# un-PC beliefs **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [October 2, 2010, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823 "2010-10-02T05:46:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/201 "2010-10-12T19:28:31Z")
> [@Jennmonkye](#): > > I think when a single woman gets pregnant, she should NOT be able to sue the father for child support if he doesn’t want to pay (regardless of relationship). If women want to be 100% responsible for their bodies (and as a feminist, I believe we should be), then why force the men to pay for the children? I call bullshit on any woman who “blames” a man for getting her pregnant. If you want to have some sort of pre-existing legal agreement outside of marriage or civil union, then fine…but get it in writing, because in my world, if you don’t, then you get nothing! Kiddo is 100% your responsibility. > [@lindsaybluth](#): > > But I do agree with the child support measure. A child conceived in a marriage is both of yours, unquestionably. But outside a marriage, it’s ambiguous, and you either have control of your body or you don’t. Shit or get off the fence. As it stands, men are suing for the right to demand a baby be carried to term even if the mother doesn’t want it because women’s rights aren’t clearly defined. If they choose to carry it, they choose 100% fiduciary responsibility if the man doesn’t want the child. You’ll have to amend the Constitution to do so. Laws that guarantee child support for children born during marriage but deny child support to children born out of wedlock violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. [Gomez. v. Perez](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=409&page=538), 409 U.S. 535 (1973). States are under no obligation to provide _any_ children with a child support obligation from a non-custodial parent, but if they choose to do so they can’t discriminate on the basis of legitimacy and illegitimacy. ---
**Author:** ![BrassyPhrase](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/ea666f/32.png) [@BrassyPhrase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrassyPhrase)\ **Post date:** [October 12, 2010, 9:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/202 "2010-10-12T21:26:24Z")
> [@Two\_Many\_Cats](#): > > 1. Abortion should remain legal, but having an abortion is almost always morally wrong. > > 2. The Death Penalty is morally right in theory, but the danger of applying it to an innocent makes it impractical to use on a broad scale. > > 3. We cannot judge people of the past by today’s standards. Refusing to name a school after George Washington because he owned slaves is just silly. > > 4. Eating meat is not immoral. We as humans are naturally omnivorous. We should however strive to improve conditions in which food animals are raised. > > 5. I’m with Dio, bring back public stocks and flogging. Use them especially on white collar criminals. Might not do any actual good, but I know I’d love to see it. Geez, **Two** , I was kinda mentally composing what I would say, and you did it well and far more succinctly. Let’s start our own party, it’s all the rage! The Two Many Brassy Cats Party! W00T! ---
**Author:** ![lindsaybluth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90db22/32.png) [@lindsaybluth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lindsaybluth)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/203 "2010-10-13T03:51:16Z")
> [@pravnik](#): > > You’ll have to amend the Constitution to do so. Laws that guarantee child support for children born during marriage but deny child support to children born out of wedlock violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. [Gomez. v. Perez](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=409&page=538), 409 U.S. 535 (1973). States are under no obligation to provide _any_ children with a child support obligation from a non-custodial parent, but if they choose to do so they can’t discriminate on the basis of legitimacy and illegitimacy. I don’t mind amending my statement to include all children in or out of marriage. I know far too many men who have kids they didn’t want and struggle to afford. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/204 "2010-10-13T04:09:11Z")
> [@lindsaybluth](#): > > > [@pravnik](#): > > > > You’ll have to amend the Constitution to do so. Laws that guarantee child support for children born during marriage but deny child support to children born out of wedlock violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. [Gomez. v. Perez](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=409&page=538), 409 U.S. 535 (1973). States are under no obligation to provide _any_ children with a child support obligation from a non-custodial parent, but if they choose to do so they can’t discriminate on the basis of legitimacy and illegitimacy. > > I don’t mind amending my statement to include all children in or out of marriage. I know far too many men who have kids they didn’t want and struggle to afford. Fair enough, but there’s a reason state governments spend a lot of time, money, and manpower enforcing child support obligations. It’s because it would be even more expensive to the state if they didn’t. Census figures indicate that somewhere around one out of every three to four custodial parents is below the poverty line ([cite](http://www.census.gov/prod/2003pubs/p60-225.pdf)). If those parents aren’t receiving any child support payments at all, taxpayers are going to be taking up the slack in the form of providing millions of dollars more in public assistance. Voters generally don’t care for the idea that they should have to pay higher taxes so that non-custodial parents can continue to have consequence free sex. ---
**Author:** ![lindsaybluth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90db22/32.png) [@lindsaybluth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lindsaybluth)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/205 "2010-10-13T04:16:52Z")
I don’t think the state should support people having babies they have no business having in the first place, so I don’t think that the burden would or should ever fall to the state. Strengthen access to birth control and abortions. Something like half of all children aren’t planned for. Voters _already_ pay for people to have free sex - it’s called WIC, welfare, and Section 8 housing. ---
**Author:** ![pravnik](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8edcca/32.png) [@pravnik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pravnik)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/206 "2010-10-13T04:31:46Z")
> [@lindsaybluth](#): > > Voters _already_ pay for people to have free sex - it’s called WIC, welfare, and Section 8 housing. WIC is actually a pretty good example of what I’m talking about. WIC eligibility in my state is calculated with the federal poverty income level using gross household income, including child support. Not having child support puts more people below that level and more people on WIC. Less child support means more taxpayer support. ---
**Author:** ![lorene](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/65b543/32.png) [@lorene](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lorene)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/207 "2010-10-13T13:28:48Z")
> [@lindsaybluth](#): > > > [@lorene](#): > > > > Right, and if she’s so Catholic that she’s not allowing herself to use birth control, why isn’t she Catholic enough that she is not abstinent from sex altogether, as an unmarried woman. > > She’s not Catholic in America, where she can go to Planned Parenthood or a Minute Clinic and walk out with (in many states) access to $4/month birth control. In the US, most Catholics treat Catholicism like a great big buffet they can pick and choose from. She’s in a Catholic Latin American country where it is extremely difficult to get birth control. I apologize. I had misread your earlier posts and thought that she herself considered BC to be against the Catholic church. I see now that it’s a question of access. > [@lindsaybluth](#): > > If you receive public assistance, such as section 8 housing and the like, you should have to live in barracks or dorm-style living. Some people on welfare live better than poor recent college grads. You do know that some people who live in section 8 housing are there for reasons beyond their control, right? People who are disabled and have limited income and limited means to support themselves frequently need Section 8 Housing. they should live in barracks why, exactly? > [@lindsaybluth](#): > > Voters _already_ pay for people to have free sex - it’s called WIC, welfare, and Section 8 housing. Again, not everyone who is in Section 8 or on welfare has children. ---
**Author:** ![Yorikke](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yorikke/32/4335_2.png) [@Yorikke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yorikke)\ **Post date:** [October 13, 2010, 3:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/208 "2010-10-13T15:54:16Z")
> [@SpartanDC](#): > > > [@ColdPhoenix](#): > > > > “Handicapped” is seen as non-pc (in the UK at least). Please use “disabled”. > > 😛 > > Also, Dude, “Chinaman” is not the preferred nomenclature. “Asian-American,” please. > > 😉 Walter, I’m not talking about the guys who built the fucking railroad, I’m talking about the guy who pissed on my rug! Joe ---
**Author:** ![Amber\_in\_Treasury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/bc79bd/32.png) [@Amber\_in\_Treasury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amber_in_Treasury)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/209 "2010-10-15T12:16:15Z")
I don’t believe in animal rights. Or at least, I’m very skeptical. If you worry about the plight of chickens while millions of humans suffer from poverty and injustice, and are dying of curable diseases due in no small part to that very injustice, then I think your priorities are skewed. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2010, 11:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823/210 "2010-10-15T23:22:36Z")
Y’know, gays keep saying they are BORN that way, but it flies so much in the face of evolutionary theory that a genetic adaptation that has such a negative effect on one’s ability to propogate into the next generation, that I just can’t buy it. I have no problem with gays marrying or leading free lives like the rest of that, but “born that way” … sorry, I have yet to see a convincing demonstration that it could happen that way. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/un-pc-beliefs/555823.md?page=10)