"Why should my taxes go towards" is being used as an argument? Did the libertarians come through here? Child welfare isn't a good thing to use taxes on? We already spend a ton of tax dollars on their education and pediatric healthcare. But do go on about how much of a burden it would be to the tax payer.

Its possibly a can of worms. Once there is mechanism in place allowing to forfeit parental responsibilities, some people would abuse it, which is my only objection against such mechanism. But yeah, to decide whether or not such mechanism is feasible, some numbers would be needed.

While the decision to abort or not is obviously 100% the woman's, this does have knock on effects for the costs of raising the resultant child. If the 'father' has stated that he does not want to become a father, and would be happy with her having an abortion - does that lessen his financial responsibility should the woman choose to continue with the pregnancy - against his will, so to speak?
To provide an analogy - if you accidentally write off another person's car, you are not liable for whatever expenses the other chooses to incur - for example taking a cab everywhere for the rest of their lives. On the other hand abortion does require active steps, that entails risks, so one could argue instead that the default result is pregnancy and it is only with the woman's consent can this be avoided.

willhud9 wrote:"Why should my taxes go towards" is being used as an argument? Did the libertarians come through here? Child welfare isn't a good thing to use taxes on? We already spend a ton of tax dollars on their education and pediatric healthcare. But do go on about how much of a burden it would be to the tax payer.

If it were as simple as "Why should my taxes go towards" then I might be open to just saying the state has to pay for all children. But it's not. I actually want an active disincentive to people having kids and just leaving to the state to take care of. I don't want people out there popping out dozens of kids and just leaving them to the state to take care of.

And how would you even enforce it to prevent people from abusing it? Why can't I just tell the state I don't want to pay for my kids and let the tax payers state paying for their food and clothing so that I can go on nice vacations with my wife.

So to me it's not about the burden to the taxpayer but rather the burden to the irresponsible parent that I want them to have. Because even if it isn't a big deal to the state and you can find ways to prevent abuse, preventing one kid from being born to deadbeat parents is worth making all the would be deadbeats in the world pony up for their own.

Could the state be paying AND at the same time enforcing such disincentive?

tuco wrote:Could the state be paying AND at the same time enforcing such disincentive?

That's basically what the current welfare system does.

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:"Why should my taxes go towards" is being used as an argument? Did the libertarians come through here? Child welfare isn't a good thing to use taxes on? We already spend a ton of tax dollars on their education and pediatric healthcare. But do go on about how much of a burden it would be to the tax payer.

If it were as simple as "Why should my taxes go towards" then I might be open to just saying the state has to pay for all children. But it's not. I actually want an active disincentive to people having kids and just leaving to the state to take care of. I don't want people out there popping out dozens of kids and just leaving them to the state to take care of.

And how would you even enforce it to prevent people from abusing it? Why can't I just tell the state I don't want to pay for my kids and let the tax payers state paying for their food and clothing so that I can go on nice vacations with my wife.

So to me it's not about the burden to the taxpayer but rather the burden to the irresponsible parent that I want them to have. Because even if it isn't a big deal to the state and you can find ways to prevent abuse, preventing one kid from being born to deadbeat parents is worth making all the would be deadbeats in the world pony up for their own.

But your talk of irresponsible parent doesn't hold up. Literally if I impregnate a woman you and I would say that the fetus is not a child. I am not the parent of said fetus, but because of birth and the arbitrary notion of personhood all of a sudden I'm now responsible for it even though I was clear I had no intention of being a father?

Also care to address my other post?

One possible consequence for a man engaging in sex with a woman is fathering a child, which comes with a certain amount of responsibility.

The sooner kids appreciate that fact, the better.

tuco wrote:Its possibly a can of worms. Once there is mechanism in place allowing to forfeit parental responsibilities, some people would abuse it, which is my only objection against such mechanism. But yeah, to decide whether or not such mechanism is feasible, some numbers would be needed.

Well, for starters, there is already such a mechanism in place for women.

Secondly, are children actually harmed by not forcing someone who doesn't want responsibility over them to have responsibility over them?

proudfootz wrote:One possible consequence for a man woman engaging in sex with a woman man is

fathering

conceiving a child, which comes with a certain amount of responsibility.

The sooner kids appreciate that fact, the better.

You still agree with the above?

proudfootz wrote:

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.

So, the woman who is has (or should have) 100% of the power in this situation?

willhud9 wrote:...

I'm now responsible for it even though I was clear I had no intention of being a father?

...

That sure is cute to see you say that, as if it actually mattered what you intended.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

purplerat wrote:I actually want an active disincentive to people having kids and just leaving to the state to take care of.

No.

As near as I can tell, you want an actual disincentive for men impregnating women and just leaving the state to take care of the child.

Where's the woman in this?

She has no agency? She makes no decisions?

In fact, she has all the agency and makes all the decisions (as it should be, it's her body). The simple consequence of having 100% of the power is, however, having 100% of the responsibility.

Why are you so reluctant to hold the woman accountable for her decisions?

Nicko wrote:

purplerat wrote:I actually want an active disincentive to people having kids and just leaving to the state to take care of.

No.

As near as I can tell, you want an actual disincentive for men impregnating women and just leaving the state to take care of the child.

Where's the woman in this?

She has no agency? She makes no decisions?

In fact, she has all the agency and makes all the decisions (as it should be, it's her body). The simple consequence of having 100% of the power is, however, having 100% of the responsibility.

Why are you so reluctant to hold the woman accountable for her decisions?

Are you under the impression that single-motherhood is free and easy?

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

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.

So, the woman who is has (or should have) 100% of the power in this situation?

How does the woman have 100% of the power? We're talking about producing a child here not abortion. That's why this conversation was split off from the abortion thread. So unless you are talking about women raping men to get pregnant then I'm not sure how they have 100% of the power. It is possible for a man to say no to sex.

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One possible consequence for a man woman engaging in sex with a woman man is fathering conceiving a child, which comes with a certain amount of responsibility.

The sooner kids appreciate that fact, the better.

You still agree with the above?

Yes.

I didn't meant to imply that the mother and father of a child do not both share responsibility for their mutual child.

Thanks for helping me clear that up!

willhud9 wrote:

purplerat wrote:

willhud9 wrote:"Why should my taxes go towards" is being used as an argument? Did the libertarians come through here? Child welfare isn't a good thing to use taxes on? We already spend a ton of tax dollars on their education and pediatric healthcare. But do go on about how much of a burden it would be to the tax payer.

If it were as simple as "Why should my taxes go towards" then I might be open to just saying the state has to pay for all children. But it's not. I actually want an active disincentive to people having kids and just leaving to the state to take care of. I don't want people out there popping out dozens of kids and just leaving them to the state to take care of.

And how would you even enforce it to prevent people from abusing it? Why can't I just tell the state I don't want to pay for my kids and let the tax payers state paying for their food and clothing so that I can go on nice vacations with my wife.

So to me it's not about the burden to the taxpayer but rather the burden to the irresponsible parent that I want them to have. Because even if it isn't a big deal to the state and you can find ways to prevent abuse, preventing one kid from being born to deadbeat parents is worth making all the would be deadbeats in the world pony up for their own.

But your talk of irresponsible parent doesn't hold up. Literally if I impregnate a woman you and I would say that the fetus is not a child. I am not the parent of said fetus, but because of birth and the arbitrary notion of personhood all of a sudden I'm now responsible for it even though I was clear I had no intention of being a father?

Nobody is talking about having to provide prenatal care. The fact is that if that fetus becomes a child then you would then be responsible for it. This isn't different than other situations where people are held responsible for their actions even if the eventual outcome wasn't their original intent.

Plus, by your logic the man could be promising to the woman that he would take care of the kid all the way up until the day the kid is born then change his mind and say "it's just a fetus, not my responsibility" and walk away.

willhud9 wrote:
Also care to address my other post?

Which one? I'd rather not be guessing.

proudfootz wrote:

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:One possible consequence for a man woman engaging in sex with a woman man is fathering conceiving a child, which comes with a certain amount of responsibility.

The sooner kids appreciate that fact, the better.

You still agree with the above?

Yes.

I didn't meant to imply that the mother and father of a child do not both share responsibility for their mutual child.

Thanks for helping me clear that up!

How exactly does this misunderstanding come about? Because Nicko is not the only one to make it. The thread is about men being able to skip out on being responsible for their off spring and somehow disagreeing with that is equated to saying women should be able to.

But of course, nobody has said anything remotely close to that. The only way I could see anybody getting there is if they equate legal abortion with a woman financially abandoning her child. Which of course is complete bullshit but it seems some are going there subconsciously.

Nicko wrote:

proudfootz wrote:

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.

So, the woman who is has (or should have) 100% of the power in this situation?

Since it is her life that could be 100% ended due to the many various risks of carrying a child and the childbirth process itself, then I certainly don't see the upside in anyone else being in a position to force her to undergo those risks.

I think the power to say 'No' is not unreasonable in this case.

@Will, Nicko and anybody else thinking men need to be able to disavow themselves of responsibility for children they've produced: If abortion wasn't an option for the woman would you still feel the same way?