The_Metatron wrote:Papa Smurf wrote:purplerat wrote:Then why no solidarity for childcare? Why is the primary goal making sure people can get out of paying their fair share?
People
should pay their
fair share. As I've pointed out repeatedly there are plenty of scenarios where the man should rightfully be required to pay child support.
You're god damned right there are. In every scenario which a man fathers a child, that man should support that child as it grows.
Every scenario? So in cases such as these:
- Woman freely and willingly agrees (in advance or perhaps even after the fact) to have an abortion if anticonception fails but changes her mind afterwards
- Woman steals the condom after sex and uses the content to impregnate herself
- Woman punctures the condom. This is in a way even worse than the previous scenario since this would have to be considered pre-meditatet.
- You throw the condom in the garbage can outside and someone comes along and impregnates 10 women with your sperm. Should you be required to pay child support? Obviously not.
you think the father should pay child support if she gets pregant and decides not to abort the pregnancy in all four cases? I'm sure you will agree that in case 4 that would be unheard of and I cannot imagine how you could justify case 1.
As for cases 2 and 3, condom puncturing, you might argue that even if she had not done that she might have gotten pregnant so you can't be sure that it was the condom puncturing or the stealing of sperm followed by artificial insemination that caused the pregancy. But she did stack the odds in her favor to an enormous extent. If an elderly man decides to walk through a shady ally, gets mugged and dies of a heart-attack, I would say that the mugger should be held responsbile even if there is a theoretical possibility that the man would have had a heart attack withough being mugged before leaving the ally.
Incidentally, I would still like to know what you answer is to
this question which was directed at you.
The way I see it if a couple has
unprotected sex then it's fair to assume for both parties that there is an intent, desire or at least a full acceptance of the (possibily of) creating a child. The man should not be able to opt out. In principle the woman should not be able to opt out either, except because of her bodily autonomy. If people laid eggs right after having sex (or if fertilization would take place externally as in fish) then both parents should have the right to brood out the egg since they both went in with at least the assumption that the other person wanted to create a child or would want to keep it. Bodily autonomy does not come into play.
If a man puts on a condom (or a woman takes the pill), it's fair to assume for both parties that at least the party who employed or requested or initiated the use of anti-conceptive measures has hereby expressed a desire to not create a child. The main problem is that in most cases it is not dicussed what should happen if a pregnancy results despite the anti-conception. Who's reponsibility is that? Again if people laid eggs, both parents should have the right to smash the egg. Bodily autonomy does not come into play.
If the man puts on a condom and does not ask if the woman will have an abortion if his preventive measure fails, you could argue that he has not exercised due dilligence. But you could also argue that the woman has not been upfront, if she sees the man put on a condom or asking her if she's on the pill, it would be most fair if she discloses that if those measures fail she is not going to have an abortion. If she does, the man is certainly responsible if he proceeds to have sex.
The woman on the other hand is allowed complete control over what happens if she gets pregnant (which is absolutely fine unless she explicitly promised to have an abortion if she got pregnant) and can demand child support as well. This removes any requirement for her to excercise due dilligence. Even if she made such an explicit promise, it seams that most or all of the people here who oppose my view think it's fine and dandy if she changes her mind for
whatever reason and does not have an abortion (breach of agreement so morally questionable unless she has an objectively valid reason) but, most importantly, also expect the man to pay for child support.
Some have made a comparison to STDs and how getting a woman pregnant causes a man to contract parenthood. Yes, he contracts parenthood in a sense, but only strictly biologically. In striclty biological terms, it means fuck all and has no direct physical consequences for him.
Strictly biologically, it is the woman who contracts pregnancy and childbirth, not the man. It is our society and laws (which by and large assume a monogamous lifestyle) that hold the man responsible, he himself is not directly (biologically) affected by the pregnancy or childbirth.
Our monogamous lifestyle and our habit to raise children together is most likely an evolutionary outcome that has been selected for because it was advantageous, but that does not make it the only possibility. It's just that we have decided to codify this into law. A law that in most cases works fine but in some scenarios is unfair. Tough luck? You could just as well reverse that and say tough luck if you had protected sex and got pregnant from a man who does not want to support you or your child. She has the most to lose (especially if she is opposed to abortion for herself) so she should excercise due dilligence and discuss what if. Current law or society's expectations basically removes all obligations from her to excercise due dilligence and essentially shifts it to the man.
Isn't the way this is arranged in part a remnant from the past, where women were
expected by society to stay at home and raise the kids and man were suppose to provide an income? These days it doesn't work that way in many families with both parents working.
Perhaps condom packaging should display,in large font, something like this:
FAILURE RATE: 1%. DISCCUS WHAT YOU WILL DO IN CASE OF PREGNANCY
by 
