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.
Why should strangers be forced to pay for a man's decision to skip out on his own kids?
Some men want control over every single aspect of human reproduction. It's not enough they don't have to deal with hormonal birth control. It's not enough they don't go through pregnancy. It's not enough they don't carry a baby for nine months.
Oh no.
They should get control over every single decision that a woman makes.
Why not go further?
Men should control:
What form of birth control a woman uses
Exactly when a woman gets pregnant
What drugs women take during pregnancy
If she has a natural birth
If she breastfeeds
If she stays at home or goes to work after the birth
Or maybe, just maybe, men should be grateful they don't get pregnant and get over it.
Why should strangers be forced to pay for a man's decision to skip out on his own kids?
Some men want control over every single aspect of human reproduction. It's not enough they don't have to deal with hormonal birth control. It's not enough they don't go through pregnancy. It's not enough they don't carry a baby for nine months.
Oh no.
They should get control over every single decision that a woman makes.
Why not go further?
Men should control:
What form of birth control a woman uses
Exactly when a woman gets pregnant
What drugs women take during pregnancy
If she has a natural birth
If she breastfeeds
If she stays at home or goes to work after the birth
Or maybe, just maybe, men should be grateful they don't get pregnant and get over it.
If a woman doesn't want to deal with pregnancy, there's always abortion.
Child support lasts for 18 years. This is a serious matter.
The whole point of this thread is how women have a way out if they don't want to pay for a baby but men don't.
As it is, men need to be wise about sex. The only foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is to stay celibate. But some men have sex anyway and are careful about birth control. But since birth control can fail, some of them still manage to get someone pregnant.
If a law was passed where men can get out of paying for a baby, I don't think it would cost the taxpayers much more money. I think women would just be wiser when it comes to sex. More women would use birth control. More women would stay celibate. If the woman knows she doesn't have the male to fall back on, she'll think twice before getting herself pregnant. And even if she gets pregnant, there's always abortion.
If such a law was passed, the only women that had babies would be the women that truly want babies. And they would probably be able to afford a baby.
As it is, there are single mothers on welfare living off taxpayer dollars.
If such a law was passed, I think the increase in welfare would be minimal. I think it would mostly be responsible moms that had babies.
If a law was passed where males could opt out of responsibility, there should also be something included with the law that limits how much government assistance the mother would get.
So then people couldn't complain that she's driving up the taxes.
I think this is a genius idea. Under such a law, the woman would know what she's getting into, so she couldn't complain. If she knew the dad wouldn't pay and she wouldn't be able to get any more government assistance than what already exists, she would only have the baby if she was serious about it and if she had the money. And if she didn't have the money but she's opposed to abortion, there's always adoption.
If a woman doesn't want to deal with pregnancy, there's always abortion.
So? Do you really think that's easy either?
Quote:
Child support lasts for 18 years. This is a serious matter.
The whole point of this thread is how women have a way out if they don't want to pay for a baby but men don't.
Neither sex has a way out. A woman has to get an abortion. A man has to use effective birth control.
Quote:
As it is, men need to be wise about sex. The only foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is to stay celibate. But some men have sex anyway and are careful about birth control. But since birth control can fail, some of them still manage to get someone pregnant.
If a law was passed where men can get out of paying for a baby, I don't think it would cost the taxpayers much more money. I think women would just be wiser when it comes to sex. More women would use birth control. More women would stay celibate. If the woman knows she doesn't have the male to fall back on, she'll think twice before getting herself pregnant. And even if she gets pregnant, there's always abortion.
You're making the same stupid argument over and over again. Fundamentally you're demanding one standard for men and one for women.
In your opinion men should literally have no consequences for their poorly thought out reproductive decisions. They should suffer no physical, emotional, financial or moral consequences.
Meanwhile a woman should be on the hook in every way possible. She gets to be responsible for birth control, pregnancy, labor and delivery and the financial consequences of having children.
Quote:
If such a law was passed, the only women that had babies would be the women that truly want babies. And they would probably be able to afford a baby.
Because we all know that you can make a baby by yourself. Yeah. No man involved there at all.
Quote:
As it is, there are single mothers on welfare living off taxpayer dollars.
If such a law was passed, I think the increase in welfare would be minimal. I think it would mostly be responsible moms that had babies.
Those women are living off taxpayer dollars because the fathers of their children refuse to support them. Your alleged solution only compounds the problem by officially letting them off the hook.
Face it. Women have uteruses. If you don't like what we do with them then don't stick your body parts in there. It's really that simple.
If a woman doesn't want to deal with pregnancy, there's always abortion.
Child support lasts for 18 years. This is a serious matter.
The whole point of this thread is how women have a way out if they don't want to pay for a baby but men don't.
No, the whole point of this thread is how YOU dont want to pay for a baby, should you ever have the occasion to have sex.
As it is, men need to be wise about sex. The only foolproof way to prevent pregnancy is to stay celibate. But some men have sex anyway and are careful about birth control. But since birth control can fail, some of them still manage to get someone pregnant.
And they need to be held responsible for their actions.
If a law was passed where men can get out of paying for a baby, I don't think it would cost the taxpayers much more money. I think women would just be wiser when it comes to sex. More women would use birth control. More women would stay celibate. If the woman knows she doesn't have the male to fall back on, she'll think twice before getting herself pregnant. And even if she gets pregnant, there's always abortion.
Heres your problem, all you can say is "you think", you dont know anything for fact at all.
If such a law was passed, the only women that had babies would be the women that truly want babies. And they would probably be able to afford a baby.
This is the most clueless thing I have read on here in quite a while, and totally convinces me that your posts have no base in reality.
As it is, there are single mothers on welfare living off taxpayer dollars.
Because of deadbeat dads.
If such a law was passed, I think the increase in welfare would be minimal. I think it would mostly be responsible moms that had babies.
Even though I explained why taxes would not go up, here's a hypothetical question:
If you don't want to pay extra taxes to subsidize a single mother, can't you see why a man wouldn't want to pay child support he can't afford?
Also, taxes go toward schools. So if you don't have kids, you're paying for other people's kids schools. And parents get tax deductions. Let's face it...as it is, non-parents pay taxes that go toward other people's kids.
As for the current single mothers living on welfare...
Has it occurred to you that maybe the dads pay child support, but the dad's income is so low that the mom still qualified for welfare?
Even though I explained why taxes would not go up, here's a hypothetical question:
If you don't want to pay extra taxes to subsidize a single mother, can't you see why a man wouldn't want to pay child support he can't afford?
Once again, dont play if you dont wanna pay.
Also, taxes go toward schools. So if you don't have kids, you're paying for other people's kids schools. And parents get tax deductions. Let's face it...as it is, non-parents pay taxes that go toward other people's kids.
This is another deflection, education does the general population good. The more education one has, the more earning power, more taxes paid, surely cause and effect isnt that hard for you to understand?
One day, you will be glad that someone else was able to get an education on your dime.
As for the current single mothers living on welfare...
Has it occurred to you that maybe the dads pay child support, but the dad's income is so low that the mom still qualified for welfare?
They should have wrapped their willy, then.
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.
