Male parental responsibilities

Split from 'Is there a secular argument against abortion?'

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#521  Postby tuco » Jul 17, 2017 1:19 pm

I know two cases where guys have 3 and more kids with 3 and more different women, dont live with them, dont take care of the kids, do not pay (what they ought to) child support, they even blackmail the women over child support and suspect if they were asked if they wanted the kids they would say no because who could prove them wrong? I am not libertarian but fuck me if I had to pay for these two cunts.
Last edited by tuco on Jul 17, 2017 1:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tuco
 
Posts: 13755

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Male parental responsibilities

#522  Postby Papa Smurf » Jul 17, 2017 1:20 pm

tuco wrote:The debate, despite almost none of the debaters seem to realize it, is about the babies not about imaginary equality of two biologically different individuals.


But it's not a baby if you don't let it be born. Some will have a different opinion but in my mind a 10 week old foetus is not yet a baby and by then most women will have realized they are pregnant. Add a few weeks to think about it (and hopefully discuss it with the father to be) and I'd say you're still in time for an abortion. And if I remember the gist of the statistics correctly the medical risk of an abortion is less than that of childbirth, if done properly at an abortion clinic so by having an abortion the woman is reducing health risks, not increasing them.

If you (who?) do decide to let it be born then yes the child's interest is very important (and for most parents I'm sure it will in fact be more important than anything else), but again if the woman feels she cannot bear the financial (or other) burden (and the man does not want to or is nowhere in sight) than it might be wise to have an abortion. If she decides to go through with it regardless, that's her decission and her responsibility.
User avatar
Papa Smurf
 
Posts: 233

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Women seeking abortions in Arkansas need permission from men

#523  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:20 pm

Nicko wrote:
Unless you think the "pro-life" argument against a woman having the right to choose (which is the exact same one: if she didn't want a child, she shouldn't have had sex) holds water, you are being blatantly hypocritical. Seeing that I support a woman's right to choose ("her body, her choice"), clearly I do not think that consent to sex implies consent to parenthood.

The problem with the "pro-life" argument that if a woman doesn't want a child she shouldn't have sex is not the bit about personal responsibility. It's the bit where pro-lifers think abortion is a magic anti-responsibility bullet that I have a problem with. You guys on the other hand seem to be buying that latter argument hook, line, and sinker.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#524  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:25 pm

So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#525  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:33 pm

tuco wrote:I know two cases where guys have 3 and more kids with 3 and more different women, dont live with them, dont take care of the kids, do not pay (what they ought to) child support, they even blackmail the women over child support and suspect if they were asked if they wanted the kids they would say no because who could prove them wrong? I am not libertarian but fuck me if I had to pay for these two cunts.

Yup, this happens all the time already but at least many more such cunts are deterred from doing this type of shit because they have income which can be garnished.

I'm not sure why the deterrent effect isn't more compelling because even if philosophically you don't think parents should have to be responsible for their children surely you must recognize that forcing them to do so does encourage a great deal of responsible breeding practices.

Even if you don't care about the kids being born in these situations you have to realize that from a practical stand point that if people are permitted to breed out of control with no repercussions that's going to greatly increase the state's burden for supporting all these kids. Ultimately you will end up being responsible for kids you don't want and they won't even be yours.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#526  Postby Nicko » Jul 17, 2017 1:37 pm

Papa Smurf wrote:I'm saying that a man should have she same choice as the woman insofar as it does not intrude upon her bodily autonomy, ie. he can, depending on circumstances, absolve himself from legal/financial consequences, just like the woman can. There is never going to be an exact symmetry (since both giving birth and having an abortion carry a medical risk with them for the woman) but this would be the closest you can get.


For me, it's not actually about "symmetry". Rather, it is the result of the situation necessarily being asymmetrical.

A woman has, and should have, 100% of the decision-making power in deciding whether a pregnancy results in becoming a parent. That's just a consequence of "her body, her choice".

I'll repeat that: her choice. No one else's.

Not the father's choice.

Not the state's choice.

Not the church's choice.

Her. Choice.

Given that the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy results in parenthood is - and should be - a unilateral one on the part of the pregnant woman, it is fundamentally unjust for that decision to automatically result in a shared responsibility.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8603
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#527  Postby tuco » Jul 17, 2017 1:37 pm

IMO the state should always pay, make sure everyone has certain standard, as it would free single parents from their burden and ensure kids grow up in decent conditions. At the same time, the state should go after those who would try to abuse the system and/or forfeit their responsibility. We are debating male parental responsibilities, equal something, while condition from first sentence is not even met. Fucked up priorities.
Last edited by tuco on Jul 17, 2017 1:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
tuco
 
Posts: 13755

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Male parental responsibilities

#528  Postby Nicko » Jul 17, 2017 1:41 pm

purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?


It is.

It's called being a "stay at home parent". This forum has at least one of them. Having a child with a man who wants to assume this role is an excellent choice for a career-oriented woman to make.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8603
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#529  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:42 pm

Nicko wrote:
Papa Smurf wrote:I'm saying that a man should have she same choice as the woman insofar as it does not intrude upon her bodily autonomy, ie. he can, depending on circumstances, absolve himself from legal/financial consequences, just like the woman can. There is never going to be an exact symmetry (since both giving birth and having an abortion carry a medical risk with them for the woman) but this would be the closest you can get.


For me, it's not actually about "symmetry". Rather, it is the result of the situation necessarily being asymmetrical.

A woman has, and should have, 100% of the decision-making power in deciding whether a pregnancy results in becoming a parent. That's just a consequence of "her body, her choice".

I'll repeat that: her choice. No one else's.

Not the father's choice.

Not the state's choice.

Not the church's choice.

Her. Choice.

Given that the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy results in parenthood is - and should be - a unilateral one on the part of the pregnant woman, it is fundamentally unjust for that decision to automatically result in a shared responsibility.

It's fundamentally unfair that I'm short and other people are tall. Maybe we should make laws to rectify that.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#530  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:44 pm

Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?


It is.

It's called being a "stay at home parent". This forum has at least one of them. Having a child with a man who wants to assume this role is an excellent choice for a career-oriented woman to make.

So both parents want to be a "stay at home parent", have a dozen kids or so, and the government should pick up the tab?

Or what if the dad wants to stay at home but the mom says "no, you need to pay or you can't have anything to do with the kid". Or she just says "no" outright to the man being a father to his child. Is that ok in your book?
Last edited by purplerat on Jul 17, 2017 3:00 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#531  Postby Nicko » Jul 17, 2017 1:45 pm

purplerat wrote:Even if you don't care about the kids being born in these situations you have to realize that from a practical stand point that if people are permitted to breed out of control with no repercussions that's going to greatly increase the state's burden for supporting all these kids. Ultimately you will end up being responsible for kids you don't want and they won't even be yours.


How do you propose to revoke permission to breed?

:scratch:
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8603
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#532  Postby tuco » Jul 17, 2017 1:46 pm

Yeah or you could say: I want to see them every second weekend but I do not want to pay, because I did not want them. And this supposed to be the so-called rational forum ;)
tuco
 
Posts: 13755

Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#533  Postby mrjonno » Jul 17, 2017 1:47 pm

purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?



Actually the ultimate responsibility for a child once its born isnt the mother or the father its actually the 'state'. Unless there are exceptional circumstances that responsibility is delegated to the legal guardians one or more parents but the state (courts) can overrule the parents if it thinks its in the child's best interests

The state (which we all elect) has decided that where possible both parents should pay for the upbringing of the child they created.

Society as a whole has said foetuses have no rights but once a baby is born its rights trump that of both parents. This is as much about the relationship between individuals and the state as it is between individuals (which is why libby heads explode).

On a personal selfish level (nothing wrong with that) I want fathers of kids to pay for them because I simply don't want to anymore than am already via taxes towards education
User avatar
mrjonno
 
Posts: 20430
Age: 45
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#534  Postby Nicko » Jul 17, 2017 1:49 pm

purplerat wrote:So both parents want to be a "stay at home parent", have a dozen kids or so, and the government should pick up the tab?


Yep.

In between having abortion parties, dealing crack to schoolkids and running a satanic paedophile ring from the labyrinthine caverns beneath a daycare centre, of course.

purplerat wrote:Or what if the dad wants to stay at home but the mom says "no, you need to pay or you can't have anything to do with the kid". Or she just says "no" outright to the man being a father to his child. Is that ok in your book?


So, the system we have now?
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8603
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#535  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:54 pm

Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:Even if you don't care about the kids being born in these situations you have to realize that from a practical stand point that if people are permitted to breed out of control with no repercussions that's going to greatly increase the state's burden for supporting all these kids. Ultimately you will end up being responsible for kids you don't want and they won't even be yours.


How do you propose to revoke permission to breed?

:scratch:

Where have I suggested that should be done?

The financial deterrent is sufficient in my opinion. It's like anything else, if you act recklessly and something comes of it then you're responsible. I'm not aware of anywhere else in life where somebody else being able to clean up your mess is considered an excuse for being irresponsible. Even if their ability to clean up after is unilateral.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Male parental responsibilities

#536  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 1:57 pm

Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:So both parents want to be a "stay at home parent", have a dozen kids or so, and the government should pick up the tab?


Yep.

In between having abortion parties, dealing crack to schoolkids and running a satanic paedophile ring from the labyrinthine caverns beneath a daycare centre, of course.

I get the impression that you think people having dozens of kids they have no plan to support is not a real thing.

Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:Or what if the dad wants to stay at home but the mom says "no, you need to pay or you can't have anything to do with the kid". Or she just says "no" outright to the man being a father to his child. Is that ok in your book?


So, the system we have now?

Is that the system? Strange because I've actually been to family court and that's not the way I recall it working.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#537  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 2:00 pm

mrjonno wrote:
purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?



Actually the ultimate responsibility for a child once its born isnt the mother or the father its actually the 'state'. Unless there are exceptional circumstances that responsibility is delegated to the legal guardians one or more parents but the state (courts) can overrule the parents if it thinks its in the child's best interests

The state (which we all elect) has decided that where possible both parents should pay for the upbringing of the child they created.

Society as a whole has said foetuses have no rights but once a baby is born its rights trump that of both parents. This is as much about the relationship between individuals and the state as it is between individuals (which is why libby heads explode).

On a personal selfish level (nothing wrong with that) I want fathers of kids to pay for them because I simply don't want to anymore than am already via taxes towards education

While I may not agree with that entirely at least you're being logical.

Others don't seem to be able to see past the tip of their own nose and realize that everybody not paying for their own kids would inevitably mean everybody paying for everybody's kids. Personally, I'd be fine with that because I have children and would more or less break even on that. It's the people who don't want kids to pay for who'd end up on the short end of the stick. Which is rather ironic.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#538  Postby Papa Smurf » Jul 17, 2017 2:52 pm

Nicko wrote:
Papa Smurf wrote:I'm saying that a man should have she same choice as the woman insofar as it does not intrude upon her bodily autonomy, ie. he can, depending on circumstances, absolve himself from legal/financial consequences, just like the woman can. There is never going to be an exact symmetry (since both giving birth and having an abortion carry a medical risk with them for the woman) but this would be the closest you can get.


For me, it's not actually about "symmetry". Rather, it is the result of the situation necessarily being asymmetrical.

A woman has, and should have, 100% of the decision-making power in deciding whether a pregnancy results in becoming a parent. That's just a consequence of "her body, her choice".

I'll repeat that: her choice. No one else's.

Not the father's choice.

Not the state's choice.

Not the church's choice.

Her. Choice.

Given that the decision as to whether or not a pregnancy results in parenthood is - and should be - a unilateral one on the part of the pregnant woman, it is fundamentally unjust for that decision to automatically result in a shared responsibility.


As far as I can tell we are fully in agreement and I agree with your reasoning as well. I simply arrive at the same conclusion through a slightly different line of reasoning, although I think my post included some aspects of what you write above (if a man cannot force a woman to have a child, a woman should not be able to force the burden of a child she alone wants upon a man).
User avatar
Papa Smurf
 
Posts: 233

Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#539  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 3:00 pm

purplerat wrote:
Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:So I have a question, if a woman has a baby with one of these "unilateral" decisions but I want to be their physically/emotionally/etc for the kid but just don't want to pay for it then shouldn't I also be relieved of my financial responsibilities?

Certainly a parent who wants to be there for their kid but just not pay for it is better than one who does neither. So why shouldn't that be allowed?


It is.

It's called being a "stay at home parent". This forum has at least one of them. Having a child with a man who wants to assume this role is an excellent choice for a career-oriented woman to make.

So both parents want to be a "stay at home parent", have a dozen kids or so, and the government should pick up the tab?

Or what if the dad wants to stay at home but the mom says "no, you need to pay or you can't have anything to do with the kid". Or she just says "no" outright to the man being a father to his child. Is that ok in your book?

To add to this; what if I don't want to be a stay at home parent but also don't want to pay for my kids.

Let's say my wife doesn't work so she has no income but I have a really good job so I'm able to afford a big house and all the nice amenities plus some luxuries. Now every time my wife gets pregnant I tell her I really don't want a kid to support but she ignores me and has the kid anyway. But inevitably I end up liking the little bugger so much that I decide I want to be daddy, but I still really don't want to be financially responsible.

So with that in mind, everybody here is Kosher with me having the government pay all of our childcare expensive while I live the good life on a nice fat salary, none of which goes to my kid?
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#540  Postby purplerat » Jul 17, 2017 3:04 pm

Papa Smurf wrote:a woman should not be able to force the burden of a child she alone wants upon a man.

Why assume that not having an abortion means wanting a child? Why is it fair to assume that but don't dare suggest that people who don't want kids shouldn't have sex?

Has it never occurred to you that for some people having the kid is the lesser of two bad choices? It seems you have no problem thinking that risking bringing an unwanted child into the world is the lesser of two between that and not having sex.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 11927
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests