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.
Any man worried about being saddled with child support after a night of unprotected sex should mind their sperm better. I bet 90 percent of men never use birth control. Men should be a bit more particular with who they sleep with make sure your partner wants same thing your concerns will be few
The same argument could be used about women and abortion - if women don't want to be pregnant, don't have unprotected sex!
Well, things happen. I think it's unfair for a man to be saddled with ~18 years of possible child support. A woman has plan B if she gets pregnant, a man should have some option as well.
The same argument could be used about women and abortion - if women don't want to be pregnant, don't have unprotected sex!
Well, things happen. I think it's unfair for a man to be saddled with ~18 years of possible child support. A woman has plan B if she gets pregnant, a man should have some option as well.
The difference is women who have abortions aren't necessarily complaining about having them, any more than they are complaining about having a baby. These are the choices, these are the possibilities a woman chooses when she has sex.
A man complaining about either option doesn't have a say in either matter, so it makes more sense for him to avoid the situation entirely if he feels that strongly about not being able to decide for a woman.
First of all, I am not discussing political or economic systems, so no idea why anarcho-capitalism entered the discussion.
Next, the insults are meaningless and kinda comical, coming from a statist who champions theft, rape and murder so long as its outsourced.
Finally, you don't answer the question. Why can't two people in a voluntary association figure out the terms of that association without external force applied by the government?
The question is one of state or no state, as you yourself admit, so anarcho-capitalism comes in to it. As does the posting history of the person who first asked the question, which provides the context to the question. And if you think anarcho-capitalists are short on insults towards people who disagree with them you're not even reading your own posts. You just accused me of supporting theft, rape and murder simply because I am not an anracho-capitalist, which any reasonable person would consider to be an insult. It was a thread started by one of your fellow travelers accusing people who believed in a limited state instead of anarchy of being cowards that helped me see the true nature of your ideology in the first place.
Men and women come to arrangements about these sorts of things without government dictates all the time, but they have to come to an agreement for that to happen. When there is disagreement, that's where the state unfortunately has to step in. The state is also the source of a lot of abuse in the system as well, and enables people to take advantage of each other. The lighter the hand of the state the better in my opinion but that doesn't mean there should be no state at all.
The difference is women who have abortions aren't necessarily complaining about having them, any more than they are complaining about having a baby. These are the choices, these are the possibilities a woman chooses when she has sex.
A man complaining about either option doesn't have a say in either matter, so it makes more sense for him to avoid the situation entirely if he feels that strongly about not being able to decide for a woman.
LOL single mothers complain about the situations they've put themselves in all the time. Maybe they should have been more careful in choosing their partners, yes?
Only if mothers have the same option to walk away and leave the child with the father. Good for the goose good for the gander type deal.
Essentially no. It takes two people to make a child, you don't get a free pass by just having a penis. If it's that unwanted, perhaps abortion is an option.
That fatherless child could also be put up for adoption. There are many infertile couples looking to adopt babies.
The problem is that there are women who try to trap men into commitment by getting pregnant on purpose. IMO in this day an age of reliable birth control AND our planet having too many humans on it, that the majority of pregnancies should be planned and wanted by BOTH partners. The woman should not be the one making the big decision on her own.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 25 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,220 posts, read 17,102,322 times
Reputation: 15539
Quote:
Originally Posted by mascoma
A financial abortion (also known as a paper abortion or a statutory abort) would essentially enable men to cut all financial and emotional ties with a child in the early stages of pregnancy.
This means he would opt out of all rights, privileges and responsibilities of parenthood in a binding and not reversible decision, similar to sperm donors.
Equality is a double edged sword, too often all you hear is "its my body its my choice" with the mother declaring an exclusive right to choose. Of course should she choose to carry to term most likely her first words will be "its your child, its your responsibility"....
Unplanned pregnancy occurs even when preventative methods are followed and both parties should have a say in the path chosen. Please don't give me the "don't do the deed..." garbage its takes 2 and legal choices are still available. Why should one person have the only say...
Historically, the biological differences between men and women have been a big part of why there were double standards regarding social acceptance of promiscuity between the two sexes. Women had the babies so women had an extra responsibility to guard the womb, so to speak. It was unfair, but as it has been pointed out in this thread, it's a physical reality. Now that any suggestion that women show any responsibility in their sexual habits is verboten it may be time to take a look at what a father's rights and responsibilities ought to be as well. Are we now going to put all of the responsibility on the male, and if so is that any more equitable than how it was in times past when most of the responsibility was put on the woman? If sexual equality is really a goal, instead of just flipping the script of gender inequality, we need to rethink expectations all around.
You know, why shouldn't we be putting all the responsibility of contraception on men?
Women don't get themselves pregnant. Our eggs are just sitting there minding their own business, until a bunch of sperm come along. Why shouldn't the owner of the sperm be responsible for where it ends up?
If I let my dog off leash and she runs into my neighbors yard and digs up her flowerbed, that's on me. I'm responsible for not controlling my dog. My neighbor isn't at fault for not putting up a fence or for having the flowers in the first place.
So let's hold men accountable for letting their sperm run around loose. If men don't take responsibility for properly diverting or restraining their sperm, they should be responsible for the outcome.
This is already a thing, we call them Deadbeat Dads.
I guess you like picking up the tab for other people's children. Imagine the increase in SNAP, cash assistance, Section 8 if this was implemented. You would let off every male who wanted to walk away from responsibility. Could I make 20 kids a year and not take responsibility for any? I would image the OP would not want to cover these children's needs as that would inevitably increase taxation.
This is the same problem with eliminating abortion and contraception. You exchange one problem for another instead of eliminating a problem all together. I have never seen a plan to house, feed, educate these additional children. Nor do these groups ever provide one or tell us how they plan to help with the extra mouths to feed. I guess we would bring the orphanages back.
The difference is women who have abortions aren't necessarily complaining about having them, any more than they are complaining about having a baby. These are the choices, these are the possibilities a woman chooses when she has sex.
A man complaining about either option doesn't have a say in either matter, so it makes more sense for him to avoid the situation entirely if he feels that strongly about not being able to decide for a woman.
Why should a man accept having fewer rights than a woman?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
This is already a thing, we call them Deadbeat Dads.
I guess you like picking up the tab for other people's children. Imagine the increase in SNAP, cash assistance, Section 8 if this was implemented. You would let off every male who wanted to walk away from responsibility. Could I make 20 kids a year and not take responsibility for any? I would image the OP would not want to cover these children's needs as that would inevitably increase taxation.
Those kids would probably not exist if men had the right to abortion.
LOL single mothers complain about the situations they've put themselves in all the time. Maybe they should have been more careful in choosing their partners, yes?
Sure, in that case.
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.
