crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Probably because there's no law restricting men from exercising their ability to not have a kid to support.

I'm very much a pro-flush the fetus kind of guy, but what you guys are discussing gives me problems. For one thing, I've never had to worry about getting someone pregnant.

How does it work in the straight world, if you have sex with a woman, do you ask if she is taking the pill or is otherwise protected?

It might be a good idea to inquire of sex partners their contraceptive strategies, but I don't think it always happens in the heat of the moment. When I was young I didn't as a rule ask for ID or for assurances about contraception.

If the man is worried about fathering a child he can very easily take steps to minimize the chances of an unwanted pregnancy. A condom would be one rather obvious choice.

To me, that is the sensible thing, the decision is hers, she can say she won't do it if the guy isn't wrapped up, but what happens when she says nothing? Why shouldn't a guy assume she's protected? If she get's pregnant then it's on her, the guy should not be responsible. If having a kid is too much for her to deal with on her own, she can abort. But like I said, this isn't my area.

IMO the man can't assume anything, and neither can the woman assume the man has a vasectomy or whatever. Plus contraception can fail, so insofar as we are discussing this as a 'risk of pregnancy' I'm ok with the partners who undertook the risk together follow through.

crank wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:The ironic thing is in Arkansas if a woman wants her baby's daddy to pay child support there is very little the man can do.

So a man who may not wanted to have the child is forced to pay for said child, but not many people get outraged over that.

Probably because there's no law restricting men from exercising their ability to not have a kid to support.

I'm very much a pro-flush the fetus kind of guy, but what you guys are discussing gives me problems. For one thing, I've never had to worry about getting someone pregnant. How does it work in the straight world, if you have sex with a woman, do you ask if she is taking the pill or is otherwise protected? To me, that is the sensible thing, the decision is hers, she can say she won't do it if the guy isn't wrapped up, but what happens when she says nothing? Why shouldn't a guy assume she's protected? If she get's pregnant then it's on her, the guy should not be responsible. If having a kid is too much for her to deal with on her own, she can abort. But like I said, this isn't my area.

It's the same as anything. Always protect yourself rather than relying on somebody else to protect. Wouldn't the same apply in any sexual relationship in regards to STIs? Are you really gonna trust that somebody else is healthy just because they say so? Even if they believe they are they still could have something and not know it. If you rely on them for your protection and you end up catching something it's not as if you can absolve yourself of whatever STI you end up with. Because that is basically what kids are, very long lasting and expensive STIs.

Put a helmet on that soldier, he's going into battle!

IOW wrap that rascal. If you don't and the rabbit dies, you're proper fucked.

What-if protection fails to protect? What happens to argument: protect yourself? Collapses.

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

And I am not against all child support as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I am against the concept that just because my DNA happens to reside within a fetus that I am responsible for it in some manner. It is the exact opposite of what the writers of this law seek that because the DNA resides within a fetus they are partially responsible for it.

Ahh, yes. Womens' autonomy, unless it's your DNA inside of one of them. Not that one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So you hold the position that 100% of the decision-making power on whether or not to abort a foetus should be in the hands of the pregnant woman? Her body, her choice?

proudfootz wrote:Plus contraception can fail, so insofar as we are discussing this as a 'risk of pregnancy' I'm ok with the partners who undertook the risk together follow through.

I though you were pro-choice?

tuco wrote:What-if protection fails to protect? What happens to argument: protect yourself? Collapses.

What type of protection you use and the failure rate is all part of the risk you take on, or don't take on. Unless that risk is being forced onto somebody I don't see how that changes the argument as everybody has the option to take no risk at all.

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:Plus contraception can fail, so insofar as we are discussing this as a 'risk of pregnancy' I'm ok with the partners who undertook the risk together follow through.

I though you were pro-choice?

I am.

The idea of 'taking the risk together' here I'm talking about if the pregnancy is carried to term.

I don't mean it to contradict the idea that the one whose life is at risk is the one who should have the final say.

I'm fine with people ditching parental responsibilities for whatever reason as long as the resulting child recieves support from the public to make up for what the disinterested parent doesn't provide.

As long as the general population is willing to put up the money (which is going to be a hard sell), whatever. Reluctant parents suck anyways. Kids shouldn't be denied the support of two parents just because they only have one. No one should have to go on welfare because the person with whom they reproduced isn't interested in being a parent.

In the final analysis, yes, 100%. It's probably not "fair", but what is? It's not fair that I'm so handsome, intelligent, and sexy, but you don't see me complaining.

The_Metatron wrote:
It's a mistake to conflate parenting with financial support, too. The reluctance of the father to provide for his spawn is of no account, if he finds himself unable to be a quality parent. I'd go as far to say that an unwilling parent is more harmful than an absent parent. But, that absent fucker better be paying their share to raise their kid.

I don't think anybody is seriously suggesting that somebody who doesn't want to be a parent should be forced to have an active role in raising the child. If that were the case then it might very well be a fair comparison to forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.

But holding people accountable for the debts they ring up is not the same as slavery.

Nicko wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

And I am not against all child support as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts. I am against the concept that just because my DNA happens to reside within a fetus that I am responsible for it in some manner. It is the exact opposite of what the writers of this law seek that because the DNA resides within a fetus they are partially responsible for it.

Ahh, yes. Womens' autonomy, unless it's your DNA inside of one of them. Not that one.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So you hold the position that 100% of the decision-making power on whether or not to abort a foetus should be in the hands of the pregnant woman? Her body, her choice?

I do. If you're not, I'm eager to learn why.

When it comes to the relationship between adults and 'their' children, its simply parents have no rights over children (in fact no one has a right over anyone else). Children have rights, parents have responsibilities to ensure their rights are protected.

Both fathers and mothers have responsibilities to 'their' child, they have no responsibilities over foetus's under current laws anyway.

Maybe its slightly different in the US with an emphasis on parental 'rights' but it shouldn't be

mrjonno wrote:When it comes to the relationship between adults and 'their' children, its simply parents have no rights over children (in fact no one has a right over anyone else). Children have rights, parents have responsibilities to ensure their rights are protected.

Both fathers and mothers have responsibilities to 'their' child, they have no responsibilities over foetus's under current laws anyway.

Maybe its slightly different in the US with an emphasis on parental 'rights' but it shouldn't be

It is different in America. In Britain there's that case with that child they want to take off life support. The courts said they will be considering the rights of the child. Many Americans don't get that.

Hell the last time I saw an article with a dead American child whose parents got a manslaughter charge for praying instead of giving the child medical treatment, there were actually people arguing that it was their child and their decision, and even their right to raise a kid as they please.

America is the only Western country not to sign into the UN Charter on Children's Rights.

Yeah there is no minimum age of consent to a medical operation in the UK, if a doctor thinks a patient understands the consequences /need for medical treatment they can consent regardless of what parents think (through they are always encouraged to be involved).

Parental 'rights' seems very much like treating other human beings as property which should have gone out with slavery. It's mainly a religious thing I guess even in secular law

And I think laws in regards to child support are archaic. As I've stated: if two people knowingly went into sex with the knowledge and plan to conceive and one of them backed out sure child support makes senses ONLY if the other parent is not in an economic position to raise a child.

But if two people hooked up (we live in a hookup culture, customs need to change accordingly) resulting in pregnancy and the girl decided to keep the child knowing she was not in an economic position to care for a child I would say that is negligence from the start.

Even if it was a couple and they gave birth to a child while living in poverty I would say that is cruel and negligence.

Now to reiterate my main contention: I am of the mindset that sexual liberty frees people of these "societal" responsibilities. Two people should be free to fuck. If they do so unprotected they accept the risks of doing so. Women lose the lottery of gender in the fact that they not only have to worry about sexually transmitted infections but also pregnancy. But if a woman consciously chooses to have unprotected sex with a man that risk and acceptance of said risk is on her.

As an analogy, if I had sex with an HIV positive man and did not use a condom the risk acceptance is on me. I can contract the disease there I have to assess whether the risk is greater than the reward.

In the case of pregnancy the woman has to acknowledge the risk to her body.

But this is why I'm also for free access to public supplies of contraceptives, and cheap and affordable abortions Abortion is a form of birth control.

I am with Rachel Bronwyn but we are not general population.

I think The_Metatron summed it up nicely: Why should any of my taxes go towards .. unlike towards, well, use your imagination.

The general population is reluctant to pay child support for those who are not paying it for various reasons in situations when there is little to no chance they ever start paying it. Also the fact that some lets call them legit parent, not those who been forced .. as per OP, are not paying is telling.

All in all the hairless monkeys, the general population and various individuals in it, are not prepared for this kind of socialism. Actually, its probably only the hairless monkeys who are not willing, unlike other monkeys .. lol?