Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What men need is an effective, non-invasive birth control. Women have had it for 50 years. The moralists like to preach abstinence and responsibility, but the fact is that none of the options available for men are very pleasant. Either he does without sex, has himself sterilized as soon as he reaches puberty, or wears a rubber, which has all the aesthetics of taking a bath with your socks on. Make reasonable birth control available for men and watch the birth rate get cut in half.
What men need is an effective, non-invasive birth control. Women have had it for 50 years. The moralists like to preach abstinence and responsibility, but the fact is that none of the options available for men are very pleasant. Either he does without sex, has himself sterilized as soon as he reaches puberty, or wears a rubber, which has all the aesthetics of taking a bath with your socks on. Make reasonable birth control available for men and watch the birth rate get cut in half.
My own question here is this: Would you support giving a child support opt-out to men if the women that they had sex with promised (as in, this promise can be proven) to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on? In such a scenario, all other men will be forced to pay child support. Also, all men who will get a child support opt-out in this scenario will give up all of their parental rights and be required to avoid all contact with these children of theirs at least until their children will reach age 18.
As for me, my own response to this question is Yes. Why? Because in such a scenario, I see such a man is being no more responsible for the existence of an actual child (as opposed to a zygote) than I would be if I loaned someone my baseball bat and then found out that this individual unexpectedly beat several people to death with this baseball bat of mine. After all, in both of these cases, another person made a decision which is different to the decision that one expected that he or she would make.
As for taxpayer money, if it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help financially support the families of the beating victims in the my scenario with the baseball bat above, then it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help take care of these men's children as well. Plus, can't taxpayer money also be used to help financially support the children that single women have with the help of sperm donors? If so, then I would like to point out that the men in this scenario of mine should simply be considered to be non-anonymous sperm donors.
Also, if a woman who doesn't like both abortion and adoption has a problem with my idea here, then she can avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support and/or avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, doing this should ensure that there wouldn't be very many needy children who will need to be supported by the government and the taxpayers in such a scenario.
In addition to this, no non-drastic method of contraception and sterilization is incapable of ever failing. Also, telling male-bodied people to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex for the rest of their lives is no more acceptable for them than it is for female-bodied people when pro-lifers give them this exact same advice. Indeed, I myself would strongly prefer to become a (literal) eunuch than to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile women for the rest of my life. Seriously--after all, it is certainly better than losing a lot of money and getting sluut-shamed, including by various people on this specific forum.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Actually, I agree with you. Some women still use pregnancy as a way to snag a man or obtain support.
There are biological imperatives. Most men and women of a certain age at least, enjoy sex. However,
only one gender becomes pregnant. I think it's wrong for a woman who has the most effectual birth control options available, to expect that a man would be happy about an unplanned pregnancy.
Even if there was an accident - use the morning after pill.
My own question here is this: Would you support giving a child support opt-out to men if the women that they had sex with promised (as in, this promise can be proven) to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on? In such a scenario, all other men will be forced to pay child support. Also, all men who will get a child support opt-out in this scenario will give up all of their parental rights and be required to avoid all contact with these children of theirs at least until their children will reach age 18.
As for me, my own response to this question is Yes. Why? Because in such a scenario, I see such a man is being no more responsible for the existence of an actual child (as opposed to a zygote) than I would be if I loaned someone my baseball bat and then found out that this individual unexpectedly beat several people to death with this baseball bat of mine. After all, in both of these cases, another person made a decision which is different to the decision that one expected that he or she would make.
As for taxpayer money, if it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help financially support the families of the beating victims in the my scenario with the baseball bat above, then it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help take care of these men's children as well. Plus, can't taxpayer money also be used to help financially support the children that single women have with the help of sperm donors? If so, then I would like to point out that the men in this scenario of mine should simply be considered to be non-anonymous sperm donors.
Also, if a woman who doesn't like both abortion and adoption has a problem with my idea here, then she can avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support and/or avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, doing this should ensure that there wouldn't be very many needy children who will need to be supported by the government and the taxpayers in such a scenario.
In addition to this, no non-drastic method of contraception and sterilization is incapable of ever failing. Also, telling male-bodied people to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex for the rest of their lives is no more acceptable for them than it is for female-bodied people when pro-lifers give them this exact same advice. Indeed, I myself would strongly prefer to become a (literal) eunuch than to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile women for the rest of my life. Seriously--after all, it is certainly better than losing a lot of money and getting sluut-shamed, including by various people on this specific forum.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Yes and no. What I mean: I don't think 'promising to have an abortion and then changing mind' should have anything to do with it. The way I look at it: two individuals may 'choose' to have sex, but only one of the individuals has the additional 'choice' of whether or not to have and raise the child. As the women can say 'I do not want this responsibility/role,' I think it'd be only fair for the guys to have the same option.
I do agree with your comments on 'taxpayer money'- as an average employed taxpaying citizen, I'd be fine with having my tax dollars go to supporting the children and their single mothers. But I'm sure I'm in the minority with that approach- plus the government doesn't care what 'tax-paying citizens' want anyway.
My own question here is this: Would you support giving a child support opt-out to men if the women that they had sex with promised (as in, this promise can be proven) to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on? In such a scenario, all other men will be forced to pay child support. Also, all men who will get a child support opt-out in this scenario will give up all of their parental rights and be required to avoid all contact with these children of theirs at least until their children will reach age 18.
As for me, my own response to this question is Yes. Why? Because in such a scenario, I see such a man is being no more responsible for the existence of an actual child (as opposed to a zygote) than I would be if I loaned someone my baseball bat and then found out that this individual unexpectedly beat several people to death with this baseball bat of mine. After all, in both of these cases, another person made a decision which is different to the decision that one expected that he or she would make.
As for taxpayer money, if it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help financially support the families of the beating victims in the my scenario with the baseball bat above, then it's fair game to use taxpayer money to help take care of these men's children as well. Plus, can't taxpayer money also be used to help financially support the children that single women have with the help of sperm donors? If so, then I would like to point out that the men in this scenario of mine should simply be considered to be non-anonymous sperm donors.
Also, if a woman who doesn't like both abortion and adoption has a problem with my idea here, then she can avoid having sex with men who are personally okay with opting-out of paying child support and/or avoid promising to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy. Indeed, doing this should ensure that there wouldn't be very many needy children who will need to be supported by the government and the taxpayers in such a scenario.
In addition to this, no non-drastic method of contraception and sterilization is incapable of ever failing. Also, telling male-bodied people to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex for the rest of their lives is no more acceptable for them than it is for female-bodied people when pro-lifers give them this exact same advice. Indeed, I myself would strongly prefer to become a (literal) eunuch than to abstain from penis-in-vagina sex with all fertile and potentially fertile women for the rest of my life. Seriously--after all, it is certainly better than losing a lot of money and getting sluut-shamed, including by various people on this specific forum.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
An unborn child cannot waive his rights to child support.
For instance an ex-gf broke into doctors office of a pro sports player where he kept sperm stored in case of an injury, She impregnated herself and sued for support.
The courts gave her child support. Why they agreed what she did is wrong and women should get no support personally and could even be charged with a crime. However, the child is his and child did nothing wrong and legally child gets child support. Courts also said you told ex-gf where Sperm was kept, it was kept in an loosely secured location and you knew ex wanted to have a baby with you and would go to any lengths and yet left it there.
Same would go to one night stands, ex girlfriends. Dont have sex with anyone you dont want a baby with.
I had a couple of close calls when dating. BUT I only had unprotected relations with girls I was dating and if I got them pregant I would man up. Even girls on the pill I realize things can go wrong.
If it was a girl I absolutely would not want to marry or even have a child with I said no way or doubled bagged, the old you are on the pill but I am still wearing a condom.
And it also goes the other way. If a man does not want to support a child in the future, he can also avoid having sex.
If he plays and the woman gets pregnant, then it is time for the man to pay, and pay, and pay. It is not fair to the tax payers to have to pay for your getting a woman pregnant that results in a baby. The rule should always be, you play, you risk having to pay for 18 or more years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Utopian Slums
If you have a written and notarized contract then sure. Otherwise, don't have sex with women.
No, men should only have to pay child support if they were married. Children born outside of wedlock should receive a lump sum (starting at 5% of salary).
Oh, yeah? So, how do you feel about helping to pay for the kids of ALL the baby daddies out there who have multiple kids with multiple women out of wedlock (and there are LOTS of them)? Ya good with that?
Futurist,
If a man doesn't want to become a father, he just wants to have sex, the answer is simple.
Wear protection. Always.
It's very effective you know, I have known men that never became fathers because they were
careful.
It's easy to get, inexpensive, and really, there is no reason why a man can't take responsibilty
for his actions before he creates a big mess that he doesn't want.
You would think by now, men would have realized this. LOL
So to answer your question, NO.
You play, you pay.
And it also goes the other way. If a man does not want to support a child in the future, he can also avoid having sex.
If he plays and the woman gets pregnant, then it is time for the man to pay, and pay, and pay. It is not fair to the tax payers to have to pay for your getting a woman pregnant that results in a baby. The rule should always be, you play, you risk having to pay for 18 or more years.
Pretty much. It's the other version of "pay to play."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
