"No means no!" but only for women

[SherriMayim]

Your first situation is fraud, the second is rape. The trouble with both is that it's going to be damn tough to prove.

- - - Updated - - -



That's really the end-all-be-all. Child support isn't punishment for the father, it's nourishment for the child.

...By your logic the first situation is Fraud and the second situation is Theft.

And on your second 'statement'.

The father didn't consent to being a father. That's the problem.


Lets be clear.

If the man had prior notification that the woman was pregnant, agreed to be there for her and wanted to be there for the child. THEN leaves, yeah he should pay child support and be able to have rights to the child.

But if the man didn't want anything to do with the kid, doesn't want to be around it and not have any rights to the child and stated this BEFORE she gives birth. Then he shouldn't have to pay child support, because in this instance the woman knows full well, it's going to be on her to raise this kid.

Now if the woman gets pregnant, has the kid, didn't inform the guy, THEN wants to collect on Child Support. That's bullshit because she went without his consent.

Men shouldn't be required to become fathers because of an unwanted pregnancy the same way Women shouldn't be required to become Mothers because of an unwanted pregnancy.

[Violent]

It's because they don't exist. The only people who think shit like this are man-children who haven't had any interaction with women, only the internet.
It shows.

- - - Updated - - -



Good thing courts and everyone/thing that matters disagrees, and you don't get a choice in the matter.
Have fun champ!

You got 3 wives and 10 kids? No? Then shut up.. Not everyone's life goal is to "get pussy". But wait, let's keep pushing your highschool dreams, and tell everyone else how THEY'RE the "man-children". How do you walk being knee deep in puss, bro??

[Dhrizzle]

Stop making anti-abortion arguments then.

As I just explained, I'm not making anti-abortion arguments. People are free to choose if they're body should carry a child. However if the choice is made to give birth to the child both parents have a responsibility.

[Dug]

You got 3 wives and 10 kids? No? Then shut up.. Not everyone's life goal is to "get pussy". But wait, let's keep pushing your highschool dreams, and tell everyone else how THEY'RE the "man-children". How do you walk being knee deep in puss, bro??

Touchy subject, eh?

[shadowmouse]

That's the point. They don't even have to be your choices. Even if you do everything right and someone manipulates the outcome, you still have to pay? No, sorry. That's not fair, moral, rational, etc. This is glaring flaw of the system with a high bias towards women and children at the expense of men. And it needs to be fixed.

A situation where you "do everything right" and "someone manipulates the outcome" ... that's a hypothetical horror. How often is that genuinely, verifiably happening? In situations like statutory rape, the simple answer is to push for changes to the law that further protect the minor.

I guess this is supposed to pad your point but it's irrelevant.

It's quite relevant. You're ignoring real life problems in application. If the woman is pregnant, that's a fact that can be checked. What the man said, whether there was agreement or understanding, perhaps even whether the man did "everything right" and the outcome was manipulated will be at best difficult to prove. What happens next? It is going to end up in court or in an administrative hearing. That simply isn't going to generate the result you seem to be hoping for and it is going to generate another layer of expensive and time consuming administrative stuff to go along with things like DCFS. That's not going to help anyone except the people who get jobs out of it.

[Not A Cat]

No, nope.

Sounds like a person who doesn't have to go through pregnancy. It's a good thing the law disagrees with you.

[Spectral]

Women using children to extort money from men is Rape.

It is rape in every way.

Let's Compare.

A man has sex with a woman he just met, he's a wealthy guy and she poked a hole in the condom which allowed her to get pregnant.

All the blame lies with the man.

"Don't stick your dick in crazy!" "You should have been more careful!" "Take responsibility for your actions!"


A woman goes out in a skimpy outfit to a skeezy bar, she has a few too many drinks and ends up getting taken advantage of with a guy she just met.

She's not at fault, all the blame lies with the man.

"He took advantage of her while she was drunk!" "Don't victim blame!" "Just because she wore a slutty outfit doesn't mean she has to put out!"



Let's be clear. In cases of sexual assault, it is NOT the victim's fault. However in both cases:

The man and woman had both put themselves in poor situations, made poor character judgments, and both of them had a harrowing experience.

The only difference is that a woman with enough counseling and resources will be able to overcome this situation.

The man will have to pay through the nose for 18 years.

Consent to Sex does not mean consent to Children.

Just the way consent to Drinking doesn't mean Consent to Sex.

I'm not clear why you're particularly concerned about either of these degenerates. The exact nature of crime and victimhood are different, but there aren't any good actors in these tales.

[bergmann620]

Lets be clear.

If the man had prior notification that the woman was pregnant, agreed to be there for her and wanted to be there for the child. THEN leaves, yeah he should pay child support and be able to have rights to the child.

Yep.

But if the man didn't want anything to do with the kid, doesn't want to be around it and not have any rights to the child and stated this BEFORE she gives birth. Then he shouldn't have to pay child support, because in this instance the woman knows full well, it's going to be on her to raise this kid.

Nope. His right to be free of a liability ends when it interferes with her biology.

Now if the woman gets pregnant, has the kid, didn't inform the guy, THEN wants to collect on Child Support. That's bullshit because she went without his consent.

Sure, it's a dick move. But it has no impact on his obligations.

Men shouldn't be required to become fathers because of an unwanted pregnancy the same way Women shouldn't be required to become Mothers because of an unwanted pregnancy.

Men aren't required to become fathers. They are required to financially support their offspring unless there is some other legally binding agreement in place.

Why should society be forced to carry the burden of your offspring just because you can't comprehend the possible outcomes of intercourse?

[SherriMayim]

Yep.


Why should society be forced to carry the burden of your offspring just because you can't comprehend the possible outcomes of intercourse?

By your logic.

Social Security should be cut. Why didn't you put your money aside properly rather than having society carry your burdens. Go get a job as a Wal-Mart Greeter.

Veteran's Benefits should be cut. You weren't required to sign up, you were paid for your time. Why should society carry your medical burdens? Go get a job as a K-Mart Greeter.

Food Stamps should be cut. You had children you knew were going to need food, why should society pay for your mistakes of having sex when you couldn't afford the possibility of children.

Abortions should be illegal. Her right to be free of liability when it interferes with his biology.

Got it.

[May90]

Honestly, if you don't want kids, yet still voluntarily proceed to have unprotected sex - then you are... not the brightest person ever. Regardless of what the law says, you deserve some spanking.

[SherriMayim]

Honestly, if you don't want kids, yet still voluntarily proceed to have unprotected sex - then you are... not the brightest person ever. Regardless of what the law says, you deserve some spanking.

That's why I'm not pro-choice.


...I'm Pro-Abortion! Get the lemons out of the way first.

[May90]

That's why I'm not pro-choice.


...I'm Pro-Abortion! Get the lemons out of the way first.

That's... pretty extreme, don't you think?

[bergmann620]

By your logic.

The next time you recognize or assemble logic will be the first time.

Social Security should be cut. Why didn't you put your money aside properly rather than having society carry your burdens. Go get a job as a Wal-Mart Greeter.

You pay into Social Security throughout your life. It's not a hand-out. Hell, I'll be paying into my whole life and it's due to run out of money two years before I retire.

Veteran's Benefits should be cut. You weren't required to sign up, you were paid for your time. Why should society carry your medical burdens? Go get a job as a K-Mart Greeter.

Veterans' benefits are part of the compensation package that you agree to when you sign up.

Food Stamps should be cut. You had children you knew were going to need food, why should society pay for your mistakes of having sex when you couldn't afford the possibility of children.

We all pay taxes knowing that they will be spent in part for assisting those in need get food. As it stands, we also allocate part of our taxes to take care of the hundreds of thousands of children whose fathers have failed to live up to their responsibility. You are advocating that even more of that burden should be shifted from these men onto society. I'm arguing that it shouldn't.

You are free to argue whatever position- to decide the degree to which you feel government should be assisting the needy. As am I. I understand that you have little or no argument if you're not allowed to straw-man my arguments, but I'd still ask that you refrain from doing so.

Abortions should be illegal. Her right to be free of liability when it interferes with his biology.

Got it.

You seem to be getting very little. This last bit isn't even a cohesive idea.

[SherriMayim]

You pay into Social Security throughout your life. It's not a hand-out. Hell, I'll be paying into my whole life and it's due to run out of money two years before I retire.

Technically a lot of programs fall with Social Security as Supplemental Income or Public Assistance Programs. Disability, SNAP, and Medicare are programs run by Fed/State Government for the general welfare of the public.

Veterans' benefits are part of the compensation package that you agree to when you sign up.

That's interesting! Tell that to the Veterans waiting for their benefits! LOL.

No but seriously, joining the Military is something that is incredibly dangerous that one does for short term goals or long term career. They know the risks, like having your hand blown off, why should they be protected? At least under your logic.

Although to be honest I have little to no respect for American Military. They're little more than hired guns for private interest. In all honesty it's pretty much Government Welfare under a different name.

That being said we do need a military, just one that isn't at the behest of private interests.

We all pay taxes knowing that they will be spent in part for assisting those in need get food. As it stands, we also allocate part of our taxes to take care of the hundreds of thousands of children whose fathers have failed to live up to their responsibility. You are advocating that even more of that burden should be shifted from these men onto society. I'm arguing that it shouldn't.

No. I'm arguing that men who make a conscious decision to not be a part of a child's life should have the same ability to withdraw that a mother has.

Ultimately it's the mother's choice to have a child, the decision is up to her. Therefore the responsibility is up to her. Unless there were different circumstances where the mother was not allowed to make a choice in having a child, then it would be up to the father to help assist said mother.

However given that abortion is always an option the mother has access to, and not the father, the mother should be on the hook for financial expenses regarding birth of the child.

That being said, it is the state's duty, and to it's benefit, to raise healthy knowledgeable children regardless of background. The small investment of taking care of fatherless children to help them become working tax-paying adults is definitely a windfall for the state.

You are free to argue whatever position- to decide the degree to which you feel government should be assisting the needy. As am I. I understand that you have little or no argument if you're not allowed to straw-man my arguments, but I'd still ask that you refrain from doing so.

Straw Man argument? No. That's cute though! I really love how people enjoy tossing out Philosophy 101 'Buzzwords' to internet topics! It's cute! It's almost like they're little scholars!

You seem to be getting very little. This last bit isn't even a cohesive idea.

Gah! Accidentally cut out the proper part when applying bold text.

Abortions should be illegal. Her right to be free of liability is forfeit when it interferes with his biology.


But lets boil it down to a simple question.


Why should a father who does not want to be a part of a child's life, be held financially responsible?

[Dispraise]

Yes if we live the life of sexless hermits.

I think that's pretty much a guaranteed lifestyle for many of the men throwing a tantrum about women being able to make their own choices for reproductive health anyway, but no. There are myriad ways you can lead a sexually fulfilling lifestyle as a man without having children. Pick one.

"Every precaution" my puckered asshole. We still have goddamned mouthbreathers touting pulling out as their preferred sole means of birth control.

[bergmann620]

No. I'm arguing that men who make a conscious decision to not be a part of a child's life should have the same ability to withdraw that a mother has.

When men can get pregnant, they'll have the right to abortion or adoption. You seem to really struggle with the concept of asymmetrical rights and/or abilities. Do you feel that it is right and correct to give women special treatment to compensate for their biological shortcomings? (Do you think women who cannot pass mens' physical training standards should be allowed to participate in combat or be frontline firefighters or police?)

That being said, it is the state's duty, and to it's benefit, to raise healthy knowledgeable children regardless of background. The small investment of taking care of fatherless children to help them become working tax-paying adults is definitely a windfall for the state.

So you don't think the man responsible for impregnation should be on the hook, but the rest of the nation should be. Excellent logic.

Abortions should be illegal. Her right to be free of liability is forfeit when it interferes with his biology.

Maybe I missed that day in sex ed? Do mens' ankles swell when the women they've knocked up don't abort?

But lets boil it down to a simple question.

Why should a father who does not want to be a part of a child's life, be held financially responsible?

...Because that child would not exist if not for the father's contribution. This is a damn simple concept.

There are dozens or hundreds of scenarios in life in which you do not intend a thing, but that thing happens anyways. In basically every instance, if your actions cause even an unintended negative externality for someone else, you are legally obligated to 'make them whole'.

[THE Bigzoman]

I'm not clear why you're particularly concerned about either of these degenerates. The exact nature of crime and victimhood are different, but there aren't any good actors in these tales.

I thought it was more of him pointing out the double standards people have when it comes to people practicing good character judgement.

Which in these types of situations is a very real thing,

- - - Updated - - -

I think that's pretty much a guaranteed lifestyle for many of the men throwing a tantrum about women being able to make their own choices for reproductive health anyway, but no. There are myriad ways you can lead a sexually fulfilling lifestyle as a man without having children. Pick one.

"Every precaution" my puckered asshole. We still have goddamned mouthbreathers touting pulling out as their preferred sole means of birth control.

I've always wondered why people preach the idea that you have to have certain viewpoints to find sexual parnters; that there aren't at the very least batshit crazy people in both genders.

[bergmann620]

I think that's pretty much a guaranteed lifestyle for many of the men throwing a tantrum about women being able to make their own choices for reproductive health anyway, but no. There are myriad ways you can lead a sexually fulfilling lifestyle as a man without having children. Pick one.

"Every precaution" my puckered asshole. We still have goddamned mouthbreathers touting pulling out as their preferred sole means of birth control.

It's really simple. These guys need to go to legalzoom.com and put together an air-tight 'love contract' a la The Chappelle Show. Any woman that signs on the dotted line, they can treat as shabbily as they desire. The good news is, they'll only ever need one copy, and it will never be contested in court.

- - - Updated - - -

I've always wondered why people preach the idea that you have to have certain viewpoints to find sexual parnters; that there aren't at the very least batshit crazy people in both genders.

There certainly are, with some caveats. When it comes to dick, it's a buyer's market. The supply FAR outstrips the demand, and this goes across orientations. So, the batshit crazy girl will still have a line of dudes waiting to bang her out so long as her standards are reasonably low.

The thing is, this specific segment of guys is basically saying, "I am ONLY here for me. Your wants, needs, and desires are of no concern to me. Further, I'm a cheap bastard, and if something undesirable happens, well, that's on you. Lastly, I have zero empathy for anything that is outside of my experience. So, not only will you be the only one with anything at risk, but due to my basic personality and shocking lack of experience, I am almost guaranteed to be a terrible lover."

That's a pretty tough sell for anyone, let alone forums heroes.

[Deleted]

When men can get pregnant, they'll have the right to abortion or adoption. You seem to really struggle with the concept of asymmetrical rights and/or abilities. Do you feel that it is right and correct to give women special treatment to compensate for their biological shortcomings? (Do you think women who cannot pass mens' physical training standards should be allowed to participate in combat or be frontline firefighters or police?)

When men can get pregnant.... That is such a stupid argument, if you want to argue biology isn't fair then males would have nothing to do with unwanted offspring, not their body, not their problem. What you seem to be forgetting is the fact that the whole paying child support IS one of the special treatments given to females. If you can not afford to have a child you should not become pregnant.

So you don't think the man responsible for impregnation should be on the hook, but the rest of the nation should be. Excellent logic.

So you think that this woman should be able to act irresponsible and have the nation pay for her children, excellent logic. Again, you can not blame the male for a female that wants children.

Maybe I missed that day in sex ed? Do mens' ankles swell when the women they've knocked up don't abort?

Maybe not sex ed, but definitely logic 101, the only thing he does is take your argument and change the sex. You are saying that abortions should not be needed because they had sex and should be responsible.

...Because that child would not exist if not for the father's contribution. This is a damn simple concept.

There are dozens or hundreds of scenarios in life in which you do not intend a thing, but that thing happens anyways. In basically every instance, if your actions cause even an unintended negative externality for someone else, you are legally obligated to 'make them whole'.

The father had nothing to do with the choice to have children, that is all on the mother. The mother made a choice to have a kid, that is always 100% intended.

[Dispraise]

I've always wondered why people preach the idea that you have to have certain viewpoints to find sexual parnters; that there aren't at the very least batshit crazy people in both genders.

No, of course you don't have to have a certain viewpoint to find a partner. You do have have to engage with them on some level, however. Someone could be the most desperate and lonely person in the world, you still don't stand a chance with them if you actively avoid any and all forms of interaction with them, friendly or otherwise.