Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2016, 07:43 AM
 
799 posts, read 704,177 times
Reputation: 904

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
What is wrong with it?


I'll tell you......why should taxpayers have to pick up the tab when they were not involved in the conception of the child?


If not for the father, there would be no child, HIS actions helped cause the child, therefore, his responsibility comes before that of the taxpayers.


The mother and father are equally responsible for financially caring for their offspring, they should be forced to support the child before innocent taxpayers are dragged into it.


As a taxpayer, how do YOU feel about being forced to support some other man's child just because he doesn't want to?


Don't the men who make this argument realize they are asking for higher taxes to pay for other men's children?
I don't see anything in the OP suggesting that taxpayers pay for anything. The OP just points out the inequity of the fact that a female can choose a legal abortion without the consent/against the wishes of the impregnating male. And on the other side of the coin, can disregard this legal option against the wishes of the impregnating male, and the OP suggests there should be an equal option for the male that would allow him to have the equivalent of a legal "abortion" of parental rights/responsibilities. How does that mean the taxpayer supports the child? LOTS of single moms raise kids without government assistance each and every day.

This concept is sound, and given the desire for "equal rights", should be incorporated into U.S. society. It has NOTHING to do with the biological fact that women have wombs or not. It has nothing to do with who made a good choice or not. It has everything to do with leveling the playing field for the two individuals involved in this situation, and takes life altering power away from one person over another. And it comes at a great price..giving up parental rights is not, and should not be, an easy decision either. That would just be simply another factor the female needs to consider when she's making the decision of what to do with her body, be it who to sleep with, or what to do in the aftermath.

It's really interesting how people claim they want "equality", but want to pick and choose which parts are "equal", and which parts they maintain control of others over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2016, 08:37 AM
 
4,963 posts, read 5,215,560 times
Reputation: 15711
I'm pro-life and believe people would be better off from abstaining from sex in situations where there isn't a long term relationship or marriage. The laws go against what I believe. The reality is that our society is instant gratification based and people want what they want and damn the consequences. Us taxpayers end up helping to fund many of these children, I still think guys should have more choices.

Maybe a solution to help eliminate the confusion of what is rape and who wants to have a baby and who doesn't, then maybe we need to go to a contract based system for sex. Everything that is acceptable and not acceptable is agreed upon and signed off in advance. If the woman gets pregnant and the father doesn't want a baby, then he can state that in his contract. The male has an out. He has no choice if the woman decides to have an abortion. He has a choice to terminate all parental rights and responsibilities if the woman decides to have the baby. The female and her family would have full responsibility to financially and physically raise the child. If they were unable to meet that responsibility, then the baby would be placed for adoption. The female can choose to have sex or not based on the contract.

If we quit rewarding people for poor choices, then maybe they will make better ones. I think men do need to be responsible for their children. It's gotten so crazy that the men can be trapped and manipulated by the women. I suspect if the women would know up front that the full responsibility of that child would be theirs, they'd think long and hard about how bad they want to make a baby at that time. If you push the financial responsibility back on the woman's family like our society used to do, we wouldn't have potential grandparents out encouraging kids to have random sex or become young parents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 08:45 AM
 
Location: North Texas
24,561 posts, read 40,096,521 times
Reputation: 28547
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowtreatments View Post
OK, you're a guy with a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She decides she's going to abort the child. You say no. But you have no right to that child no matter how you want it. She has the abortion. Case closed.

Well, new scenario.

You're a guy and a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She wants to keep the child, you don't. She's going to have it no matter what you want and you are forced to an obligation of 18 years to support this child at the minimum - monetarily.

What if you could abort the child legally? She still gets to have the child, only you are now legally disconnected from the obligation. This would come at a price of no rights of visitation also.

So what's wrong with it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-group-says/
Nothing, if you don't mind welfare rolls blowing up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 08:55 AM
 
11,409 posts, read 7,728,103 times
Reputation: 21908
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Then you need to pass a law that doctors cannot refuse to sterilize anyone who is 18 or over.

I'm good with that. I actually don't know why any doctor would refuse. I know most require a pre-surgical appointment to ascertain the person is in their right mind. As long as the patient signs a waiver of liability, I think they should get the surgery they want.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 09:22 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
5,287 posts, read 5,740,374 times
Reputation: 4469
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoveMysterious View Post
Men should never have a say in abortion until they're able to give birth. Until then, there's nothing they need to say about it, really.
Which is funny, since most women seem to have pretty strong opinions on issues like circumcision or vasectomies, even though they have no penis.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 09:51 AM
 
35,939 posts, read 30,482,961 times
Reputation: 32209
Quote:
Originally Posted by windowtreatments View Post
OK, you're a guy with a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She decides she's going to abort the child. You say no. But you have no right to that child no matter how you want it. She has the abortion. Case closed.

Well, new scenario.

You're a guy and a gal. Mistakenly you impregnate her. She wants to keep the child, you don't. She's going to have it no matter what you want and you are forced to an obligation of 18 years to support this child at the minimum - monetarily.

What if you could abort the child legally? She still gets to have the child, only you are now legally disconnected from the obligation. This would come at a price of no rights of visitation also.

So what's wrong with it?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...al-group-says/
And how is no rights, no visitation going to be enforced? And how would that be in the best interest of the child?
You do know that is the system we once had, fathers not being liable for their bastard offspring. It became quite embarrassing to society with the rampant poverty, infanticide and baby farming as well the stigma attached to the illegitimate children. Then as the church and government became weary of providing financial help to these mothers someone got the idea that hey why aren't the fathers supporting their own bastards.

I see opportunity for a common hypothetical scenario. Couple gets prego., dad files for legal abortion, couple remains living as couple but now eligible for government assistance, ching, ching. It happens already to some extent, this would just make it easier.

Also relieving men of all consequences of unwanted pregnancy, well relives them of any obligation for responsibility of birth control. Why do they care if she is protected, why bother with a condom. If she gets knocked up he is not on the hook.

What of married couples or those in LTRs. When my sis became preg. with her third her husband wanted her to abort. She wouldn't. How would this affect a husbands responsibility for his child in this situation?

The CS system is not perfect and could use some reform but still is the best we have got overall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 09:54 AM
 
35,939 posts, read 30,482,961 times
Reputation: 32209
Quote:
Originally Posted by Retroit View Post
Sounds like a double-standard. A woman can choose to have sex the day she got pregnant (except for rape) and every day thereafter until giving birth. The man only get's one day.
.

She can't get anymore pregnant. Why cant they continue to have sex with each other until the birth?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 09:59 AM
 
15,692 posts, read 20,203,443 times
Reputation: 20859
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007 View Post
Also, FWIW, I always suggest to men, who are not married to their children's mother to go file for joint custody of the child. That way, they don't have to pay for child support.

You'd be surprised at how many men scoff at that idea. They don't want to take care of the child for 24 hours a day for 3-4 days per week and do all that one needs to do to raise the child. Those guys are the primary ones who b***tch about child support.



Joint custody doesn't always mean no child support, especially if there is still a large difference in incomes.




But 100% agree with your second point. The guys who complain the most about CS would probably scoff at the idea of taking care of a child 24-7 for 25 days out of the month or so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:03 AM
 
15,692 posts, read 20,203,443 times
Reputation: 20859
Quote:
Originally Posted by boneyard1962 View Post
Not true. It maybe the case for some, but not all or even most. Part of a divorce in my state is a trip to domestic relations, unless the parent with custody declines. Lawyers push it hard because it means more billing hours.
I know all dads are bad and all moms are good.

Not to mention states get matching federal dollars on CS they negotiate between parents, so it's in their financial interest. It may benefit the child ultimately, but the courts and states are getting their piece of the pie as well.




But so the stigma exists that anyone "put on child support" is a deadbeat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2016, 10:38 AM
 
Location: Los Angeles
783 posts, read 687,566 times
Reputation: 961
Quote:
Originally Posted by Annie53 View Post
Nothing hypocritical about it.


Men do not have to suffer the ordeal of pregnancy.


What should we do to men to equalize the suffering? Hmmm?


If we are going to make everything even-Steven, then we must do something to make men suffer the same as women do, right? Perhaps implant some sort of torture device in men for the duration of the woman's pregnancy. Something that can duplicate the discomfort and pain involved during every stage of pregnancy. Of course, that would include the pain of giving birth......then we turn the dial up to MAXIMUM PAIN! Sounds good to me! {Oh and, if the woman dies during childbirth, the man is going to have to die too.} After all, we have to keep this FAIR.


Women have to suffer the risks and pain of pregnancy so they get to make the abortion decision.....that is fair.


After the child is born, both parents are equally responsible for the welfare of the child......that is fair. The non-custodial parent, man or woman, pays the custodial parent, man or woman, child support.
Your argument doesn't make sense. A woman has the right to choose whether or not she herself will bear the consequences of her actions not others. She can take responsibility. If she has issue with childbirth that's a problem between her and nature or evolution or whatever you want to call it. Should the man skirt his duty then that is his decision.

Childbirth is the decision of the mother to even allow it to happen. She doesn't have the right to force others to go along with her decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top