If a wife is raped and gets pregnant from the rapist, is it ok for the husband...

[pateuvasiliu]

Basically I used to agree with the notion of a financial abortion, but thought about it more, and realized that was just begging for an epidemic of abandoned children the taxpayers would have to pick up the tab for. The supposed equality of such an idea is superficial at best and gives the appearance of equality more than creating actual equality.

No, they wouldn't. Adoption exists. Plenty couples want to adopt.

Or, you know... maybe women wouldn't become single mothers if they knew the father won't be forced to pay up for a kid he didn't want.

- - - Updated - - -

She didn't immaculately conceive. There is a father.


.

And? He made it clear he doesn't want the kid.

What's the difference between this situation and a sperm donor? Just because you donated DNA doesn't mean you want to be a father.

You're trying to punish men for having a sex life...

Which is kinda what feminism tries to do lel.

[TirielWoW]

Maybe the woman that stubbornly had a kid without a father?

Ideally, yes. But if she can't, as a society we've decided that we're not okay with children starving in the streets like they do in, say, a third world country. But we also don't want to pay for children when someone responsible for them could be paying, so the government goes after fathers first (if they can be identified) before paying anything itself.

[pateuvasiliu]

Ideally, yes. But if she can't, as a society we've decided that we're not okay with children starving in the streets like they do in, say, a third world country. But we also don't want to pay for children when someone responsible for them could be paying, so the government goes after fathers first (if they can be identified) before paying anything itself.

She.

That's your problem. The mother that was told '' I don't want to be a father/not ready/whatever '' and stubbornly decided, against all logic, to have a kid they can't afford to raise, as a single mom. Hell that shows bad parenting from the get go.

Adoption is a thing.

But it shouldn't even reach that point. Not ready for a kid, don't have it.

- - - Updated - - -

Adoption isn't some magic answer where you dump unwanted children and someone else comes along and cleans up for you. There are more children in need of adoption than getting adopted,

I heard the american adoption system is pretty biased against gays, so maybe make it easier to adopt?

I don't want to pay for my dinner either. What of it? I still choose to eat and still have to pay for it.

Redundant comparison.

I'm not denying anyone a sex life. I am denying people a carefree and reckless sex life

No, you're denying men. Because women can already have that.

[pateuvasiliu]

Cry me a fucking river. Your victim complex is unreal.

I think that was what men were telling women when they were trying to get equal rights, too.

It's pretty clear that you're bigoted as shit.


Men should have the same sense of security when it comes to sexuality women have.

[TirielWoW]

She.

That's your problem. The mother that was told '' I don't want to be a father/not ready/whatever '' and stubbornly decided, against all logic, to have a kid they can't afford to raise, as a single mom. Hell that shows bad parenting from the get go.

Adoption is a thing.

But it shouldn't even reach that point. Not ready for a kid, don't have it.

Yeah, "she" because you said mother. And that's a female.

Adoption is a thing, but we don't take children away from their parents for being poor.

[Spectral]

Maybe the woman that stubbornly had a kid without a father?

That's a fine idea if they have sufficient funds. If they don't, who should we turn to next? The obvious answer to anyone other than the most anti-responsibility people is the nominal father.

Lel that's how feminism works, when women are in disadvantage they cry for rights and when men are they're like '' lol get fucked DD ''

I'm not a feminist. I'm not an equalist. Men and women aren't equal, which is why efforts to pretend they are end in pathetic failure.

[pateuvasiliu]

Yeah, "she" because you said mother. And that's a female.

Adoption is a thing, but we don't take children away from their parents for being poor.

Bringing a kid into the world as a single, poor mother should be seen as bad enough parenting to warrant it.

[Thom-]

Contraceptives and abortions are cheaper than a welfare sponsored child. It's in the best interests of the state to pay for them if needed. I'd gladly suggest covering any sort of male contraceptive pill if that were invented and popularized.

- - - Updated - - -




It's not going to become a magical dumping ground for unwanted children, no matter how easy it is to adopt.

There's nothing wrong with the comparison. Just because you don't like the consequences of what you want to do, doesn't mean you get to dump those consequences on others so you can go on doing it.

Cry me a fucking river. Your victim complex is unreal.

Victim mentality is a huge issue within Western culture. If OP approaches this argument with the perspective of being a victim, I'd imagine he uses it in every other conversation as well.

[Spectral]

Like I said...people keep saying that, but then at the same time when the same logic is applied on the topic of womens' reproductive rights, people lose their minds over how awful it is.

I don't think lose my mind when people suggest that women shouldn't be irresponsibly promiscuous. I agree that women shouldn't be irresponsibly promiscuous.

[TirielWoW]

Bringing a kid into the world as a single, poor mother should be seen as bad enough parenting to warrant it.

Then you can get right on the legislation to implement the state taking children of poor people away.

[Deleted]

No man have a right to force a woman to get an abortion regard of the circumstance as much as no woman can force a man to rise a child that is not his


What i would do in this situation?


This will be a ticking bomb for me, i know that it might not be a problem now or in 2 3 years but it will be a problem and when the bomb will explode will do more harm then now, i would ask her to do a abortion because i believe is better for the mother to do a abortion at this stage then give birth to the kid and give him for adoption, if she refuse i would divorce, what that woman is doing now is putting her family second to her religion believes

[PosPosPos]

People sure do spend a disproportionate amount of time focusing on the incredibly rare instances of people who don't want kids discussing the matter, using multiple forms of contraception, and getting pregnant anyway.

This is orders of magnitude less common than dipshits acting like dipshits.

Except the solution to the former is simple: the male gets to opt out of paying child support if he asks for an abortion and the woman refuses. Sure, the problem of "dipshits acting like dipshits" is way more common, but did you think about the difficulty in thinking up any sort of feasible solution to that?

You use prevalence as some sort of end-all-be-all factor to deciding whether to legislate something over another, as though the ease of thinking up practical solutions to the problems involved doesn't matter at all(it's way more important a factor by the way), and as though the system is incapable of passing multiple laws through the judicial system that you have to triage which laws you want.

[Torgent]

Well, the child isn't his so he has no say in this. Either way he's fucked, be a cuck or leave and be happy.

You need to stop using cuck. It does not mean what you think it means.

OT: He can want her to, but he cannot force her to. As others have stated. If this is true, your friend needs to decide if he wants a divorce or if he wants to raise someone else's child.

[Mistame]

using birth control is an abortion

Assuming you're being sarcastic here, but abortion is birth control as "birth control" is anything that prevents birth.

Replace it with "till inconvenience or any hardship do us part"

Or better yet, modify it to actually reflect reality rather than some nonsensical fairy tale love story. Change it to, "Until one of you decide to leave". No [intimate] relationship is unconditional.

Unless your co-worker gets married to that chick the child support from the other man will continue.

Marriage doesn't stop an established child support order. You may be thinking of alimony. In order for the support order to be cancelled, the new husband would have to adopt the child.

Or if they live together for more than a couple of years and legally become a domestic partnership.

That's not really how that works. It has to be established that both parties accept that they're living as if they're married (joint taxes, call each other husband/wife, etc). Common Law marriage was created to recognize couples who want to be married but didn't/don't have the means. The state cannot force this status on a couple.

Yep. Also, the laws surrounding the offspring of rape, too. Because it is, quite frankly, incredibly bizarre that some women are forced to interact with their rapist because they chose not to abort the child that resulted.

Agreed. This is pretty shitty.

Contraceptives and abortions are cheaper than a welfare sponsored child. It's in the best interests of the state to pay for them if needed. I'd gladly suggest covering any sort of male contraceptive pill if that were invented and popularized.

This is true conservative (not to be mistaken for Conservative) logic. I used to be on the fence about it because I wasn't sure if it could be abused. After a bit of thought, I realized it doesn't matter. Breeders gonna breed. Better for them to have the option and not need it than to need it and not have it. Though I'd also [tentatively] include vasectomies and IUDs as well, or at least force insurance companies to cover the cost. In that vein (male contraceptives), I think guys should see Dr. Snip as soon as they're 18. There's way too much risk (and crazy) for no reward (or a negative reward).

I mean, from the perspective of the religious, choosing faith over other humans is almost invariably the correct decision within the moral framework of any given religion. In particular, if we're talking about Christianity, the moral and consistent choice is to have the child. If the husband is also Christian, he's essentially the one in the wrong if he insists she gets and abortion and/or divorces her if she doesn't.

Well, at this point they're just bat shit anyway so...

[Serpha]

You need to stop using cuck. It does not mean what you think it means.

OT: He can want her to, but he cannot force her to. As others have stated. If this is true, your friend needs to decide if he wants a divorce or if he wants to raise someone else's child.

I know what cuck meant, it means something else now days, get over it.

[Torgent]

I know what cuck meant, it means something else now days, get over it.

No it doesn't lol. Kids misusing a word doesn't change it's meaning.

[Mistame]

The most effective arguments are generally the ones based entirely on your opponent's worldview.

I didn't change my mind because of your post. That change was years ago. I was just setting the stage for the bit after that. So climb back down off your magical friendship pony.

[Mistame]

I wasn't suggesting you had. I was giving the reason for preferring that sort of argument.

Oh, my apologies. It just came across that way.

[Serpha]

No it doesn't lol. Kids misusing a word doesn't change it's meaning.

Over time everything changes it's meaning, faggot for example didn't mean what it does now. There are many many words that changed it's meaning.

[nextormento]

The most effective arguments are generally the ones based entirely on your opponent's worldview.

Sander's argument that's there's been a massive distribution of wealth towards the 1% resonates strongly for the same reason. Though the framing explores what the opponent rejects rather than what they accept.
Subversion is nice.