too. This proves nothing.
Again, I DID quote ALL of your post. Here is the whole exchange on this subject. So please tell me…what makes no sense?
Didn’t cut this post, either. It’s perfectly realistic…people do it all the time. I am by no means a “fundie,” but I knew I would never have an abortion, so I made sure I would never be in a circumstance where I would have a baby I couldn’t care for. It’s called personal responsibility.
No, that isn’t the only sort of woman I am talking about but it would most likely be the majority.
By now I have no idea what example you gave.
The courts would only be involved if a woman tried to get support from a man who never wanted the child. Then the courts would be presented with whatever official document they want to create that would be filed with whoever they want, at the time the man found out about the pregnancy, that states he has no interest in any forthcoming baby.
Quit paying women to have babies is a practical solution. Obviously it would have to be phased in until all women understood and believed that if they had a child no one else wants, they would be stuck paying for it, so it would take awhile. But far better than what we have now. As it is now, the only welfare and rights we are really considering are those of the mother - any woman no matter how poor or crazy is allowed to have and keep children until she proves she is abusive. And abusive doesn’t seem to include “living in filth in a crime ridden area”, or “mother is only 14-15 years old and without a clue”. All this handwringing about the “best interests of the children” and yet society lets women have & keep babies they are obviously unable to raise properly, while sucking in billions of dollars each year.
Yes, and if vasectomies and tubals/Essures were easier to obtain that would help too. Not sure what any of that has to do with the subject tho.
Why would you assume that?
I don’t know what you are talking about here since you quoted so little of the original.
There is already a double standard here.
All women who continue a pregnancy and keep the baby when the sire of said baby has said from the very beginning he doesn’t want it.
No, I was not talking about the amounts of child support that are awarded there in any way.
Because women have all the power in the situation. If they want to keep the financial obligation that a baby is, they can. If the man does or doesn’t want it, he is out of luck. I believe women should have the choice to keep or abort/adopt but I also believe they should carry the responsibilities of that choice.
Apparently I live near far poorer areas than you do. Tho I find you equating “vacation” with “a trip to the local park” interesting.
This is the other side of the support question here (just thought I’d announce that so you all wouldn’t keep getting confused). And it isn’t extremes, it is a simplification of the support laws. The more the father has, the more support he pays whether his children need it or not. I wonder about this because to the inequity of men having to pay whether they ever wanted the kid(s) or not means that a man with better assets is really likely to get screwed, but also because for some reason it is ok with society for women to keep having babies in poverty but those children lucky enough to be sired by a middle class or better man get to live well. So there is inequity towards the men and the children.
I am not going to say this again as I am getting really sick of this particular brick wall. A man can be as responsible as he possibly can WRT to birth control and still end up getting a woman pregnant against his will.
Sad.
No. I will never agree that simply because a man had intercourse he was entering into an 18 year committment, particularly an equal one.
The maternal desire itself is neither selfish or unselfish, but acting on it when it is not in the best interests of all parities involved is. Yes, it is just as selfish of a man to want his own genetic offspring rather than adopt a kid already here. However, vasectomies are not easy for a young man to get, and those that do get them are seriously lowering their marriage prospects if they are honest about it. (Plus there is the squick factor, which is selfish). It’s still apples and oranges - you are saying that a man should remove his ability to sire a kid yet it’s OK with you for women to have and keep as many children as she wants whether she can afford them or not?
All I am suggesting is giving men a choice at the beginning of the pregnancy, the same sort of choice the women have. What we have now gives women the choice to opt out but the men can’t.
Apparently you are unable to understand my position because you cannot get over your connection of pregnancy=baby=needs support=man must pay. For me, pregnancy does not equal baby, and babies do not need more than basic support just because their (unwilling) sire happens to be rich. However, the fact that we have two different views on this doesn’t make me ridiculous or any of the other things you have called me.
Except, I didn’t say that.
Nope. My position is and always has been that if women have the final say as to whether or not they are going to continue a pregnancy, they should also be aware of the responsibility to pay for it might be theirs alone.
Because it’s none of yours or anyones business? You want to dictate how people have sex?
Someone (you? don’t remember) said that men who don’t want children should find women who don’t want children to have sex with.
How rare and extreme do you think teen pregnancy is these days?
I have no idea what the law is other than the female is the one that makes the decision as to whether or not to have and keep the baby. I have no idea if the male has to or ever will have to pay child support, but if he doesn’t then the female’s parents and/or the state will end up doing so. I think it’s likely that once the male gets to a certain age, he will be required to pay support. All because two people who were too young to really understand the consequences had sex and then the female, who is still too young, is given the option to keep the baby. None of this can be good for the baby, the teenagers or the taxpayers.
Damn, I just lost my whole response to this post!
The part you quoted in your just previous post was not what you quoted above. Anyway, what you did quote above is only about the amount of child support men pay, not whether or not they should be paying it.
I can follow it if you reference what you are talking about.
You should know that such a thing can’t be done. Do you really think that anyone is recording how many men and how many women can’t live without having kids? Or how many women are tricking men into fathering their kids?
What other “pay” is there?
I hold women to a tougher standard because they have a bigger advantage.
No, I didn’t say that women should know when a man is lying, I just said that anyone that falls for that old line is too stupid to be raising children.
What consequence is a woman suffering? Either she keeps the baby because she wants it or she aborts/adopts because she cannot afford to raise it. The only bad decision I see that she may have made is not taking birth control until she was either financially able to raise a child, or married (preferably to a man who also wants kids).
I don’t agree with feminism or whatever it’s opposite is these days. I am into responsibility no matter which sex it is, and since the woman is making the choice whether or not to have the pregnancy become a baby, she should be responsible for that choice by herself if the man doesn’t want the baby.
OK. What age do you want to set for them to be grown enough?
Except those children aren’t under discussion. I merely point out that women who have children simply to get money may be less likely to be nurturing mothers.
That US society seems to think that every pregnancy must become a baby, which should have money thrown at it. But when it comes to how that baby is actually being raised, most people don’t seem to care. Doesn’t make any sense to me.
No, that isn’t personal responsibility, it was your choice because you couldn’t have an abortion, and apparently also wouldn’t have been able to give a baby up for adoption. And it was your choice to give up intercourse until you were ready to have kids. Why do you think you should be able to force those choices on to all men?
See post #274, and you will see that I did quote the whole thing.
You weren’t doing that, either.
No, that was my point. There’s no data, so you have no evidence for your claim.
We all pay for our actions in many ways. I have two kids…supporting them financially is part of the responsibility I have, but it’s not nearly the whole shebang. There’s cost to my time, my emotions, etc. etc.
I don’t know what this means.
And men who fall for the equivilant line are too stupid to be having sex at all, but they do.
You don’t think that raising a baby that you might not be 100% ready for is paying consequences? Or giving a baby up for adoption? These things are not easy to do, but many women do them because they made a mistake and they want to live up to the obligation that created.
Some women don’t believe in abortion, and it’s not a choice for them.
18 seems reasonable.
Except that we haven’t established what percentage of women do that.
If US society believed that, we wouldn’t have over a million abortions a year in this country.
You have a mighty strange notion of personal responsibility…what else is it when someone avoides something they want to do because they believe it might have bad consequences for someone else and/or for themselves? I never asked anyone else to solve a problem for me…as you say, it was my choice…my personal choice, based on my sense of responsibility. I wouldn’t have an abortion, and while I could give a baby up for adoption, it’s not something that I would relish doing…I’m sure it’s not the easiest thing in the world. And that’s exactly the point…I did this so I wouldn’t have to face the potential consequences. I don’t want to FORCE guys to do anything, other than live up to the consequences of the choices they make.
So it doesn’t matter whether the guy makes any attempt to be responsible or not.? And yet my characterization of you placing all the responsibility on the woman is incorrect?
Since I clearly supported limiting public support to single moms up thread I obviously can wrap my mind around it.
Once again your exaggerations only serve to distort the point rather than clarify.
A baby is a citizen who cannot defend or provide for themselves so it makes total sense that our society and our laws take that into consideration. The rights of the parents are also considered as is the responsibility of those who engage in activities that have obvious and known consequences.
Your problem is while you continue to rant in general terms you can’t provide a realistic alternative with specifics and then defend it. It isn’t realistic to suggest a course of action and then not take responsibility for all the consequences. That’s how reality works. Each decisive course has both positive and negative consequences. So far your suggestion strikes me as a net negative. If it was limited to a cap on public support fr single Mom’s I’d agree. Suggesting men be released from all financial responsibility for the children they help create doesn’t strike me as realistic or a net positive.
I agree to an extent. We have to set **realistic ** limits and guidelines. I don’t your suggestion qualifies. You want to be more demanding of women and make no demands on men who willingly and knowingly participate. I fail to see any way that releasing men from all concerns about unwanted children will result in fewer kids in broken homes. It will probably have the exact opposite effect. Men paying child support allows women and kids to get off support.
I reject this as a legitimate question as phrased.
I know a young lady who gave up her first child for adoption. She finished school and is now married with another child from that union. I respect and admire that. I know others who kept their children and accepted temporary support while they worked to get off support so they could better provide for their kids. I respect and admire that. Women who pop out babies to up their support check I don’t respect . Not just for that reason {although it’s enough} but because they also tend to be lousy parents
I don’t see requiring a sire to pay his share as selfish. I see it as justice and expecting an adult to be responsible.
But the solution has to be based on reality and the probable or observed consequences of any law. Your proposal makes thing less balanced rather than more balanced.
Completely false. I hold both parties responsible and have said so repeatedly. That includes the women.
Two teenage boys agree to play with a handgun. One accidentally shoots the other. Are both partly responsible? Is the shooter not responsible because he didn’t want to shoot the other. “Whoops my mistake. Guess I’ll go eat now”
and btw, since he’s not responsible he’s more than willing to play with a gun again next week with someone else , especially if his unique biology means he can’t be the one that gets shot.
That’s what I understood. I’m not sure how the example I gave that you claimed demonstrated I didn’t understand doesn’t match this criteria. Here it is
How does that not qualify? Because I suggested he knew? It still fits your criteria and that’s my point. Your suggestion has a lot of negative consequences that need to be considered. If it prevents bad things A and B, while encouraging bad things C, D and E it’s not a net positive.
That’s fine with me.
Amen.
btw, that was a challenging post to read. I almost hypnotized myself
I don’t understand this. In my hypothetical, the woman isn’t on the Pill. She’s on nothing, so however effective the birth control pill is is totally irrelevant. I just don’t see why, “I’m willing to take responsibility for our hypothetical child” is more or less stupid than “Don’t worry, I’m on the pill.” They’re both deliberately misleading their partner.
Anyway, if the two people are in a relationship to the point where they are very committed, shouldn’t she be able to believe him if he says that he will help support any child conceived from the union? Why the double standard?
Thank you. And on that note, upon reflection, I think I’m done here. A person who believes that women should be held to a higher standard of intelligence, ethics, and responsibility than men, and who thinks making a personal decision to behave in a certain manner in order to avoid unpleasant consequences isn’t personal responsibility is a person that I don’t think I can have a reasonable conversation with.
You can’t imagine what it was like to write it.
Are you saying that you believe over 50% of accidental pregnancies are not accidental at all?
And scrolling back to read it again way to much effort? {makes mental note}
<sniped for brevities sake>
I think limiting welfare payments to single Moms is a better balanced solution than eliminating them and encouraging men to be more irresponsible. Women will continue to get pregnant even without forced child support. While I agree it would cut down on pregnancies in certain areas, I think by encouraging men to be irresponsible and allowing them an easy way out, it would fail to cut down on the number of unwanted or unintended pregnancies in any significant way.
Babies are born to the poor, the careless, the irresponsible, and the ignorant. Unless we want to start enforcing some kind of selective breeding, or forced adoption we have to deal with it. I support finding a balance between encouraging responsibility, and offering some kind of support for those in need.
Fair enough. It is an assumption. Do you have any statistics to show me I’m wrong or just the opposite assumption? I tend to think most unwanted pregnancies are caused by irresponsibility rather than women trying to trap men. I’m open to any statistics that show otherwise. In fact I made the effort to look for some. Since states vary in support laws according to your theory you’d expect states with strict child support enforcements to have higher out of wedlock birth rates so the woman can get paid.
In fact the opposite appears to be true according to this site
“So what do studies comparing how weak and strong child support laws effect single motherhood find? It’s men, not women, who have their incentives changed by child support laws. The stronger child support laws are, the lower the rate of single motherhood.”
Woman bear the physical burden of childbirth and the emotional and parental burden of the 18 year commitment as well as their share of the economic burden if their partner is unwilling. Compare that as a deterrent to unwanted pregnancy to men who face just the 18 year financial commitment. Still you propose freeing men from even that much responsibility. The stats show it’s a bad idea. If men are forced to bear the responsibility of their actions they will make more effort to avoid an unwanted pregnancy. sounds fairly simple and sensible doesn’t it?
There’s already an unavoidable biological difference. It’s not the same as proposing an intentional enforced inequality as you are doing.
So men can say, “I want intercourse but I don’t want a baby” and that ends their responsibility, while women shoulder the rest. Again, horribly one sided and guaranteed to promote a new generation of irresponsible men.
No woman don’t have “all the power” They have different choices based on different biology. I think women should carry their responsibilities too. If they keep their baby they have an emotional and financial obligation. I think men should carry the weight of their choices as well. Your proposal relieves them of it and mistakenly calls it some sort of equality or justice. Up to now you’ve just been redundant with nothing to support your opinion. Anything else?
Apparently your desire to win the argument gives you selective reading comprehension. If you’d taken vacation in context it was obvious. Rather than a European vacation or a week at Disney world we’d vacation at the local state park for hiking, camping, or sight seeing. Not all that difficult to grasp actually.
Since circumstance of birth and income seems to work for kids in a family with Moms and Dads why should it seem as an inequity that it works that way for kids out of wedlock?
The Dad’s that pay more usually have a lot more left over for themselves as well.
One inequity I have seen is that incomes change and often the courts don’t respond quickly or appropriately to that reality. That’s a finer point of detail than you’re referring to.
I’m getting sick of hearing it since I obviously know it. I’m hoping you’ll come up with something with more substance but so far no luck. I rejected your use of the word sticking. Repeating this is irrelevant and unnecessary.
Would you acknowledge he likely knew a pregnancy and a possible child was one possible outcome of his conscious choice.
The best interests pf all parties should mean balancing those interests and rights appropriately. That’s not what you’re suggesting.
<redundant extreme deleted>
Yes , that is what we have now. For the umpteenth time,that’s the unavoidable result of biology. You have to consider the consequences of your proposal at other points as well. Unintended but perfectly foreseeable consequences. By giving men what you describe as an equal choice at that point you effectively create a gross inequality at the point of conception. That doesn’t create a more balanced or equal system.
I’ve attacked your position and the style of your posts, rather than you personally. It doesn’t mean I don’t understand your position just because I criticize it and strongly disagree. It doesn’t mean I don’t understand because I don’t find it reasonable or all that logical.
You haven’t acknowledged or seriously responded to several of my key points. Instead you repeatedly accuse me of positions I clearly don’t hold. It’s an unoriginal tactic that does nothing to support your argument.
I know. Once more I’m trying to get you to consider the less attractive but foreseeable consequences of your proposal. You keep ignoring them as if they’ll go away.
Okay, I still find that position to be unreasonable and unfair.
Nonsense. Talk about dodging the question. I’m suggesting
adult men and women take full responsibility for whatever type of sex they choose. I’m also pointing out the available options for those who seriously want to avoid unintended pregnancy, either men and women. Bottom line, risking pregnancy and all that entails is a conscious choice for men and women.
Or women who don’t want children right now. It involves a certain amount of trust which isn’t fool proof. I was pointing out one of the options for men to reduce their risk. It seems a better option than making them completely unconcerned because they can easily avoid any consequences.
Wrong question. Of the teens having sex , and/or getting pregnant, how many do you think don’t know how babies are made. That’s the relevant question to the point you attempted to make. Unfortunately the facts don’t help your position.
If you have nothing statistical to offer rather than either of us repeating and rewording the same arguments let’s call it a day. We don’t and won’t agree.
The inherent unfairness of biology has been used over and over in this thread to excuse the unfairness of the situation in regards to men. But, as for the unfairness of biology regarding women, well, the Supreme Court went out of their way to enact a remedy to that “unfairness” in Roe v Wade.
Roe v Wade isn’t about overcoming unfairness. It’s an albeit imperfect recognition of individual automony over one’s own body, and the right to privacy. Look at the string of cases it comes from.