Catsix, I want you to not bear my children. 
Neither is child support. What’s your point?
I don’t feel that it is semantics. robert says that the state of pregnancy doesn’t lead to the state of child birth. I think that it is silly to say that. Of course it does.
The decision to have an abortion requires actions. A women can’t decide to have an abortion and have the fetus magically remove itself from her womb. She can decide to have an abortion, not follow through, and still have a child.
The decision to not have an abortion is a really just a decision to allow nature to run it’s course. It is not a decision to allow a baby to be born only a decision to not do anything further to stop it.
I think there is a real difference there.
My point, as I have said before…
You say : state of pregnancy does not equal the state of child birth.
I say : The state of pregnancy does equal the state of child birth unless a women specifically makes actions to stop it. (Not a decision, actual actions) Naturally, (and baring complications) the state of pregnancy does equal the state of child birth.
Fantastic. Like I’ve said, time and time again, I don’t care whether she has an abortion or not. She can feel free to do whatever she wants with the money - decorate the baby room, fly to Alaska, or buy some bitchin’ mag wheels.
The doctor’s opinion is only relevant to my plan in cases where abortion would be hazardous, and then only to determine the amount the potential father has to pay.
That’s right… the money is removed with a pen, not a scalpel, so obviously it can’t be anything more than an “inconvenience”.
Guess she has the wrong idea, then. She made the decision to bear a child by herself, didn’t she? Or are you suggesting we change the law to allow the father input on that decision?
The same has been said about condoms, but that doesn’t seem to stop people from using them.
You know, you always end up confusing my personal life with my opinion in threads like this one. Maybe you ought to stick to threads where you can keep a cooler head.
Oh boy, I love Six Degrees of Baby! It’s so much more fun than pinning responsibility on the one person who makes the final decision.
Let me try one… she chose to carry a zygote to term, which was created with his sperm, when they had sex in a hotel, after driving there in a Chevrolet, which they inherited from an old man, who originally bought it because Pat Boone sang about it on TV. Get your checkbook ready, Pat Boone!
She already knows what I think about having kids, which is just as meaningful as a contract, given the current state of the law. I don’t want to create tension for no possible benefit.
It’s a meaningless distinction - inaction is a free choice, just like action.
If you are told to show up in court on a certain date (a proactive action), and you fail to appear (inaction), somehow I don’t think they’ll accept the excuse “But I was just letting nature take its course!”
No problem, since I won’t be having any children, ever.
Hypothetically though, if I were to have a kid I knew was only wanted by me, it falls to reason in my mind that the kid would be provided for by only me.
That’s why safe harbor policies exist. Didn’t you know that? They don’t want flakey young parents trashing their kids in dumpsters. That is the reason these policies were started.
That may be their attitude, but the money is for the kid. I think minty (a lawyer, I believe) clarified this quite a while ago. Some of these mothers you refer to are probably talking about money getting paid back to them for the support of the child. They support the child 100% out of their own pocket, dad (supposedly) pays her back a portion of that.
The kid also may want to go to college some day, or may have some other reasonable need. You don’t think that as they get older, they’ll realize that it would be nice if they could afford better schooling? If dad would only fulfill his obligation? You don’t think that no kid, ever, has known that they have a “right” to some support from their dad and has made moves to make it happen (legally)?
We go around very nicely in circles. The men who will wait in line to screw these women are every bit as responsible for the pregnant state of the women. Don’t start with the concept of “the child only starts when the woman decides to not have an abortion” bullshit. Because that’s what it is—bullshit. The child started (maybe it was just a few deciding cells, but it was started) when sperm met egg. And many men will wait in line to contribute their sperm.
And, you haven’t answered my question—why aren’t you waiting in line to get a vasectomy? Why? Beat these scheming “breeding like rabbits” women at their own game! “The child cannot start if he doesn’t give it any sperm to contribute to starting them.” Why can’t the man’s decision to have a vasectomy be the deciding factor here? Especially since he is the one who is so vehemently unwilling to be a father. I should think that the ball should be in his court—let him be proactive and do something to protect himself if he is so horrified at the concept of child support. Why do nothing, have sex anyway, and hope that the woman won’t get pregnant and then want to carry the child to term? Why leave it all up to her when he does have more than a few choices that will protect him and his sacred wallet?
“Your plan” is all about the sanctity of your wallet and nothing else, we got it. So her body, her psyche, the “big picture” for her—what is best in the long run for her is of no significance. We got it, really we do.
I’m sure to someone like you, it is extremely painful—because, after all, nothing, no, nothing is more sacred than your wallet. You’ve made this abundantly clear.
Hey, why won’t you get that vasectomy? All your worries would be over. And your sacred wallet would be safe. It sounds like an excellent deal. So why aren’t you doing it? Seriously?
Oh, he had his “input”. It’s called sperm. And he gave it quite willingly, knowing what it was capable of doing. He was chomping at the bit to contribute his sperm. And he did it without any vasectomy, (something he quite easily could get, if supporting unwanted children was a major concern for him).
Oh, you don’t believe that for a minute. Condoms are nowhere near similar to stopping everything, whipping out a long legal document and taking time to peruse it.
Only the “final decision” matters? What about his “final decision”? About whether or not to get a vasectomy? It’s a decision he can make, he has complete control over, and yet he won’t do it. But he’ll piss and moan when he willingly has sex with her, and she gets pregnant and then has the audacity to not want to have an abortion! Cry me a river.
“Tension”?!? TENSION?!?!?! So you admit that the whole concept would generate tension? Why, pray tell? And, is your girlfriend a Doper? Would she like to contribute to this thread? I’m sure we’d all love to get some insight of her opinions on this matter.
Not getting a vasectomy is inaction as well. So live with your inaction, then. Be fertile, risk impregnanting women, and risk being an unwilling father. Risk your sacred wallet. Your choice, obviously.
Sigh. And to you, nothing is more sacred than the ability to churn out babies at someone else’s expense. Aren’t generalizations fun?
Perhaps because I’m posting about principles, not my personal life. Maybe I’m not in a position where I’ll potentially become a parent, or maybe I’m willing to help raise any kids that do result.
Also, even supposing that I’m absolutely opposed to having kids now, I may want them in the future. According to the alt.support.vasectomy FAQ:
rimshot
She’ll be here all week, folks.
Hold it… who said this has to happen during the sex act? Isn’t there plenty of time before that point to make sure they’re both on the same page (no pun intended) as far as children are concerned?
I assume people aren’t tearing each other’s clothes off the instant they meet. Maybe I’m just going to the wrong clubs. 
That is, quite obviously, not the final decision in the process of delivering a baby. It’s not even the last decision the man makes, unless he somehow gets a vasectomy during the sex act.
The same reason it would cause tension if the woman said, “You know, if we have sex, I might make a decision that costs you tens of thousands of dollars over the next 20 years of your life. Please sign this contract stating that you’re aware of the huge risk you’re taking.”
The man doesn’t want to be confronted with that financial risk, but at least under our current laws, he knows he’s taking that risk whether she confronts him or not. The woman would want even less to be put on the spot, forced to weigh her relationship with this guy against the possibility of having to choose between an abortion and single motherhood - but at least no one else would be making the decision for her.
No, she isn’t. Based on the hostility I’ve seen around this topic, I don’t know if I’d want you talking to her anyway.
Oh, sure! :rolleyes:
::shrug:: So vasectomy isn’t perfect, it probably can’t be reversed, and it’s expensive. But the preserving of sperm is an option, even though it’s not perfect either. But I’ll hazard a guess and assume that a vasectomy is cheaper than 18 years of child support. Since you are so cavalier about a woman getting an abortion (whether or not she wants it or feels it is best for her body or mind) then why shouldn’t we be cavalier about men getting a vasectomy? Men get vasectomies, all the time. And if they have their sperm preserved, they can always father kids later. And they’ll never have to worry about supporting a child that “never should have been born”.
And I’ll hasten to add, no one is killing the doctors because they perform vasectomies. Vasectomies never used to be illegal. No one wants to make vasectomites illegal today. It’s a rare person who would consider a vasectomy something like “murder”. So, once again, ::shrug::
Nice to have a little sarcastic humor once in a while, eh?
Oh sure, that happens some of the time. But surely you know that many people are quite spontanious about sex. And yeah, women get pregnant, even when the act isn’t planned out way ahead of time.
But it’s a definitive decision and act that he can make, all by his lonesome. He won’t be dependent on her decisions. He won’t be a “victim” to anything she does or does not do, which, as you have been lamenting, leaves him in a very vulnerable position after the fact. He’ll be more in control of his own fate if he decides to take a proactive stance rather than hoping that she’ll do what he wants.
Uh, wouldn’t that be more accurately stated as, “You know, if we have sex, your sperm might get me pregnant and then I’ll have to decide what is best for my body and health. (Pregnancy or abortion.) And depending on the decsions that only I am entitled to make (since I’m the one that you knocked up) we both may end up supporting the child that we both helped get started.”
Yeah, that would be a real mood-killer. But then again, if people are going to be open and discuss these things, instead of just ripping each others’ clothes off…
Oh, and I’m sure it has nothing to do with the fact that she might see things just a smidgen differently than you…
Very true. But, as has also been stated umpty-bajillion times, the fact that we share responsibility for the pregnancy does not mean that we share responsibility for the actual gestation/birthing.
Re: Vasectomy: You might have missed it, but I am not lobbying for you to have to lose control of your reproductive system because pregnancy occurrs. This is because that would be wrong. Are you arguing that loss of control of your property as the result of a pregnancy that you contributed to is right?