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.
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.
Last edited by Futurist110; 12-19-2015 at 03:19 PM..
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,314 posts, read 8,655,857 times
Reputation: 6391
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...
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.
Any reason why you'd opt to be castrated versus just getting a vasectomy? Are you hoping to lower your sex drive by actually having your testicles removed? Are you transitioning? ...if so, you have another appendage to remove!
[quote=Pennies4Penny;42341024]
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./QUOTE]
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.
Any reason why you'd opt to be castrated versus just getting a vasectomy? Are you hoping to lower your sex drive by actually having your testicles removed? Are you transitioning? ...if so, you have another appendage to remove!
I want to get surgically castrated because vasectomies can and sometimes do fail, and I certainly know that I am not going to get any slack in regards to paying child support in the event of a vasectomy failure. Of course, if I can take estrogen after my planned surgical castration while still being able to get erections using my penis and to have penis-in-vagina sex, then this might certainly be a bonus of surgical castration for me.
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.
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.
Can a woman unilaterally give her child up for adoption if the 'baby daddy" knows about the existence of this child, though?
Last edited by Futurist110; 12-19-2015 at 08:12 PM..
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.
Of course, if I can take estrogen after my planned surgical castration while still being able to get erections using my penis and to have penis-in-vagina sex, then this might certainly be a bonus of surgical castration for me. 
