"No means no!" but only for women

[Mistame]

That's the saddest thing I've read on the internet in years.

You should really try rereading some of your stuff. Honestly, the amount feminutzi in your posts is depressing.

[Spectral]

Child Support is there to insure both parents contribute to raising their children. It's not there for a deadbeat mom to drain a deadbeat dad's wallet dry.

If the mother couldn't support the child without being a vampiric leech, she shouldn't have been out fucking. (As an aside, I find it HILARIOUS how you people have no problem latching on to that shitty excuse for the men, but completely excuse the women from it when it applies 100% to them, too. Seriously, do you really have no idea how it makes you look when you do that? Because it really is hilarious.) If she does anyway but doesn't believe or want to risk the complications of an abortion, adoption is still a viable option. So there's no excuse whatsoever.

I really don't know how many times I have to say that I don't condone sluts either.

[Deleted]

What is this bullshit, how can a woman FORCE a man to become a parent?

Well, she could sabotage the contraceptives or steal his sperm from the condom or w/e was being used.

Well... she could be bigger, stronger and meaner..

There was also this case in Russia where a female weightlifter athlete knocked out a burglar in her home, handcuffed him and kept him as her sex slave for three days force-feeding him viagra.

[Mistame]

Well, she could sabotage the contraceptives or steal his sperm from the condom or w/e was being used.

Haven't you been paying attention? Your sperm = your problem. Not your sperm = still your problem.

Woman takes your condom and impregnates herself with it? You "chose" to be a father by ejaculating into a condom.

If the thief wasn't even the woman you slept with? That means you raped the thief.

And if she happens to be younger than 18? You're a deadbeat, rapist and child molester. Why? Because you shot a load into latex.

You get molested by your teacher when you're twelve and she has a kid from it? Too bad. She's the "victim" and you have to pay.

Your girlfriend/wife cheats on you, gets pregnant and you don't find out about it until after the child's born? The woman is always the "victim", so too bad. You have to pay.

Understand that it's important that we don't disturb archaic and antiquated traditions and values because they're clearly working perfectly. Heaven forbid any exceptions to existing laws and standards even suggest that one woman not be considered a "victim". And since men are inherently evil and the authors of all the world's ills, well, "working as intended".

/s

[Deleted]

So you missed the "unless" part.

What part of instant liability was hard to get?

[Dhrizzle]

Which is why we make rape victims pay child support to their rapists.

I've already explained that I don't agree with fathers having to pay for a child when they were forced into having sex. That is a completely different issue and it's fairly disgusting that when I say men who impregnate a lady during consensual sex should face their responsibilities you reply with "but what about rape victims?"

It's sickening that people take an issue where someone is essentially made to pay for a horrendous crime that was committed against them, and try to make it into a justification for shirking the consequences of choices they made willingly.

[May90]

What part of instant liability was hard to get?

Take a deep breath and explain your point coherently, if you are able.

[Dhrizzle]

See that's all great for reasonable people like you and me on an internet forum, but how does this appeal to someone who wants to be cool, have casual sex with random people, and doesn't give a shit about the consequences?

For those people we have a legal system that forces them to deal with the consequences, the same way we have laws in place to deal with people who can't control themselves and allow other impulses to be detrimental to society.

[Dispraise]

My premise hinges on experience.

Says the man in the tinfoil hat.

[Deleted]

I've already explained that I don't agree with fathers having to pay for a child when they were forced into having sex. That is a completely different issue and it's fairly disgusting that when I say men who impregnate a lady during consensual sex should face their responsibilities you reply with "but what about rape victims?"

It's sickening that people take an issue where someone is essentially made to pay for a horrendous crime that was committed against them, and try to make it into a justification for shirking the consequences of choices they made willingly.

This is like saying "a woman can only have an abortion when she was raped", and for the oh so many time, the guy didn't chose anything he merely had sex.

And, if you think that "fathers" that where raped should not have to pay then you already agree that there is something wrong with this system, just like the people you are debating.

- - - Updated - - -

For those people we have a legal system that forces them to deal with the consequences, the same way we have laws in place to deal with people who can't control themselves and allow other impulses to be detrimental to society.

I do not know of any law that would force deadbeat mothers to give their child up, so we do not have a legal system that forces people to deal with the consequences. We have a legal system that forces men to deal with the consequences of the choices the woman he had sex with took.

[Sunseeker]

I do not know of any law that would force deadbeat mothers to give their child up, so we do not have a legal system that forces people to deal with the consequences. We have a legal system that forces men to deal with the consequences of the choices the woman he had sex with took.

CPS takes kids from shitty moms all the time.

[Dispraise]

you already agree that there is something wrong with this system, just like the people you are debating.

Ah, so you agree with Dhrizzle that there's something wrong with the system, albeit in completely different ways, and as such are conceding his point that using victims of rape to try and force your own self interest is a disgusting tactic... No? You're in the process of doing that exact thing? Huh. Then what the hell was your point?

MRAs love to bitch about SJWs stealing the victimhood of others and using it to further their own agenda. Pot, meet kettle.

[Deleted]

Ah, so you agree with Dhrizzle that there's something wrong with the system, albeit in completely different ways, and as such are conceding his point that using victims of rape to try and force your own self interest is a disgusting tactic... No? You're in the process of doing that exact thing? Huh. Then what the hell was your point?

MRAs love to bitch about SJWs stealing the victimhood of others and using it to further their own agenda. Pot, meet kettle.

Eeeuh, it seems you have a really hard time reading, might wanna go and try to remediate that.

- - - Updated - - -

CPS takes kids from shitty moms all the time.

Nothing happens to a mother who cant afford to have children other then she will be sponsored.

[pateuvasiliu]

You could also father a child then run off and dodge your responsibilities but luckily laws are there to make up for the unfairness biology creates.

A man can't create a child.

He creates a fertilised egg. That egg isn't becoming a child unless the mother wants it to.

- - - Updated - - -

only the best interest of the child may be the deciding factor.

The best interest of the child would be to have 2 loving parents, not a single mom that already showed she's not particularly wise by having a kid with a father that wanted no part in it.

[Deleted]

Take a deep breath and explain your point coherently, if you are able.

The point is, that obligation is acquired from the second the baby draws breath - any actual rights (those things that are a consequence of having obligations) Nope.
you have to jump through hoops for those.
Which is a point i have made here a few times already.

- - - Updated - - -

I've already explained that I don't agree with fathers having to pay for a child when they were forced into having sex. That is a completely different issue and it's fairly disgusting that when I say men who impregnate a lady during consensual sex should face their responsibilities you reply with "but what about rape victims?"

It's sickening that people take an issue where someone is essentially made to pay for a horrendous crime that was committed against them, and try to make it into a justification for shirking the consequences of choices they made willingly.

Then stop defending the current system, given that it is unfair, unequal, and produces terribly unjust results.
Oh and if you are interested in the well being of the child, single mothers are awful for their children.

- - - Updated - - -

CPS takes kids from shitty moms all the time.

At birth, for being single?

[May90]

The point is, that obligation is acquired from the second the baby draws breath - any actual rights (those things that are a consequence of having obligations) Nope.
you have to jump through hoops for those.
Which is a point i have made here a few times already.

You... do realize that the woman is the one giving birth in the hospital, right? Do you expect the government to somehow know by default that you are the father with rights?

And in this particular story, it was clear that the parents agreed to give the kid away for adoption, and the father just changed his mind at the last moment. I can't imagine a sensible legal system that would somehow be okay with this behavior.

---

Where did you guys grow up? I knew these things at the age of 4, literally: I read the book for children called something like "Where did I come from?", with pretty pictures.

[Syce]

Poor analogy.

If you don't want to be a parent don't have unprotected sex.

what if you're like a scrawny guy and a body builder/wrestler woman forced her self on you and it was basically rape but the other way? then what lol

[Deleted]

You... do realize that the woman is the one giving birth in the hospital, Do you expect the government to somehow know by default that you are the father with rights?

Yes and excluding Jesus, there was always a father - and thus, it can and should always be there to defend the fathers rights.

And in this particular story, it was clear that the parents agreed to give the kid away for adoption, and the father just changed his mind at the last moment. I can't imagine a sensible legal system that would somehow be okay with this behavior.

No the father did not want to give it up, and more importantly, it should be fucking moot anyway - He is the father, prior to an an actual adoption he is the fucking father!

[May90]

Yes and excluding Jesus, there was always a father - and thus, it can and should always be there to defend the fathers rights.

No the father did not want to give it up, and more importantly, it should be fucking moot anyway - He is the father, prior to an an actual adoption he is the fucking father!

Dude, both the mother and the father have to do paternity action. The mother does it while in the hospital. If the father couldn't be arsed to do the same, then what rights do you expect? Is the government supposed to somehow magically know who the father is and whether he intends to take care of the kid?

[Deleted]

Dude, both the mother and the father have to do paternity action. The mother does it while in the hospital.

What =?

If the father couldn't be arsed to do the same, then what rights do you expect?

the exact level of rights as his degree of obligation.
because that is how things work everywhere else.

Is the government supposed to somehow magically know who the father is and whether he intends to take care of the kid?

No, they are to assume he exists, and then compel the mother to inform them, or file kidnapping charges.