It's just that it's not that simple. Yes, HIS wishes weren't taken into account. But if she gets an abortion, then HER wishes/ feelings aren't taken into account. If she doesn't have him pay any child support he's STILL technically paying child support through taxes and welfare programs, but it's a lot less direct and leads to a much shittier situation for the kid. I know, you don't care about the kid's well being because it "shouldn't" have been born, but it's not so simple as shouldn't have been when you're talking about extremely heavy decisions like abortion. She could also give it up for adoption, I suppose, but that tends to be hard for most women. Not that it doesn't happen, of course.
I was abused, neglected, by my father until 13. Then just neglected by my mother from then. Until I turned 16 and went to Juve.
My parents were shitty, not because of anything else. My mother had it rough. Worse then I did for sure, but not by much. My father came from a wealthy family and was raised pretty well. When I was born it went down hill. He didn't want me, at all. Asked my mother for an abortion, in which she chose not too.
I was abused by that man until he left and cheated on my mother. My mother let it happen, because she made shitty decisions, that allowed me to even get here. Then because she "made her bed", A real quote by the way, she never had the balls to leave him, even though, she knew he was abusive, neglectful, and plain ass hated his children.
So I had to suffer, because of what you want to happen.
This is the way it is for a lot of reasons. Sex doesn't equate child rearing at all. That needs to stop. Forcing decisions on people is worse for society overall and we will not agree on this subject.
Abortions? I'm fine with people getting abortions, as long as it's their decision and not someone else's.
Kids being born? Same as above.
But by parent not suffering as much, I mean that their mandatory education is done and set - being poor late in life doesn't send you to a ghetto school if you were wealthy. But it will send the kid there. Which will hurt their future prospects, which was my point.
The reason our school system is the way it is, to let the cream rise to the top. If you give a damn about anything, then those people will make themselves known.
Good people will do the right thing, regardless of upbringing, social status, or religious background. People make their own decisions. If you choose to act "thug" in the ghetto, that is your own fault. People are hardwired to be who they are despite everything that is set against us.
If you fail, it's because you fail. There are very few excuses and being a single parent isn't one of them.
Poorer schools means less money. Meaning fewer teachers. Older teacher materials. A lack of teaching materials. A single parent means they're probably working two jobs, especially if they get no support, and can't help with homework if the kid needs it, or just be there.
"Good people" are a result of environment AND upbringing. Raise a kid in a certain environment then demand they act as though they were raise din one entirely alien isn't going to work - at most it'll be a blend, or behavior in one area but not the other.
Let us assume your father was a bad person, but your mother was an amazing mother and did everything in her power to give you the best life she can. In your personal opinion, do you believe society should help the mother out by making the father support her in raising you (the child) financially because he would not if he had a choice? Even though he is going to neglect the child and ignore him and not be part of his life. If she can give him an amazing life and be an amazing mother.
What should we do when both parents are bad? Yet the mother strongly fights to keep her child. We as society have no right to assume that she will be a bad mother and take that child away. Unfortunately, all society can do is hope that majority are good mothers and hope for the best. What if the mother turns out to be amazing and the child lives a happy amazing life. Do you truly believe that we should force this amazing mother to give up the child just because the father does not want it?
You had the misfortune of having 2 bad parents, and I’m truly deeply sorry you had to go through all that. However, do you truly believe we should punish good parents because there are bad parents out there?
---------- Post added 2012-12-08 at 10:47 AM ----------
One twin was lucky enough to live with his homeless father. The father ended up getting some money and sending his son to a good private school and later attended Yale University (he lead a good life and became a professor there).
The other twin had misfortune of living with his mother in a bad neighborhood. (they lived in studio and his mother would kick him out of house when she wanted to be intimate with her boyfriends. He claimed that sometimes she did not care if he was there). The second twin ended up getting abused by his mother’s multiple boyfriends and getting into drugs because he hated being home. Not to mention, the fact that everyone around him was into drugs because that is how the neighborhood was. The story was famous because they are one of few monozygotic twins that were separated just after birth. Thus, scientists can use this for the whole nature vs. nurture argument.
Last edited by mischa23v; 2012-12-08 at 10:51 AM.
Good parents will be good parents with or without money. You can say that singular if you want.
No, I don't believe in making the father pay. For the first of many reasons, it gives a Mother an excuse. No excuses should be given for bad decisions. If you cannot raise a child without the fathers help, then keep your fucking legs closed.
Letting society back up mothers for bad decisions is awful. In my opinion, if the state quit forcing fathers to pay, then you'd see a drastic decrease in unwanted pregnancies. As then the mother, would either abort, or have to raise someone alone.
It might make women a bit more choosey who they let in the sack. If women wants to be solely responsible on birthing a child, then why not make them solely responsible for rearing it? If men are nothing but sperm donors, by law, other then child support. Do you not feel that is a bit lop-sided? I feel any reasonable person can see it that way.
It not fair all around, even male children of statutory rape are held on child support.
The issue is deep seated and very much uneven on male rights. Society isn't helping and are raising young women to believe pregnancy that it "has to be that way". It's flat out disgusting.
And thus I give you: MALE contraception!
I'm male, and pro-life myself, but my general view of the subject is if the woman can decide to abort the baby without any say given to the father, than the father also has the right to financially and custodially "abort" the child as well and forfeit all rights and responsibilities for said child.
I don't agree with a man abandoning a child he fathered, but I also don't agree with a woman killing a baby with no care for the other concerned party as well.
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So drug addicts can't be good people? Nice knowing you are on that high horse. So you still didn't address, that good people will do good things. All you toted was a comparison to drug addicts to non-addicts in an environment. Yeah, big surprise, an abused and neglected person turns to drugs. Strawman it up.
So explain to me, how being a drug addict dictates intention? Their are many alcoholic or addicted parents that still take care of and love their children. In actuality, there are more cases of "working" or "functioning" addicts then there are of extreme cases of neglect.
All this story compares to me, how a loving family is more important than money.
Take away the abuse and neglect, but keep latter poor, and we'd have a different story to tell. Two twins separated at birth, ended up at Yale despite being from different economic backgrounds.
I mean what's the point of your story in comparison to good people? Because I fail to see how being a drug addict somehow eliminates you from being a good person. I could also post a story that conflict with yours and will.
Twins are still different people.
I think it just reaffirms for me that a loving and caring family is far more important than money.
Last edited by DisposableHero; 2012-12-08 at 02:22 PM.
There is nothing fair in that system, to anyone.
Mean that I real deep because no where in this entire post does the any of the blame go to the second party the man.
This post makes a good argument for women going back to "No sex before marriage" way of thinking. No excuses should be given for bad decisions which is true and since we know that sex leads to kids the best decision would be for a woman to wait until she is in a stable and financially secure relationship before engaging in sex which for the most part means marriage. And the woman needs to make sure that the man is on the same page as the woman when it comes to having children. Because if you want children and he does not it is a bad decision to have sex with him and a woman should leave him for greener pastures.
Now a few women do want to be single parents can afford it so they are good. But lucky for men they are lots of sex toys, dolls, and sometime soon a sex robot for them to use until either they get married or find a woman that is okay with being a single mom.
If we were still referring to a male "baby-maker" and a female "birth canal", one can't help but think that the idea of possible pregnancy and the birth control would stay more front and center in the steps leading up to a sexual act that may result in pregnancy.