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.
No. There is nothing you could say or any angle you could present that would make me think this is a good idea. And honestly all your arguments are really reaching and relying on unusual circumstances that don't really apply to the situation you are presenting.
Are you honestly suggesting that vasectomies never fail? If so, then you are certainly wrong in regards to this!
Quote:
The fact is a woman can not get pregnant on her own. She chooses to become pregnant just as much as the man chooses to impregnate her. Even if everyone is doing everything they can to prevent pregnancy, sometimes it still happens and it occurs because of a sexual act between TWO people.
Yes, and? After all, you are not arguing that men should be forced to pay financial compensation to women if they get these women pregnant! Indeed, that is something that I myself might actually support!
Quote:
It is cruel to make a woman sign a contract to have an abortion, because you can't know what you will want to do in that situation until you are actually presented with that choice, and she is only put in that situation because of an act she did with ANOTHER person. She did not get into that situation all on her own and she should not be held responsible for the consequences all on her own.
I did not say that women should be forced to sign such a contract, now did I? After all, women can simply refuse to sign such a contract!
Also, though, the proper way to deal with this appears to be to force men to pay for women's abortions as well as to pay financial compensation to women for getting these women pregnant in the first place. Indeed, exactly how much would being a surrogate mother cost at free market rates? Whatever this amount is, men should probably pay either one-third or one-quarter of this amount as financial compensation to every woman whom they get pregnant. After all, unlike causing someone to exist (which is a gift rather than a harm), getting a woman pregnant actually is a harm.
Quote:
If she chooses to keep the baby against the man's wishes, he still needs to be held financially responsible for his sexual actions, even if he does not want to be physically involved in the child's life. The woman is doing the hard work of raising HIS kid on her own because of something THEY did TOGETHER, the least he could do is assist in the financial aspects of the kid's life. Nothing more is required.
So, if I will donate a kidney to some poor kid, then should I be forced to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards?
Quote:
Lastly, this will undoubtedly lead to more unintentional pregnancies with more children being raised by single mothers. With men having the option to "opt-out" and have zero accountability for their actions, they will have little motivation to act responsibly in the first place to ensure pregnancy doesn't occur, because they'll know they can just walk away.
False--after all, I was only advocating giving men a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event of a vasectomy failure or Vasalgel failure and in the event that their female sexual partners promised in writing to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on. If doing all of this isn't responsible, then I certainly don't know exactly what planet you live on! After all, expecting men to get surgically castrated is certainly a bit extreme, to put it mildly!
Quote:
If you are that dead set against bearing ANY responsibility for a child, then you better make good friends with your hand, because that is the only place your member has any business being.
Frankly, it certainly appears that you didn't read everything that I wrote here. Indeed, this is a part of what I wrote here:
"Also, before anyone dares to slvt-shame me or call me a "deadbeat," I would like to point out that I myself plan to get surgically castrated. Yeah, you heard me!"
Indeed, is having me get surgically castrated not responsible enough for you?
No matter how long and rambling a post you make, if you father a child, Be a Father..... Pay child support and try your damnedest to be a positive role model for that child...
So, if I will donate one of my kidneys to some poor kid, then should I be forced to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards?
I disagree with this. A woman can choose to have the baby and then give it up for adoption if she is financially (or some other reason) unable or unwilling to care for it. A man should equally be able to "give it up for adoption" and not be forced to care for it. It seems only fair.
Abandoning your responsibilities is not the same as giving a baby up for adoption. If both bio parents are present, they both have to sign off on the adoption; she just can't give it away against his will. If he wants it and she doesn't, she would have to pay child support to him. If she keeps it, then she is holding up to her end of the responsibilities to the consequences of THEIR actions, so he needs hold up his side of the deal as well and pay child support to her.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoonBeam33
This is at least the fourth thread the OP has started on this subject.
I knew this sounded familiar. He is obsessed with this ludicrous notion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
Are you honestly suggesting that vasectomies never fail? If so, then you are certainly wrong in regards to this!
Nope, I never said that. In fact I said "even if both people are doing everything to prevent pregnancy, it sometimes still happens." The failure is very low though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
Yes, and? After all, you are not arguing that men should be forced to pay financial compensation to women if they get these women pregnant! Indeed, that is something that I myself might actually support!
I think you're confused. I said a woman can not get pregnant on her own, therefore the responsibilities that come with pregnancy and children fall equally to both people involved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
I did not say that women should be forced to sign such a contract, now did I? After all, women can simply refuse to sign such a contract!
She could walk away (and most probably would), but the point was she may sign it thinking pregnancy odds are slim and that getting an abortion wouldn't be a big deal, but now because of your actions TOGETHER she is forced to make a decision that she is realizing is much harder than she anticipated. Because of the emotional distress involved in such a situation and the fact that an unwilling participant, the child, is involved, I doubt a document like this would hold up in court anyway. The judge could still order you to pay a fund to the minor, who did not sign any such contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
Also, though, the proper way to deal with this appears to be to force men to pay for women's abortions as well as to pay financial compensation to women for getting these women pregnant in the first place. Indeed, exactly how much would being a surrogate mother cost at free market rates? Whatever this amount is, men should probably pay either one-third or one-quarter of this amount as financial compensation to every woman whom they get pregnant. After all, unlike causing someone to exist (which is a gift rather than a harm), getting a woman pregnant actually is a harm.
Finances should fall equally between the two parties.
Not everyone sees a child as a gift. Some see them as a burden. Not everyone even sees their own life as a gift, hence suicide. And you impregnating someone and saying "happy birthday" then walking away is not bestowing them with a gift, but rather a life altering situation that will no doubt bring them lots of stress, anger and rocky roads because of you walking out on your responsibilities to your sexual acts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
So, if I will donate a kidney to some poor kid, then should I be forced to pay child support to this poor kid afterwards?
That is not even remotely the same thing. Parental guardianship and the responsibilities that come with it are not charitable actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
False--after all, I was only advocating giving men a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event of a vasectomy failure or Vasalgel failure and in the event that their female sexual partners promised in writing to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on. If doing all of this isn't responsible, then I certainly don't know exactly what planet you live on! After all, expecting men to get surgically castrated is certainly a bit extreme, to put it mildly!
There are too many loop holes in your premise, firstly. Secondly everyone knows that no matter how careful you are, sex can result in a baby. You are just as responsible for that baby being created as she is even if the odds were .00001% chances of conceiving, so you must take equal responsibility in caring for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
Frankly, it certainly appears that you didn't read everything that I wrote here. Indeed, this is a part of what I wrote here:
"Also, before anyone dares to slvt-shame me or call me a "deadbeat," I would like to point out that I myself plan to get surgically castrated. Yeah, you heard me!"
Indeed, is having me get surgically castrated not responsible enough for you?
Oh I read every word and you are not YET castrated, so keep it in your pants.
OP, I don't even need to read that long post to answer because it's very simple.
A child of divorce is entitled to the same standard of living as when they had two married parents. Therefore, since it takes two parents to make a child, it takes two parents to financially raise a child. For that reason, both incomes are taken into account when awarding child support.
There is one way that men can opt-out of paying child support: don't make a child.
First of all, I am using the term "male-bodied people" here in order to be trans-inclusive. Secondly, to clarify--by "gift," I mean something which results in a person being better off than he or she was before. In contrast, by "harm," I mean something which results in a person being worse off than he or she was before.
Anyway, here is my argument in regards to this:
Generally speaking, the law only imposes involuntary obligations and responsibilities on people if these people have committed harm, negligence, and/or illegal activities. Neither having consensual sex nor causing a child to exist meet any of these criteria. Rather, causing a child to exist is a gift, not a harm. To elaborate on this, causing a child to exist does not cause a child to be worse off than this child previously was; rather, causing a child to exist arguably causes this child to be better off than this child previously was. Indeed, other than in the case of child support, we certainly don't impose involuntary obligations on people for providing gifts to other people. For instance, if I will donate my kidney to some poor kid or (hypothetically) create a cure for some poor kid's cancer, then I am certainly not going to be forced to pay child support to this poor kid even if the alternative to this is going to be having the taxpayers help financially support this kid. Why? Because extending a child's life is a gift, not a harm. Now, if extending a child's life is a gift, then causing a child to have a life in the first place is likewise a gift. Thus, ideally, parents of both genders should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Indeed, as far as I know, even in cases of actual harm, such as accidentally hitting your friend in the head with a baseball and having this friend of yours die as a result of this injury afterwards, involuntary obligations are not imposed on people unless there was negligence involved (and there appears to have been no negligence in this baseball case; thus, it appears that you are not going to be forced to pay financial support to your friend's family even if the alternative to this is having the taxpayers help financially support your friend's family and even though you are certainly much more responsible for your friend's death than the taxpayers are).
Now, you might raise an objection to this and say that the taxpayer burden of financially supporting a lot of unwanted children is almost certainly going to be much more than the taxpayer burden of financially supporting the families of a few people who died accidental deaths which did not occur as a result of negligence. However, my own response to this is that giving every person (both child and adult) a sufficiently large guaranteed basic income is going to ensure that no additional taxpayer money is spent on financially supporting any unwanted children. Now, you might respond to this by saying that we currently don't have a guaranteed basic income for every person. Indeed, this is certainly a very valid point. However, this doesn't mean that no parents should be given a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Rather, what this appears to mean is that male-bodied people should be given a unilateral opt-out from paying child support if their vasectomies or Vasalgel injections failed and if their female-bodied sexual partners promised in writing to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on. Indeed, since most of the straight taxpayers likewise consider both abstinence and surgical castration to be unacceptable, it is rather hard for the taxpayers to complain about having a few of their tax dollars be spent on financially supporting a few unwanted children. After all, these male-bodied people did not do any activities which most other straight taxpayers did not do! Plus, these male-bodied people actually tried to be as responsible as they could be in regards to this short of getting surgically castrated (which most straight taxpayers consider to be unacceptable)! Thus, I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly male-bodied people should not have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in such circumstances.
Now, you might complain and say that this proposal of mine is sexist. In response to this, though, I will tell you two things:
1. As far as I know, the law sometimes allows for sexism in practice due to biological differences. For instance, aren't women legally required to cover their nipples in public in some areas/states while men are not legally required to do this in public? Indeed, it would certainly be extremely naive to think that men's and women's bodies are completely equal!
2. This proposal of mine certainly does not have to be sexist. After all, considering that many taxpayers likewise consider abortion to be unacceptable, this proposal of mine can also extend to promises about adoption for both male-bodied and female-bodied people. To elaborate on this, if a person (regardless of gender and biological sex) is using birth control (as in, a birth control method that he or she can actually prove that he or she used), has an unplanned pregnancy occur, and extracts a written promise from his or her sexual partner to give their offspring up for adoption in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, then this person (regardless of his or her gender and biological sex) should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event that his or her sexual partner will lie or change his or her mind in regards to adoption later on. Indeed, this should certainly equalize my proposal in regards to this.
Now, you might bring up the "genetic argument." If so, though, then I would like to ask you whether or not you are actually willing to fully take the "genetic argument" to all of its logical conclusions. For instance, if I myself had an identical twin brother who had some children and who died relatively young, then should I myself be legally forced to pay child support to my deceased identical twin brother's (minor) children? After all, using the "genetic argument," I should be forced to pay child support to my deceased identical twin brother's (minor) children due to the fact that I am these children's closest living relative (other than these children's mother, obviously)! Likewise, the "genetic argument" appears to suggest that (in the future) if someone will steal some of my DNA and create a clone baby using this DNA of mine, then I should be forced to pay child support to this clone baby due to the fact that I am this clone baby's closest living relative! In addition to this, the "genetic argument" can be and sometimes has been used to force victims of rape (both statutory and non-statutory) to pay child support. Indeed, unless you are willing to fully take the "genetic argument" to all of its logical conclusions, it does not appear that you have a strong case if you will use the "genetic argument" to justify forcing parents to pay child support for their unwanted children.
Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
Also, before anyone dares to slvt-shame me or call me a "deadbeat," I would like to point out that I myself plan to get surgically castrated. Yeah, you heard me! Indeed, the purpose of me presenting this argument here is for me to see if there are any good responses and rebuttals to this argument of mine.
Well thought out perspective, and I agree wholeheartedly!
First of all, I am using the term "male-bodied people" here in order to be trans-inclusive. Secondly, to clarify--by "gift," I mean something which results in a person being better off than he or she was before. In contrast, by "harm," I mean something which results in a person being worse off than he or she was before.
Anyway, here is my argument in regards to this:
Generally speaking, the law only imposes involuntary obligations and responsibilities on people if these people have committed harm, negligence, and/or illegal activities. Neither having consensual sex nor causing a child to exist meet any of these criteria. Rather, causing a child to exist is a gift, not a harm. To elaborate on this, causing a child to exist does not cause a child to be worse off than this child previously was; rather, causing a child to exist arguably causes this child to be better off than this child previously was. Indeed, other than in the case of child support, we certainly don't impose involuntary obligations on people for providing gifts to other people. For instance, if I will donate my kidney to some poor kid or (hypothetically) create a cure for some poor kid's cancer, then I am certainly not going to be forced to pay child support to this poor kid even if the alternative to this is going to be having the taxpayers help financially support this kid. Why? Because extending a child's life is a gift, not a harm. Now, if extending a child's life is a gift, then causing a child to have a life in the first place is likewise a gift. Thus, ideally, parents of both genders should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Indeed, as far as I know, even in cases of actual harm, such as accidentally hitting your friend in the head with a baseball and having this friend of yours die as a result of this injury afterwards, involuntary obligations are not imposed on people unless there was negligence involved (and there appears to have been no negligence in this baseball case; thus, it appears that you are not going to be forced to pay financial support to your friend's family even if the alternative to this is having the taxpayers help financially support your friend's family and even though you are certainly much more responsible for your friend's death than the taxpayers are).
Now, you might raise an objection to this and say that the taxpayer burden of financially supporting a lot of unwanted children is almost certainly going to be much more than the taxpayer burden of financially supporting the families of a few people who died accidental deaths which did not occur as a result of negligence. However, my own response to this is that giving every person (both child and adult) a sufficiently large guaranteed basic income is going to ensure that no additional taxpayer money is spent on financially supporting any unwanted children. Now, you might respond to this by saying that we currently don't have a guaranteed basic income for every person. Indeed, this is certainly a very valid point. However, this doesn't mean that no parents should be given a unilateral opt-out from paying child support. Rather, what this appears to mean is that male-bodied people should be given a unilateral opt-out from paying child support if their vasectomies or Vasalgel injections failed and if their female-bodied sexual partners promised in writing to get an abortion in the event of an unplanned pregnancy and lied or changed their minds in regards to this later on. Indeed, since most of the straight taxpayers likewise consider both abstinence and surgical castration to be unacceptable, it is rather hard for the taxpayers to complain about having a few of their tax dollars be spent on financially supporting a few unwanted children. After all, these male-bodied people did not do any activities which most other straight taxpayers did not do! Plus, these male-bodied people actually tried to be as responsible as they could be in regards to this short of getting surgically castrated (which most straight taxpayers consider to be unacceptable)! Thus, I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly male-bodied people should not have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in such circumstances.
Now, you might complain and say that this proposal of mine is sexist. In response to this, though, I will tell you two things:
1. As far as I know, the law sometimes allows for sexism in practice due to biological differences. For instance, aren't women legally required to cover their nipples in public in some areas/states while men are not legally required to do this in public? Indeed, it would certainly be extremely naive to think that men's and women's bodies are completely equal!
2. This proposal of mine certainly does not have to be sexist. After all, considering that many taxpayers likewise consider abortion to be unacceptable, this proposal of mine can also extend to promises about adoption for both male-bodied and female-bodied people. To elaborate on this, if a person (regardless of gender and biological sex) is using birth control (as in, a birth control method that he or she can actually prove that he or she used), has an unplanned pregnancy occur, and extracts a written promise from his or her sexual partner to give their offspring up for adoption in the event of an unplanned pregnancy, then this person (regardless of his or her gender and biological sex) should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the event that his or her sexual partner will lie or change his or her mind in regards to adoption later on. Indeed, this should certainly equalize my proposal in regards to this.
Now, you might bring up the "genetic argument." If so, though, then I would like to ask you whether or not you are actually willing to fully take the "genetic argument" to all of its logical conclusions. For instance, if I myself had an identical twin brother who had some children and who died relatively young, then should I myself be legally forced to pay child support to my deceased identical twin brother's (minor) children? After all, using the "genetic argument," I should be forced to pay child support to my deceased identical twin brother's (minor) children due to the fact that I am these children's closest living relative (other than these children's mother, obviously)! Likewise, the "genetic argument" appears to suggest that (in the future) if someone will steal some of my DNA and create a clone baby using this DNA of mine, then I should be forced to pay child support to this clone baby due to the fact that I am this clone baby's closest living relative! In addition to this, the "genetic argument" can be and sometimes has been used to force victims of rape (both statutory and non-statutory) to pay child support. Indeed, unless you are willing to fully take the "genetic argument" to all of its logical conclusions, it does not appear that you have a strong case if you will use the "genetic argument" to justify forcing parents to pay child support for their unwanted children.
Anyway, any thoughts on what I wrote here?
Also, before anyone dares to slvt-shame me or call me a "deadbeat," I would like to point out that I myself plan to get surgically castrated. Yeah, you heard me! Indeed, the purpose of me presenting this argument here is for me to see if there are any good responses and rebuttals to this argument of mine.
It's about character. One day, if you are lucky enough, you may understand. In abscence of character, society imposes its norms.
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.
