# Hey hauss, suck it up, chickenshit **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [December 14, 2004, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802 "2004-12-14T16:35:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/101 "2004-12-14T22:22:06Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Just out of curiosity, what’s to stop a woman from deciding that she wants child support from a sperm donor since the kid is 50% his and he decided to willingly give up his sperm? [It happens](http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Patriot_News_Sperm_donor_loses_appeal_child_support_23JUL04.htm). But the law is not altogether [clear](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001922232_spermdonor07.html) in all jurisdictions, it seems. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/102 "2004-12-14T22:24:32Z")
There has to be a better system than the one that exists now. ---
**Author:** ![Giraffe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giraffe/32/129_2.png) [@Giraffe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giraffe)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/103 "2004-12-14T22:24:46Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Like I’ve said before, if one party has options which allow her to ‘opt out’ of motherhood after the pregnancy occurs and the other party doesn’t have options that allow him to ‘opt out’ of fatherhood after the pregnancy occurs, I consider this to be a sexist inequality that should not legally exist. Barring abortion, both parties have equal rights. Both parties have to fuck in order to make the baby. If after the baby is born, one party wants to give the baby up for adoption and the other wants to keep it and assume full custody, then both parties are responsible for financial child support, _regardless of gender_. If both parties want to help raise the child, then both parties can get part-time custody. If (and only if) both parties agree, the child can be given up for adoption. All completely gender neutral and thus not sexist. The only non-gender neutral decision is whether or not to abort the pregnancy. The fact that the baby always grows in the woman’s body is unfair and sexist, but that’s the way it is. If it’s in her body, she gets to decide whether or not to have an abortion. Trying to rebalance everything else because biology is not gender neutral is moronic. > [@](#): > > Fucking is a mutual action. A woman choosing to raise a kid as a single mother knowing full well that the biological father wants nothing to do with being a father or having a baby is not a mutual action, and you can’t pretend that it is. Once you make the baby, it’s there. Why should we as a society favor people who _don’t_ want to raise their own children? And as was previously asked, if one person can opt out of parenting at birth, why not at age three, or five, or ten? What if both parents want to opt out at age ten? Having children is a burden which, while it might seem unfair to your dumb ass, we as a society don’t think people should be able to shrug off whenever it’s inconvenient. Don’t want any risk of having children? Get fixed or don’t have sex. ---
**Author:** ![High\_Cheese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8797f3/32.png) [@High\_Cheese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/High_Cheese)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/104 "2004-12-14T22:27:18Z")
> [@World Eater](#): > > If the woman wants to abort but the guy doesn’t, but what about the other way? > > Pretty interesting question. > > I guess the dude is SOL Ya. I think one of the “inherent risks” **Wierddave** referred to in the OP includes the man sometimes not having a choice. ---
**Author:** ![Athena](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/35a633/32.png) [@Athena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Athena)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/105 "2004-12-14T22:28:05Z")
I noticed, **catsix** , that you opted to avoid answering all the very real questions I posed about the realities of your proposal. I figured I’d give you another chance. I’m still waiting to hear a proposal that backs up your ideas in a real-world setting. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/106 "2004-12-14T22:33:21Z")
> [@Q.E.D.](#): > > You _do_ know about DNA paternity (and maternity) testing, don’t you? These days it’s simple, quick and conclusive. How do you do a paternity test on an embryo? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/107 "2004-12-14T22:33:31Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > .Why don’t you bitch at the people who agree with what I said on this topic instead of just me? I’ve got every right to my opinion, and I’ve got every right to lobby my elected representatives to support my opinion. You don’t have to agree with it, but you don’t have to be a fucking drive by bitch about it either. 'cause I don’t know them, but I **have** observed your obsessive obnoxious behavior. And just as you have a right to your opinion, I, too have a right to mine, and chose to express it here. Gosh, isn’t it wonderful when we all get what we want? There is no way for the woman to have zero consequences. Abortions, giving birth, giving child up for adoption, having to raise child alone, all are consequences with varying levels of risk to her life and wellbeing, and the woman must select one of those under these circumstances. Under your plan, the man can opt for zero consequences. Both participants are necessary in order to have a pregnancy occur. I would find it unfair to allow one of the two necessary people to opt out w/out any consequences at all. under the circumstances, I would suggest that the female has more incentive to be cautious than the male (since she has all the potential physical risks involved). But allowing one to have no consequences for a mutal act while the other cannot avoid consequences seems wrong to me. in a perfect system, all would mutually share the risks, consequences etc, but it isn’t going to happen that way. I agree that there are unscrupulous females around. Which is why I would encourage any male to use b/c that they control as well. (understanding that any method might fail), that he select only those females to copulate w/who share his opinion on children, abortion and the like (IOW, if you are male and don’t want kids right now, use b/c and only fuck women who wouldn’t have a problem getting an abortion). But it’s an unfair world, we cannot achieve perfect parity. IN the meantime, it would weigh too heavily in one direction if the male is able to avoid absolutely every possible consequence. He would then have no incentive at all for behaving in a responsible manner ever. (why use b/c at all? why be discriminate about who to fuck? why be at all concerned about donating sperm and creating children if you have no responsability for any of them?) and I may have to raise my prediction of 7 pages. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/108 "2004-12-14T22:36:25Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > This logic does not apply to women, does it? Are they somehow unable to take the responsibility of a pregnancy when they hop onto a dick? > > What’s good for the gander is good for the goose. If it is all right and proper to force a man into parenthood by virtue of a moment of indiscretion, then it’s all right and proper to force a woman into parenthood for the exact same indiscretion. > > I don’t think it’s good to force this on either side, however it is impossible to give choice to the man without causing huge societal problems, so we do the best we can, women get choice, men don’t. I’ll agree that there is currently no better solution, but don’t piss in my face and say it’s a summer shower. It’s her body, her choice. She gets to make her choice a little later than the man. So what? That’s the way it goes. It doesn’t change the fact that the man is taking a conscious risk everytime he puts his dork in a vagina. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/109 "2004-12-14T22:39:45Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > If the father didn’t want to be a father, he shouldn’t have stuck his dick in her. He CHOSE to accept responsibility when he chose to have vaginal intercourse. Sex carries a risk of pregnancy, even with contraception. All men know that, and all men know that they are taking a chance that they will become parents everytime they have vaginal intercourse. Sex is a gamble. They CHOSE to gamble. They lost. Too bad, so sad, pay the fuck up. That was a thing of beauty. The whole thing in a nutshell. Of course, as **wring** has already predicted, this thread will probably go for at least several more pages, primarily thanks to **catsix**. Same old, same old. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/110 "2004-12-14T22:40:41Z")
Nothing sexist about it at all. Whoever ends up pregnant decides whether the baby is kept; after that, both peopel share responsibility for the kid. Women aren’t automatically favored by this system; if the man gets pregnant, he’s the one who gets to decide whether to abort. Daniel ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/111 "2004-12-14T22:43:20Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Just out of curiosity, what’s to stop a woman from deciding that she wants child support from a sperm donor since the kid is 50% his and he decided to willingly give up his sperm? [law](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=il&vol=/sc/2003/92947&invol=3): - The donor of the semen provided to a licensed physician for use in artificial insemination of a woman other than the donor’s wife shall be treated in law as if he were not the natural father of a child thereby conceived."\* ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/112 "2004-12-14T22:43:46Z")
> [@](#): > > **Giraffe** said: > If (and only if) both parties agree, the child can be given up for adoption. All completely gender neutral and thus not sexist. Wrong. Baby Safe Haven (sorry, had the name slightly jumbled) allows a mother drop her newborn off at the hospital, no questions asked, not even her name (according to the little pamphlet I just picked up here at work) and absolve herself of ever having any obligation to it at all. And daddy doesn’t have to be there. So it seems she _can_ get rid of the kid without him. > [@](#): > > **From CNN regading Michigan’s Baby Safe Haven laws** > “If you bring the baby to us within 72 hours of birth and if there is no harm deliberately inflicted after the birth, then we take the baby, we ask no questions, and we’re grateful that the baby’s life has been saved,” said Deputy Wayne County Prosecutor George Ward. Apparently the ‘biological parents’ have 30 days in which to change their minds, but if the father doesn’t know where the baby was dropped off, or that a baby existed at all, what the hell is he supposed to do about it? Ask if area hospitals have received a baby in the past month from So-and-So? What’ll they tell him considering they ‘ask no questions’? > [@](#): > > **From Pennsylvania’s State Website** > You don’t have to tell anyone your name. You won’t be in trouble as long as the baby isn’t abused or harmed. Nothing on their site about having 30 days to get the kid back, either. > [@](#): > > Having children is a burden which, while it might seem unfair to your dumb ass, we as a society don’t think people should be able to shrug off whenever it’s inconvenient. Don’t want any risk of having children? Get fixed or don’t have sex. So you’re opposed to abortion then? > [@](#): > > **wring** said:'cause I don’t know them, but I have observed your obsessive obnoxious behavior. And just as you have a right to your opinion, I, too have a right to mine, and chose to express it here. Gosh, isn’t it wonderful when we all get what we want? Then by all means, go ahead and be a driveby shitbird. You saw my name and went on the attack. Maybe you need to stick that ‘obsessive’ label on yourself. Of course if you think it’s so burdensome to read my posts, why the fuck are you bothering to argue against my position? Just trying to make sure that your little ‘prediction’ is correct? > [@](#): > > **yosemite** said: > That was a thing of beauty. The whole thing in a nutshell. Then y’know what, so should the fucking women. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander too. You don’t want kids? Don’t fuck. ---
**Author:** ![SusanStoHelit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7ab992/32.png) [@SusanStoHelit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SusanStoHelit)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/113 "2004-12-14T22:44:45Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > [It happens](http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Patriot_News_Sperm_donor_loses_appeal_child_support_23JUL04.htm). > > But the law is not altogether [clear](http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001922232_spermdonor07.html) in all jurisdictions, it seems. Maeglin beat me to it, it seems. ---
**Author:** ![Binarydrone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/3da27b/32.png) [@Binarydrone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Binarydrone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/114 "2004-12-14T22:48:40Z")
catsix, What you are still missing is that by her very biology a woman can not help but accept the consequences of pregnancy. This is not a level playing field. ---
**Author:** ![Cheesesteak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cheesesteak/32/3694_2.png) [@Cheesesteak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheesesteak)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/115 "2004-12-14T22:52:15Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > So what? That’s the way it goes. It doesn’t change the fact that the man is taking a conscious risk everytime he puts his dork in a vagina. What burns me is the argument that this set of conditions is considered fine and dandy when applied to a man, yet is NOT acceptable when applied to a woman, as it was for so many years. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/116 "2004-12-14T22:59:13Z")
> [@](#): > > **Binarydrone** said: > catsix, What you are still missing is that by her very biology a woman can not help but accept the consequences of pregnancy. This is not a level playing field. I know the biology is different. So did any woman who chose to spread her legs. If we can apply ‘don’t want a kid, don’t fuck’ to men, we might as well apply it to women too. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/117 "2004-12-14T23:01:56Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > I know the biology is different. So did any woman who chose to spread her legs. If we can apply ‘don’t want a kid, don’t fuck’ to men, we might as well apply it to women too. We ARE applying it to women. Quit being obtuse. ---
**Author:** ![LavenderBlue](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/e95f7d/32.png) [@LavenderBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LavenderBlue)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/118 "2004-12-14T23:03:05Z")
> [@Cheesesteak](#): > > What burns me is the argument that this set of conditions is considered fine and dandy when applied to a man, yet is NOT acceptable when applied to a woman, as it was for so many years. You are completely missing the point. A woman faces PHYSICAL consequences when it comes to pregnancy that a man does not. Men face absolutely no physical consequences whatsoever from implanting a sperm in a woman’s uterus. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/119 "2004-12-14T23:03:36Z")
> [@catsix](#): > > Then by all means, go ahead and be a driveby shitbird. You saw my name and went on the attack. Maybe you need to stick that ‘obsessive’ label on yourself. > > Of course if you think it’s so burdensome to read my posts, why the fuck are you bothering to argue against my position? Just trying to make sure that your little ‘prediction’ is correct? > . Sweetums, I’m hardly the only person who notices what an obsessive little munchkin you are. I believe you are incorrect, also, about the label of “driveby” - I’ve responded to the OP directly, in more than one way and more than once, mentioning you was a bonus. Obsessed about you? hardly dear, though if it makes you feel better about yourself to think that some one might be, have a go at it. If, however, you think that I’m picking on you personally and unfairly, there’s that little button in the corner that you can use to report my reprehensible behavior. ---
**Author:** ![yosemite](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/3ab097/32.png) [@yosemite](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yosemite)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2004, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802/120 "2004-12-14T23:16:22Z")
> [@wring](#): > > Sweetums, I’m hardly the only person who notices what an obsessive little munchkin you are. No, you certainly are not the only one. So, what are your predictions for the page count now, **wring**? We’re up to three now, I can easily see it going to seven, but perhaps eight is more likely? And by the way, I thought your post was a thing of beauty too. If **catsix** got her way, men would have _no_ incentive to be responsible. Hell, he could even lie about having a vasectomy, if he wanted, to persuade a woman to go without using a condom. Why would he not? He’d be off the hook since the vasectomy claim would be a “he said, she said” sort of thing. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hey-hauss-suck-it-up-chickenshit/279802.md?page=7)