Page 87 of 114 FirstFirst ...
37
77
85
86
87
88
89
97
... LastLast
  1. #1721
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    holy shit.
    Too many cases a woman gets killed when she tries to leave an abusive relationship. Do you really think it's as simple as you say it is?
    We know it isn't. We think that abusive spouses/mates are disgusting human beings and should get the full force of the law. But this just goes to show that the current system is not fine or can never be improved upon. It allows scumbags to abuse women and walk away with it, but it punishes normal honest guys who were unlucky enough to get in a relationship with a nasty woman (disclaimer: not that many even, but bad apples exist)

  2. #1722
    Epic! Snuffleupagus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    In front of my keyboard.
    Posts
    1,591
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    Seems you should learn this yourself, considering not everyone can just sit back and go "Oh well, we got pregnant, time to have our lives destroyed by an unwanted child!"
    "Oh well, we got pregnant, that is a risk of having sex. Perhaps if we didn't want a child, we should have kept it in our pants".
    I may pay my subscription every month, but I don't lose sight of the fact that the other 4/9/24/39 people I'm grouped with pay too.

  3. #1723
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Snuffleupagus View Post
    "Oh well, we got pregnant, that is a risk of having sex. Perhaps if we didn't want a child, we should have kept it in our pants".
    We don't live 2000 years ago. Times have changed and telling teenagers to keep in in their pants is like telling the sun to not rise.

  4. #1724
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    We don't live 2000 years ago. Times have changed and telling teenagers to keep in in their pants is like telling the sun to not rise.
    You don't think teenagers can understand if they're properly educated?

  5. #1725
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Cybran View Post
    We know it isn't. We think that abusive spouses/mates are disgusting human beings and should get the full force of the law. But this just goes to show that the current system is not fine or can never be improved upon. It allows scumbags to abuse women and walk away with it, but it punishes normal honest guys who were unlucky enough to get in a relationship with a nasty woman (disclaimer: not that many even, but bad apples exist)
    I think numbers show abusive relationships are about the same for both genders. so this is not exactly a gender favoured argument, I honestly hate things like this exist, and people should be protected from all forms of abuse in such relationships.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 11:52 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    You don't think teenagers can understand if they're properly educated?
    Doesn't matter how much you educate teenagers.

    Drugs and Booze are there, hormones are high, Mistakes happen, the best we can do is mitigate them, not destroy any chances of sexual release for budding adults.

  6. #1726
    Quote Originally Posted by Xanjori View Post
    I'm white knighting? What, the guys saying that girls in abusive relationships deserved it for not leaving said relationship aren't white knighting their own cause? Are you actually shitting me?
    Yes, I guess I am shitting you. I don't like being accused of this bullcrap. No one said anyone deserves to be abused. I said they could leave at the first red flag that popped up... Man, its like people can't read.

  7. #1727
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    Doesn't matter how much you educate teenagers.

    Drugs and Booze are there, hormones are high, Mistakes happen, the best we can do is mitigate them, not destroy any chances of sexual release for budding adults.
    I am among those who started having sex when they were 13, I know very well what it's like to be there. Doesn't change the fact I could've still understood the consequences if I had been properly educated about it, my parents didn't talk to me about it and sexual education at school didn't start until we were 15(!).

    Luckily enough the guys knew to use a condom.

  8. #1728
    The Unstoppable Force Mayhem's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    pending...
    Posts
    23,913
    well you could make an anology right there

    if the answer to not having childen is don´t have sex at all
    then the answer to not getting abused in a relationship is don´t have a relationship at all
    Quote Originally Posted by ash
    So, look um, I'm not a grief counselor, but if it's any consolation, I have had to kill and bury loved ones before. A bunch of times actually.
    Quote Originally Posted by PC2 View Post
    I never said I was knowledge-able and I wouldn't even care if I was the least knowledge-able person and the biggest dumb-ass out of all 7.8 billion people on the planet.

  9. #1729
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Tiili View Post
    I am among those who started having sex when they were 13, I know very well what it's like to be there. Doesn't change the fact I could've still understood the consequences if I had been properly educated about it, my parents didn't talk to me about it and sexual education at school didn't start until we were 15(!).

    Luckily enough the guys knew to use a condom.
    Then you know from experience, teens can be stupid. I know people who wanted kids when they were 15. Thats not right, and it's crazy to even think that at that age, but they did, some went through with that. Most of them are now single mothers. Why?

    Because the fathers were not ready. Does this mean they need to be punished with alimony? No. Does this mean they should be able to run off "Scott-free"? No.

    But being tied to a child you didn't want IS a problem, and it can be easily abused.

    Honestly, I think the best solution is an old solution. Father has to pay a dowery, and then has no legal claim or legal responsabilties for the child.

    A fine if you will.

  10. #1730
    Quote Originally Posted by Mayhem View Post
    well you could make an anology right there

    if the answer to not having childen is don´t have sex at all
    then the answer to not getting abused in a relationship is don´t have a relationship at all
    But this would prohibit the female, and is unacceptable. Now, if the male were complaining about it...

  11. #1731
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Lemonpartyfan View Post
    But this would prohibit the female, and is unacceptable. Now, if the male were complaining about it...
    Indeed, it would be suppression of females misogynist swine !

  12. #1732
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    I think numbers show abusive relationships are about the same for both genders. so this is not exactly a gender favoured argument, I honestly hate things like this exist, and people should be protected from all forms of abuse in such relationships.
    Of course it's not about gender. I'm just pointing out that the most abusive and worthless partners from both gender are freely abusing the existing system. Many people in this thread pointed out that the current system is the best possible solution.

    I am going to suggest something else now. During the first 6 months the man has a 2 month "opt out period" where he signs a contract that he is against the fetus becoming a human being. He did everything in his power to avoid a pregnancy or has reason to believe his partner sabotaged their contraception. Singing this will take away all his parental rights, BUT he will will have to pay a minimal of child support that is in no way linked to his personal income.

    This should deter women that want to get rich easy and teens that want to bind their "sweethearts". It's not perfect. None of us is a law maker. There are kinks that have to ironed out. This is just a discussion forum where we share our views. My view is that men need something similar to the abortion that will protect their EXISTENTIAL AUTONOMY from the BODILY AUTONOMY of a few women.
    Last edited by Cybran; 2013-01-21 at 12:11 PM.

  13. #1733
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    Then you know from experience, teens can be stupid. I know people who wanted kids when they were 15. Thats not right, and it's crazy to even think that at that age, but they did, some went through with that. Most of them are now single mothers. Why?

    Because the fathers were not ready. Does this mean they need to be punished with alimony? No. Does this mean they should be able to run off "Scott-free"? No.

    But being tied to a child you didn't want IS a problem, and it can be easily abused.

    Honestly, I think the best solution is an old solution. Father has to pay a dowery, and then has no legal claim or legal responsabilties for the child.

    A fine if you will.
    It would have to be a pretty big fine and would be put into a trust that the woman can only take out slowly to help provide for the child, I would think? I have doubts that most men would be able to pay that 'fine' straight up. It isn't like dropping a grand to get out of having responsibility for a baby...

  14. #1734
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    It would have to be a pretty big fine and would be put into a trust that the woman can only take out slowly to help provide for the child, I would think? I have doubts that most men would be able to pay that 'fine' straight up. It isn't like dropping a grand to get out of having responsibility for a baby...
    It would be the cost of the abortion + a bit for the emotional damages.

  15. #1735
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by obdigore View Post
    It would have to be a pretty big fine and would be put into a trust that the woman can only take out slowly to help provide for the child, I would think? I have doubts that most men would be able to pay that 'fine' straight up. It isn't like dropping a grand to get out of having responsibility for a baby...
    The sign of the fine is not to heavily help the child in legal terms, it's to provide some Legal grounds of compensation for dropping the legal responsabilties of the child.

    It would then be up to the mother to fend for the child.

    Is this unfair? perhaps, but it's a system that means a man cannot abuse it without some kind of legal reprocussion and it means a woman cannot trap a man into a 20 year contract where he gets nothing and is bled dry.

    ---------- Post added 2013-01-21 at 12:12 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Castiell View Post
    It would be the cost of the abortion + a bit for the emotional damages.
    I'd the dowery would be legally discussed.

    At the end of the day, we're not dealing with biological things here, men want financial and legal freedom as an equal to the womans biological freedom of an abortion.

    A dowery would stop abuse, legally throwing off the shackles would allow the man to be free. Think of it like a tiny settlement.

  16. #1736
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Laize View Post
    I don't think anyone wants the same options. That's inherently impossible without violating someone's rights.

    I think we want similar options.

    A man can't force a woman to get or not get an abortion. A man ought to be able to repudiate responsibility for and rights to the child if the woman decides she doesn't give a crap about his decision, however. If she wants to keep the kid, the burden should lie on her to support it.

    Anything else is wholly unethical.
    I like this one. :3

  17. #1737
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninaran View Post
    I like this one. :3
    Because it's somewhat logical for the single guy, maybe? If you are not in a real relationship (couple) or married (where it falls under different logic and legal aspect) if by any case the woman get's pregnant, she can opt to not consider the guy's opinion. You can like play all the balming scenarios, that he should used protection, she should use protection and w/e but still it won't account for the whole scenario's.

    Let say the woman is on birth control or lies that she is, the guy is presented one "fact". He acts on it as a "good" guy, believing/trusting her. Down the line she tells him she is pregnant and she wants to keep the child, the guy is fucked. He will now have to pay alimony just because one part wants to fufill it's own goal. Even better if he doesn't want to and resots to civic trial, he has a high chance that the alimony to be set based on his income, meaning way way over the minimum one.

    So all I am asking is to make or at least try to make laws that goes from generic to specific as much as possible depending on how much that scenario is valid. Else you are left with only a generic set of laws and a lot of law suits pending that try to judge that case but most of the time it fails, since it has no proper grounds or it just repeats the same setances, just so it doesn't create a "precident".

    As in there are very very few trials where the guy was proven innocent, that he didn't knew, or he was tricked. They just play the "well you inserted it, your responsible for it" decision and that's that.
    Last edited by mmoc0127ab56ff; 2013-01-21 at 01:24 PM.

  18. #1738
    Quote Originally Posted by Kasierith View Post
    However, in one case the result has a child still in the picture, while the other does not. Child support is not for the mother. It's for the child.
    You can argue that all you like. The fact remains, however, that the child is only still in the picture because the mother made that decision unilaterally.

    In no other area of life do we allow one person to make the decision for two provided both are adults.
    Last edited by Laize; 2013-01-21 at 03:41 PM.

  19. #1739
    Quote Originally Posted by darenyon View Post
    if you argue that a fetus is a child, it makes the whole "men should have abortions" angle look even worse, and invalidates it.
    I did not equate a fetus to a child. You're twisting my words.
    its also rather telling that the bonding a female often feels with the "potential child" inside her, that is far stronger, is dismissed cause "hey she should just kill her child if she doesnt want it to lack support."
    not saying you have, but if the fathers bonding is brought up, so should the mothers.
    I brought up the father's bonding (which is, by the way, biological fact) because everyone always seems to completely ignore it. You yourself dismiss it by naming the mother's bonding 'far stronger.'
    So let me tell you an anecdote of two friends of mine:
    It was after they had their first child; roughly two years. At some point, she notices that he suddenly gets increasingly happy and energetic, starts vigorously cleaning beyond his normal habits, and takes a very caring role in the relationship. After a few days, she asks him what's up, and he answers: 'You're pregnant! Of my second child!'
    She was on birth control, at the time, but she had it checked and, it turned out, she wás pregnant.
    Now here's the nastiness: He should have told her before, because she didn't want another child. She was on birth control for a reason. He clearly did want the child (initially, he didn't, but his hormone rush had pushed him in favour of having this child). There was still some time to get an abortion, but he kind of talked her out of it, and at last she was glad he did, but that doesn't alter the fact that he should have told her immediately... Which he had not, because he was afraid she was going to abort. In any case, had he abstained from telling her to the point where abortion was no longer a legal option, she'd be in her rights to abandon him and the child, and come off without a financial burden for a child she didn't want.

    its easier to determine the parent if you pull it out of someone than find a father who probably isnt there. but thats something that needs addressing.
    True; it is. But I honestly don't see how that is relevant. The only thing this is relevant for is when you need to decide if someone is Jewish or not.

    this nonsense about "male abortions" runs counter to the notion that fathers deserve more consideration in custody.
    Of course it doesn't. That's like saying women don't have custody rights because they can abort/put up for adoption.

  20. #1740
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBeardedOne View Post
    That is why you clearly stated it was his fault i guess. Cut the bullshit i have read this entire thread and it is clear you have no respect for men and you believe only woman should have a choice to get out of parenthood.
    The solution i gave gives the most equal solution to all parties, no one person is favored and no has choices made for them they don't want(except if the man wants the child but the woman wants to abort, but this should be her choice not his) and all you have done is said what about the child and a bunch of feminist propaganda, what child it is still a fetus while this is going on theroe is not child, it is only a possibility.
    I clearly stated that its both of their faults. you're not even reading my posts, and going on insane rants about feminists because of things I didn't say.
    If the woman chooses to have the child for whatever reason she did so fully informed of what it would be like.
    if a man chooses to have sex for whatever reason, he is fully informed of what could happen.
    Oh suddenly that logic is sexism.
    Please point out where i said this
    The child is irrelevant in the solution i gave as every time it is born between the three possibilities it is accounted for
    no, the child is the entire point. child support is for the child.
    and you said it here, not a page back.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBeardedOne View Post
    Can you read? option one gives responsibility to both parties, option two gives the choice to the woman, if she agrees to have the child the man has ALL responsibility, the third once again gives the woman the choice whether she wants responsibility or not.

    All you are saying is women have a choice, fuck men they deserve no choice, they should just be responsible for actions while at the same time saying that women should be able to get rid of their responsibility.

    Of course all women should be able to take away responsibility and control their own body, but they do not have the right to force control, financial burden, stress and responsibility onto a man. No one should have this right, NO ONE.
    And regarding your other post...
    "Men and Women share responsibility for their children."
    If thats an insane sexist rant to you I'm afraid you're just not a rational person.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •