An argument in favor of giving male-bodied people a unilateral opt-out from paying child support (wages, generations)
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.
Castration?...all talk and no action. It's not all that expensive, even minimum wage people should be able to save up a while & then get it over with! And if you post this ludicrous theory on a go-fund-me, I'll bet you'll have the funds in a week!
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.
I think most men have no problem of some child support commensurate with their ongoing contact (read: if she bolts and takes the kid, and you never see or are involved again, not so much suport....conversely, if you are constantly involved and are very much a parent to that child, pay half ) as they do when women try to turn it into an annuity and/or primary income. Same goes when they move in with their new boyfriend and stick the guy for escalade payments while she lives high off the hog and he is broke.
It's not meant to be punitive. It's designed to protect the kid and alleviatethentaxpayer. Not improve the woman's lifestyle? If only......
In short, she has to pay half as well? After all, what is fair? (novel) More if she cuts the guy out. One more argument for staying single and getting a vasectomy....
In most cases, yes a male should however there are weird cases such as faked birth control or say female on male rape where maybe the male could get off. However that is a bit of a weird and rare case.
In most cases, yes a male should however there are weird cases such as faked birth control or say female on male rape where maybe the male could get off. However that is a bit of a weird and rare case.
Again, I cannot believe that men aren't aware that birth control fails. Is this drunk or drugged sex? Personal responsibility shouldn't take a backseat when you are sleeping around with people that you don't know that well or really just want to "hit and run" I never really understand why people risk STDs either. "Casual" sex is going to be filled with risk factors. We all, except in the case of rape, have a choice when it comes to sexual activity.
The way I understand it, there are medications that can remove the sexual drive. I am thinking there might be some sexual issues involved with this with some negative feelings toward women. I feel like OP feels he cannot control his sexual drive and that can be dealt with.
It could be possible that the OP has impregnated someone and is very angry and lashing out. I hope this passes as it seems like this could put a possible mother in danger. I just feel the hatred in the OP's words.
There will never be an "opt-out". If anything, it will become tougher and it should be that way. Everyone knows the risks involved in the behavior.
Also, I'm not sure that many single mothers are living "high on the hog" from the child support they get. I have never known such a woman in my long life.
OP, you know you could probably get prescribed lupron on your insurance if you were honest about your gender identity and extreme feelings towards your male hormones with a doctor. They prescribe it to to trans teenagers to block the development of the wrong secondary sexual characteristics.
You do understand that your stated reason for your sex phobia, failed birth control, is highly irrational. You're entirely fixated on a 1 in 10,000 chance of having an undetected sperm count after vasectomy and on that sperm making it through a condom, while you're sleeping with all and sundry (you said you wanted an open relationship which is why a vasectomy plus tubal ligation plus condoms would not be enough for you, because for anyone else the odds of a sperm making it through cut tubes in the same week an egg makes it through cut tubes AND the next condom in the box breaks AND this woman who doesn't want kids and has had a tubL at the age of 25 decides not to take the morning after pill or have an abortion), but totally ignoring the risk of HIV or Hep B or herpes from all this profligate sex-having.
Yes. Have you gone completely 'round the bend, bats in your belfry, bat____ crazy, out of your freaking mind?
The entire screed appears to be nothing more than an attempt at abrogation of personal responsibility, which is already a problem of epidemic proportions.
Giving an unwanted child is not a 'gift' by any stretch of the imagination. There are already far too many of these 'gifts' running around in gangs robbing and killing people, sucking down tax dollars in prisons or on welfare.
If you cannot accept the responsibility of supporting and raising children, then keep your tallywhacker in your pants.
And, BTW, if your figure of 1 in 10,000 vasectomies failing is correct, then the odds of vasectomy failure are not "extremely high", they are 1:10,000. (And if those odds are not acceptable to you, then use a condom too, or KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!)
Yes. Have you gone completely 'round the bend, bats in your belfry, bat____ crazy, out of your freaking mind?
The entire screed appears to be nothing more than an attempt at abrogation of personal responsibility, which is already a problem of epidemic proportions.
Giving an unwanted child is not a 'gift' by any stretch of the imagination. There are already far too many of these 'gifts' running around in gangs robbing and killing people, sucking down tax dollars in prisons or on welfare.
If you cannot accept the responsibility of supporting and raising children, then keep your tallywhacker in your pants.
And, BTW, if your figure of 1 in 10,000 vasectomies failing is correct, then the odds of vasectomy failure are not "extremely high", they are 1:10,000. (And if those odds are not acceptable to you, then use a condom too, or KEEP IT IN YOUR PANTS!)
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.
KNOWING that men can just walk out, why don't women choose their partners more wisely?
Yes do the world a favor and be castrated only way you can't father a child. To really be on the safe side, you may want to have your penis removed also .The End
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.
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.
