I’m not sure if your weakness is math or biology, but both partners bear an equal responsibility to prevent pregnancy, just as both bear an equal responsibility for any child resulting from consensual sex.
Do I think child support is a deterrent against unwanted children? Of course I do.
No, it isn’t. I’ve been having sex outside of any legal or religious contract since I was 15, and at 42 have exactly the number of children that two parents wanted. One. I’d encourage everyone else to have as much sex as they would like so long as they avoid dumping litters of unwanted children onto the welfare roles and social work system.
Yep. That’s pretty much what we’re talking about here.
That most decidedly wasn’t me who said that “life isn’t fair.”
That would encourage intimidation, extortion, and/or whatever means are necessary to coerce a mother to excuse the father from supporting the child/ren he’s half responsible for creating. I think that’s the worst idea trotted out here yet.
It sounds bad because that’s how it will go. Some men who are amoral and selfish are also incredibly charming and appealing, and given the chance to fuck as often and as many women they like with zero responsibility and repercussion will almost certainly dump litters of children onto the welfare roles. There is zero chance the average taxpayer will ever support such a ludicrous proposal, and even less chance that men who have trouble finding partners and getting laid will subsidize these lotharios. I’m aware there’s a buddy culture among players, but does that extend to the average guy and lonely guys, too? Are you willing to take a hefty chunk out of your salary to fund the worry free sex life of guys who get more pussy than you? Good god, why?
You’re right, it’s not. It’s expensive, it’s painful, side effects of bleeding to death, infection, and scarring that can lead to a host of other problems including sterility make the process just as scary as any other surgical procedure. The sudden hormone adjustment afterward can lead to depression. And abortion clinics are few and far between, it isn’t private as the procedure requires an escort/driver and someone to stay with the patient for the 24 hours following the procedure, and often requires the patient to brave a gauntlet of protestors. And that’s assuming the pregnancy is caught in time and the woman has no moral or religious reservations against the procedure.
Anyone that cares a whit about a partner or his own future will do his share to prevent such a scenario.
Both come from the same place. Ask someone who is against premartial sex if they are also against sex for fun and vice versa, you’ll find a lot of agreement. I’m against using “responsibility” of child rearing as punishment. If someone allows another to remove themselves from child rearing, I’m fine with that
I think the small instances in which that may happen would trump the more instances in which both parents agree that one or both should not be responsible for the child. Just like in domestic violence cases, we allow that some men would get away with it because the women refuse to press charges, or continue to stay with the guy. We could force them to testify, or force a split with women who are clearly battered. But we find that forcing by the state to be worse than dumb choices made by people, and in this case, I feel the logic works the same way
I’m unconcerned with what taxpayers want and don’t care what these other men think. My plan is fairer to people in general, so I think that its a good plan despite opposition to it
I wouldn’t be one of those people creating a lot of children so I don’t sympathize with them at all. In fact, I rather personally detest those people. However, I think my plan is more fair. It allows men to have an “out” like women do in the case of abortion, but men still have to get the woman’s permission. It creates that “out” but still allows the woman, due to biology, to have more say over the child. And for men, it gives them an almost equal option to abortion, thus making things fairer, without undermining the fact that biology ultimately still plays a role. Its fair all around for everyone
Oh, that’s weird. I don’t see why you should be able to put someone’s name on the birth certificate if they’re not the legal father. So, does listing a father on a birth certificate not really have any effect then?
I’m somewhat astonished by the cavalier attitude toward abortion many are showing in this thread. I’m as pro choice as they come, but I’m not sure how anyone can think of abortion as some easy peasy procedure. Even the abortion pill has tremendous physical side effects- and that doesn’t even touch on the potential psychological ones (for me, it wouldn’t be so much the aborting of the cells, it’d be having to face the wall of protesters stationed permanently outside of our local clinic).
And again, this all assumes the woman actually has access to an abortion. In my fairly large city, there is exactly one place that does abortions and they are always being protested. Looking at their website, the abortion pill starts at $525 and prices go up from there. And we’re fortunate to have that one, as there are many places in the country where abortion clinics can’t be found for hundreds of miles, if at all.
It’s safer than childbirth and less life changing than raising a child or having to come up with an extra $300 dollars a month for 18 years on a very limited budget.
In those places, it really has no effect. When I worked in child welfare, there were fathers who either wanted custody or wanted their relatives to be aproved as kinship foster parents- being listed on the birth certificate didn’t matter. The parents had to either be married or ther had to be acourt order establishing paternity. I suppose it might be helpful if the mother lists a man as a father and she later denies that he’s the father when he seeks custody or visitation or something, but that’s about it.
People are not required to care about their sexual partners merely to confirm their consent to the sexual act. If you think abortion is expensive and scary try childbirth. It’s even worse, so arguably abortion is the lesser difficult procedure. As to the woman’s moral or religious reservations againt abortion, all the religions I know of that object to abortion also object to premarital sex, so obviously moral or religious reservations are not major deciding factors in that woman’s life, know are they?
ZPG Zealot, you’re again assuming the woman has appropriate access to an abortion. There are plenty of places where she’d have to drive several hundred miles (along with a driver, since she won’t be able to drive herself back), face a wall of protesters, then pay a bunch of money to have a physically painful procedure that could potentially have long term physiological and psychological effects on her. You can be the most pro choice person in the world, but that is a tough thing to go through for anyone. Let’s not downplay the reality of abortion in America.
I don’t disagree that childbirth is worse, but folks in this thread really need to stop acting like an abortion is just a walk in the park or something.
And again: this all hinges on the idea that a safe abortion is actually accessible to the woman. Every single day, all across the country, abortions become harder and harder to get. It’s a goddamned shame. What’s more shameful, though, is the idea being paraded around in here that the woman should have 100% of the responsibility for this and if she fails either due to her own fault or because GOP legislators have made it too difficult for her, well then she’s 100% responsible for raising the baby, too. The man walks away with no negative impacts.
And nowhere near as safe as a condom and far cheaper than 18 years of child support. Since preventing an unwanted child is easier, cheaper, and safer for men, they should do just that.
Access to abortion may be difficult, but not impossible, and in view of the alternative (giving birth, raising that child, supporting that child) I think it is reasonable to expect a woman to be willing to make an effort to obtain one. Sure it’s not a walk in the part, neither is paying 18 years of child support, in fact in many cases the loss of that money can destroy someone’s dreams, family and life.
Once again, no condom is unbreakable or untaperable. Furthermore, if a woman is mature enough to have sex, she should be willing to take responsibility herself for obtaining some form of birth control. Might I suggest that if it bothers you so much that some men don’t like to wear condoms, you encourage women to refuse to have sex with those men.
You apparently labor under the assumption that being the custodial parent (of either sex) is free and does not destroy/change/alter a single parent’s dreams, family, and life. That’s possibly the most self-centered, egotistical view expressed in this thread so far and there have been some profoundly misanthropic treatises shat out here.
Men or women who don’t want children shouldn’t have one. If your preferred method of birth control fails, it is your responsibility to deal with the repercussions and responsibility of the outcome and there is no one to blame except yourself. If condoms are more unpleasant than the risk of unwanted children, you have an alternative.
Being the custodial parent is a CHOICE. Being stuck with child support because someone decided they would fulfill their babies fantasies over their partners’ objections isn’t.
That has been my position from post one. Pity you think this choice should only apply to women.
[QUOTE=Troppus: 16285618]
If your preferred method of birth control fails, it is your responsibility to deal with the repercussions and responsibility of the outcome and there is no one to blame except yourself. If condoms are more unpleasant than the risk of unwanted children, you have an alternative.
[/QUOTE]
I am a woman I have plenty of alternatives to condoms including abortion. It truly grieves me that people who give at least lip service to the idea of reproductive choice feel free to draft men into the role of economic partners in a pregnancy. It’s no different from drafting women as gestational partners. Both should be illegal.
Either has equal opportunity to prevent an unwanted pregnancy, yes? You’re recommending expensive, painful surgery for women in order to make fucking worry free for men. If you want an abortion, you have one. Most women would prefer to have help preventing the unwanted pregnancy beforehand.
But in the event that both his and her birth control measures fail, what do you propose we do in locations where abortions are not available, for women past the legal window, or for women who cannot afford the procedure? Still want to dump all those unwanted kids onto the welfare roles and set up a power dynamic where hot, appealing rogues get all the pussy while more careful, choosy, or celibate men and women pick up the tab for irresponsible, promiscuous sex?