Protection and choice (people, Canada, Toronto, legal)
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.
Pro-life women are innately bats*** and illogical but if she refuses to abort she can still 'choose to walk away' by giving it up for adoption.
So the woman still has choices after the fact. If she 'takes responsibility,' that's her business. Men should have choices too.
Your argument is basically the equivalent of "well, close your legs then." It's shaming and used to discredit valid points about equal rights.
Oh sweetie. I'm not pro-life, I'm pro-choice, I just keep it 100. Thanks for the ASSumption though, because I'm not hopping on the "men are victims train" I understand how you interpreted it that way. I've posted on this topic many times in the past and I've always been adamant that I'm pro-choice.
As for the adoption comment? A woman who carries a baby for nine months, may not want to go through the loss and regret that she may associate with giving a child up for adoption. Its not an easy decision to make either. She may want the baby now that it's inside of her, and find it too difficult to give the baby up because of the bond and love she feels for the baby growing inside of her. Now she will be shamed for the decision to keep the baby as a single mother. people will say she should have did what she morally could not(abort) that she is selfish for wanting to keep what she helped create(since she cant bring herself to give it up for adoption) and she will continuously be told that she should have kept her legs closed or made better decisions about who she slept with. Which is what men and many others tell these women all the time.
So then, isn't it equal to tell men that if they don't want to be faced with an outcome such as being "trapped" that they should not have sex, make better decisions about who they sleep with, or do a better job protecting themselves?
Btw there are already many men that do what you're proposing. These men figure out ways to go around the system to avoid paying child support, these same men also walk away and have no role parenting. I guess you could say that they think similar to you. My brother is one of them. He has not been to jail yet. I don't believe the government has caught him yet, or that his wages have been garnished. Maybe he will eventually get caught. Maybe not. Like you said though, there is already welfare out there, why make him pay for the kids he fathered solely because she made the decision to keep them after they had sex together. Let it be a burden on her and the rest of society since she wanted them and he did not, let him walk away and live his life... Oh wait, this already is an option many men take when they really don't give a **** and say "so what" just like you did.
The consequences of them walking away then falls on the mother that kept them(I guess she gets what she deserves since she wanted the baby) and it falls on society, and it also falls on the child. Child support is intended to benefit the innocent child who is completely dependent and did not ask to be brought into the world by idiotic parents, not to "punish" the undeserving man for 18 years.
And yep your last two lines are correct. I am actually being pretty intentional lol.... I am shaming the silly men that whine about this the same way these same men shame whiny single mothers. There is no law right now that supports what you think should happen... Yet, it already happens very often, hence the term deadbeat dad) and we already know the outcome(ya know all those sad statistics about kids with no fathers, welfare, section 8, single mom households) but I get that if this law were put in effect that it would make choice equal, it would make it even easier for more men to walk away, more women to be single mothers if they chose to keep it, more welfare, more abortions, more kids put in the system, and maybe one good thing that would result is more women being smarter since they know a man can walk away legally, and I guess men will be smarter too(oh wait... what would this teach them again???).
Sounds great...
Yet, nothing your advocating is new here. It's an argument that's been made over and over again and this law does not yet exist. Soooo... In efforts to keep it real, I'm trying to understand the usefulness in talking about something that should be a law but isn't, when there are actual legitimate ways to minimize cases of men being trapped. But I digress.
Oh sweetie. I'm not pro-life, I'm pro-choice, I just keep it 100. Thanks for the ASSumption though, because I'm not hopping on the "men are victims train" I understand how you interpreted it that way. I've posted on this topic many times in the past and I've always been adamant that I'm pro-choice.
As for the adoption comment? A woman who carries a baby for nine months, may not want to go through the loss and regret that she may associate with giving a child up for adoption. Its not an easy decision to make either. She may want the baby now that it's inside of her, and find it too difficult to give the baby up because of the bond and love she feels for the baby growing inside of her. Now she will be shamed for the decision to keep the baby as a single mother. people will say she should have did what she morally could not(abort) that she is selfish for wanting to keep what she helped create(since she cant bring herself to give it up for adoption) and she will continuously be told that she should have kept her legs closed or made better decisions about who she slept with. Which is what men and many others tell these women all the time.
So then, isn't it equal to tell men that if they don't want to be faced with an outcome such as being "trapped" that they should not have sex, make better decisions about who they sleep with, or do a better job protecting themselves?
Btw there are already many men that do what you're proposing. These men figure out ways to go around the system to avoid paying child support, these same men also walk away and have no role parenting. I guess you could say that they think similar to you. My brother is one of them. He has not been to jail yet. I don't believe the government has caught him yet, or that his wages have been garnished. Maybe he will eventually get caught. Maybe not. Like you said though, there is already welfare out there, why make him pay for the kids he fathered solely because she made the decision to keep them after they had sex together. Let it be a burden on her and the rest of society since she wanted them and he did not, let him walk away and live his life... Oh wait, this already is an option many men take when they really don't give a **** and say "so what" just like you did.
The consequences of them walking away then falls on the mother that kept them(I guess she gets what she deserves since she wanted the baby) and it falls on society, and it also falls on the child. Child support is intended to benefit the innocent child who is completely dependent and did not ask to be brought into the world by idiotic parents, not to "punish" the undeserving man for 18 years.
And yep your last two lines are correct. I am actually being pretty intentional lol.... I am shaming the silly men that whine about this the same way these same men shame whiny single mothers. There is no law right now that supports what you think should happen... Yet, it already happens very often, hence the term deadbeat dad) and we already know the outcome(ya know all those sad statistics about kids with no fathers, welfare, section 8, single mom households) but I get that if this law were put in effect that it would make choice equal, it would make it even easier for more men to walk away, more women to be single mothers if they chose to keep it, more welfare, more abortions, more kids put in the system, and maybe one good thing that would result is more women being smarter since they know a man can walk away legally, and I guess men will be smarter too(oh wait... what would this teach them again???).
Sounds great...
Yet, nothing your advocating is new here. It's an argument that's been made over and over again and this law does not yet exist. Soooo... In efforts to keep it real, I'm trying to understand the usefulness in talking about something that should be a law but isn't, when there are actual legitimate ways to minimize cases of men being trapped. But I digress.
Good night.
Just curious: was your brother married to your ex or no? It seems to me that a lot of women could avoid situations like the one you're describing if they simply adhered to the principles of 'no wedding, no womb.'
In my personal life, my own mother was married to a total turd, and she knew he was a total turd, that's why she filed for divorce while pregnant. She chose to have me anyway, and that was her decision and her business. Yes, he was evasive about child support and would pay only sporadically, but it was a moot point by the time I was 3 since she had already found a good man and father figure to replace him with and the guy was financially helping out. She knew what she was getting into, and so I don't have much sympathy for her in that regard. I also have zero sympathy for the biological father that he eventually snapped that my stepdad allegedly 'stole his family.' Adults make their own decisions and they live with the consequences.
If you ask me, the decision to have children in anything less than ideal circumstances or children that you cannot afford unambiguously is inherently selfish so it's rather silly for these same selfish people to retroactively argue about 'the good of the child' when these stupid people had no business breeding in the first place. NOT having children should be the default position, not the other way around. You are not entitled to bring life into this world just because you want to when you're not in a stable relationship and can't afford it. I can tell you that such a law would teach women something very valuable; don't breed children you cannot afford.
And this is strictly about unwanted children and child support payments, not intended children, so I don't follow the overall purpose of your rant.
Last edited by torontocheeka; 03-22-2016 at 05:12 AM..
Just curious: was your brother married to your ex or no? It seems to me that a lot of women could avoid situations like the one you're describing if they simply adhered to the principles of 'no wedding, no womb.'
In my personal life, my own mother was married to a total turd, and she knew he was a total turd, that's why she filed for divorce while pregnant. She chose to have me anyway, and that was her decision and her business. Yes, he was evasive about child support and would pay only sporadically, but it was a moot point by the time I was 3 since she had already found a good man and father figure to replace him with and the guy was financially helping out. She knew what she was getting into, and so I don't have much sympathy for her in that regard. I also have zero sympathy for the biological father that he eventually snapped that my stepdad allegedly 'stole his family.' Adults make their own decisions and they live with the consequences.
If you ask me, the decision to have children in anything less than ideal circumstances or children that you cannot afford unambiguously is inherently selfish so it's rather silly for these same selfish people to retroactively argue about 'the good of the child' when these stupid people had no business breeding in the first place. NOT having children should be the default position, not the other way around. You are not entitled to bring life into this world just because you want to when you're not in a stable relationship and can't afford it. I can tell you that such a law would teach women something very valuable; don't breed children you cannot afford.
And this is strictly about unwanted children and child support payments, not intended children, so I don't follow the overall purpose of your rant.
I agree with your middle paragraphs--it's selfish for woman to have a child in a less than ideal situation and then argue for the best of the child. She should have not had that baby and made better choices. So then it follows that the same argument can be applied to the men who feel as though they were trapped. Had they made better decisions they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It takes two to tango, feel me? And yes what trips me out is on one hand you say shaming is wrong and yet you yourself just made a statement essentially meant to "shame" women--(i.e. This will teach the women to make better decisions about the men they sleep with") well duh! This already the current argument men use when they shame mothers.
It's also one of many reasons why some men propose this under the guise of equality, because they really want to shame the women that became single mothers because they slept with poor quality men that had no problem walking away. The other part of this argument is that it lets the men off the "hook" without being shamed for walking way. It places less responsibility on the men, more on the women(which btw is often what people already point out--that the wh*** that don't shut their legs must deal with the consequences).
Of course people will argue that a woman has more responsibility since she carries the life, but then these same people will talk about equal opportunity and fairness-knowing that the whole time they are doing more scrutinizing of the women then they are the men(like you have btw).
Me? I think men that walk away are deadbeat p**** but whether this law is put into place or not, there are many men that already do this and will continue to, and they still aren't shamed the same way that the women they left are. I think the women who knowingly have babies in a less than ideal situations and choose to keep the babies must deal with these consequences because it was their decision to keep the baby knowing what it was.
I have no sympathy for them either. I actually have no sympathy for the mother or the father in either scenario, only the child. Because it is the child that suffers. And men that walk away place more burden on society than women who choose to abort. But I guess to many these options are equal.
I believe both parties should do what is necessary to prevent this from happening in the first place. Men and women have equal responsibilities in this--and in 2016 it's easy to avoid pregnancy which is why I have no problem shaming both groups equally for their role in the undesirable outcome. both need to be smart and that starts with debunking the silly idea that a lot of man get trapped--when we all know this is simply not true. They know what to do.
As for my rant the reason I made it is because you continued to harp about how a man should not have to have his wages garnished for 18 years--this was your argument my dear and obviously these payments are for the child once the child is here, or are they not? Why else did you keep bringing it up? Child support(wages being taken) happens once the baby is here not before and certainly not if a man does what he can to not get the woman pregnant which has been the point I've maintained in this thread.
So if you didn't want to go there and talk about what happens once its here, don't start talking about what a man should be able to do once it's all said and done. Let's stick to the topic of how a man gets "trapped" in 2016(which btw is what Ive focused on and you seem to not want to really talk about it--only what should or should not be done once the pregnancy takes place). Now I did say to you when you first brought up the argument, that "we should not get into this discussion about abortion vs child support vs walking away" and you brought it up again so I spoke to it, lol!!!
Now perhaps I should have elaborated but I thought you understood what I meant about not wanting to get into that discussion in the first place. But just so we are clear, is your argument focused on what happens once the baby is made and the consequences of this and how unfair it is, or are we talking about how one gets trapped in the first place?
Or perhaps the two go hand in hand--because every action has a reaction.
Hmmm...
I don't feel you on this and disagree with you on your stance that man shouldn't do what they can to ensure that they don't get a woman pregnant. In fact, just like you want woman to make better decisions to ensure that they don't become single mothers I believe men need to make better decisions so they don't get trapped. See? It's circular. I'm not going to agree with you on this because I believe that both groups need to be smarter and more preventative.
I agree with your middle paragraphs--it's selfish for woman to have a child in a less than ideal situation and then argue for the best of the child. She should have not had that baby and made better choices. So then it follows that the same argument can be applied to the men who feel as though they were trapped. Had they made better decisions they wouldn't be in the situation they are in. It takes two to tango, feel me? And yes what trips me out is on one hand you say shaming is wrong and yet you yourself just made a statement essentially meant to "shame" women--(i.e. This will teach the women to make better decisions about the men they sleep with") well duh! This already the current argument men use when they shame mothers.
It's also one of many reasons why some men propose this under the guise of equality, because they really want to shame the women that became single mothers because they slept with poor quality men that had no problem walking away. The other part of this argument is that it lets the men off the "hook" without being shamed for walking way. It places less responsibility on the men, more on the women(which btw is often what people already point out--that the wh*** that don't shut their legs must deal with the consequences).
Of course people will argue that a woman has more responsibility since she carries the life, but then these same people will talk about equal opportunity and fairness-knowing that the whole time they are doing more scrutinizing of the women then they are the men(like you have btw).
Me? I think men that walk away are deadbeat p**** but whether this law is put into place or not, there are many men that already do this and will continue to, and they still aren't shamed the same way that the women they left are. I think the women who knowingly have babies in a less than ideal situations and choose to keep the babies must deal with these consequences because it was their decision to keep the baby knowing what it was.
I have no sympathy for them either. I actually have no sympathy for the mother or the father in either scenario, only the child. Because it is the child that suffers. And men that walk away place more burden on society than women who choose to abort. But I guess to many these options are equal.
I believe both parties should do what is necessary to prevent this from happening in the first place. Men and women have equal responsibilities in this--and in 2016 it's easy to avoid pregnancy which is why I have no problem shaming both groups equally for their role in the undesirable outcome. both need to be smart and that starts with debunking the silly idea that a lot of man get trapped--when we all know this is simply not true. They know what to do.
As for my rant the reason I made it is because you continued to harp about how a man should not have to have his wages garnished for 18 years--this was your argument my dear and obviously these payments are for the child once the child is here, or are they not? Why else did you keep bringing it up? Child support(wages being taken) happens once the baby is here not before and certainly not if a man does what he can to not get the woman pregnant which has been the point I've maintained in this thread.
So if you didn't want to go there and talk about what happens once its here, don't start talking about what a man should be able to do once it's all said and done. Let's stick to the topic of how a man gets "trapped" in 2016(which btw is what Ive focused on and you seem to not want to really talk about it--only what should or should not be done once the pregnancy takes place). Now I did say to you when you first brought up the argument, that "we should not get into this discussion about abortion vs child support vs walking away" and you brought it up again so I spoke to it, lol!!!
Now perhaps I should have elaborated but I thought you understood what I meant about not wanting to get into that discussion in the first place. But just so we are clear, is your argument focused on what happens once the baby is made and the consequences of this and how unfair it is, or are we talking about how one gets trapped in the first place?
Or perhaps the two go hand in hand--because every action has a reaction.
Hmmm...
I don't feel you on this and disagree with you on your stance that man shouldn't do what they can to ensure that they don't get a woman pregnant. In fact, just like you want woman to make better decisions to ensure that they don't become single mothers I believe men need to make better decisions so they don't get trapped. See? It's circular. I'm not going to agree with you on this because I believe that both groups need to be smarter and more preventative.
I agree that the whole "trapped" thing is for the most part, hogwash, and that men who don't want a kid with a given woman knows what to do (even if she says she on birth control, still wear protection at all times). That being said, the crux of my issue as far as "protection and choice" goes is that I don't believe that genetics alone should be the determinant for whether a man pays child support. I believe it should be based on whether a man takes responsibility for the child in question (in which case, he should have to pay child support, but should also be granted rights of visitation or joint custody). I posted this in another forum and I'll just repost it here:
Quote:
Yes, the genetics shouldn't matter. Children born within wedlock to husbands who identify themselves as the father on the birth certificate are seen as being that man's children, even if DNA evidence comes to light later that proves otherwise. He is still on the hook for child support even if he was not the biological father and his wife cheated on him. Where is the genetic argument then?
In my case, I was raised by my stepfather. He is my dad, and that is what I call him. If after 10 years of raising me, he had split with my mom (rather than when I was 18, which is what actually happened), I don't believe he should have been able to - nor would have - just walk away from the situation like I never happened. Genetics should not be the determining factor. If the man denied any payment for the child from day 1, then he should also not be entitled to any involvement in that child's life (which is what happened with my biological father. He wanted to see me still despite not paying any child support. Nope). Right now we have some situations where women are literally showing up with a 5-year-old that a man didn't even know existed and demanding child support. The law shouldn't be enabling that to happen.
Where I live, women have paid maternity leave, baby bonuses, AND welfare (and the stipends are higher for single moms than non-mothers) that they can take advantage of. They don't need money from a random sperm donor too. Just my opinion.
Location: "Silicon Valley" (part of San Francisco Bay Area, California, USA)
4,375 posts, read 4,047,794 times
Reputation: 2157
I'm pro choice and also in favor of growing the human population. Assuming that we use green technology, dense cities, etc. Note that the developed world needs higher populatiom growth; many countries in Europe are close to negative growth. Japan is even closer to that point. The devoping world is the part that is having problems with too many people, but more because of their lack of technological development.
Torontocheeka is being sonewhat misleading in this thread by not pointing out that her true agenda is for the human race to become extinct. Antinatalism is NOT the same as being in favor of the right to have an abortion if the woman wishes to have one.
I agree that the whole "trapped" thing is for the most part, hogwash, and that men who don't want a kid with a given woman knows what to do (even if she says she on birth control, still wear protection at all times). That being said, the crux of my issue as far as "protection and choice" goes is that I don't believe that genetics alone should be the determinant for whether a man pays child support. I believe it should be based on whether a man takes responsibility for the child in question (in which case, he should have to pay child support, but should also be granted rights of visitation or joint custody). I posted this in another forum and I'll just repost it here:
In my case, I was raised by my stepfather. He is my dad, and that is what I call him. If after 10 years of raising me, he had split with my mom (rather than when I was 18, which is what actually happened), I don't believe he should have been able to - nor would have - just walk away from the situation like I never happened. Genetics should not be the determining factor. If the man denied any payment for the child from day 1, then he should also not be entitled to any involvement in that child's life (which is what happened with my biological father. He wanted to see me still despite not paying any child support. Nope). Right now we have some situations where women are literally showing up with a 5-year-old that a man didn't even know existed and demanding child support. The law shouldn't be enabling that to happen.
Where I live, women have paid maternity leave, baby bonuses, AND welfare (and the stipends are higher for single moms than non-mothers) that they can take advantage of. They don't need money from a random sperm donor too. Just my opinion.
You must not live in the USA? Only some women-depending on where they work-get paid maternity leave in this country. A lot get unpaid maternity leave. I'm not sure what you mean by baby bonuses??? But yes a lot of single moms who don't get child support, usually, are the ones that qualify for welfare. For instance im a single mother, and I make way too much to ever get welfare, and I also get child support. However there are many single mothers that do not get child support because the men walked away, and this is why many end up having to get welfare in the first place. This is also one of the reasons tax payers dislike single mothers that get pregnant by deadbeats-because since the deadbeats don't pay child support the tax payers are on the hook for a child that they did not even help create.
As for your argument I understand it-I just believe that the whole situation can be prevented which then negates any parental or financial responsibility on the man's part, and that this should be the focus. Men that don't want to pay for 18 years without legal ramifications if they get caught should make better decisions and protect themselves.
I'm pro choice and also in favor of growing the human population. Assuming that we use green technology, dense cities, etc. Note that the developed world needs higher populatiom growth; many countries in Europe are close to negative growth. Japan is even closer to that point. The devoping world is the part that is having problems with too many people, but more because of their lack of technological development.
Torontocheeka is being sonewhat misleading in this thread by not pointing out that her true agenda is for the human race to become extinct. Antinatalism is NOT the same as being in favor of the right to have an abortion if the woman wishes to have one.
Ok, first of all, you're full of crap and have already been called out for your lies in that regard on another thread which you were too much of a ball-less coward to come back and address.
Second of all, believing that children should be born in only the best circumstances and actually be wanted is NOT the same thing as "wanting the human race to go extinct" and it takes a special level of stupidity to even make such a drastic leap in logic. You yourself only care about "growing the population" of developed countries and do not give a damn if those children are born to single parents (which means less supervision, which is ultimately what leads to the poorer outcomes), as well as knowing that one of their parents would rather they not exist and wants nothing to do with them. Do not make claims about others that you cannot prove or support with quotes. You are a bold-faced liar. You've already been proven as a liar when you said that you think all childless-by-choice people were evil, and then backtracked later and said that's not what you meant. Of course it's what you meant, those were your exact words you hateful basturd. You want children but you don't have them because no woman would ever tolerate a man of such poor character. That's a fact.
Last edited by torontocheeka; 03-22-2016 at 10:59 AM..
You must not live in the USA? Only some women-depending on where they work-get paid maternity leave in this country. A lot get unpaid maternity leave. I'm not sure what you mean by baby bonuses??? But yes a lot of single moms who don't get child support, usually, are the ones that qualify for welfare. For instance im a single mother, and I make way too much to ever get welfare, and I also get child support. However there are many single mothers that do not get child support because the men walked away, and this is why many end up having to get welfare in the first place. This is also one of the reasons tax payers dislike single mothers that get pregnant by deadbeats-because since the deadbeats don't pay child support the tax payers are on the hook for a child that they did not even help create.
As for your argument I understand it-I just believe that the whole situation can be prevented which then negates any parental or financial responsibility on the man's part, and that this should be the focus. Men that don't want to pay for 18 years without legal ramifications if they get caught should make better decisions and protect themselves.
In Canada where I live all women receive monthly baby bonuses from the government for 18 years, as well as 1 year paid maternity leave which is a portion of their income. It's also illegal to fire a woman for taking advantage of mat leave, so temps usually take 1-year contracts in their place.
In Canada where I live all women receive baby bonuses from the government for 18 years, as well as 1 year paid maternity leave which is a portion of their income. It's also illegal to fire a woman for taking advantage of mat leave, so temps usually take 1-year contracts in their place.
D***. Well that is not at all how it is in the USA. Not at all... In fact that is one of the reasons that poster low on luck often laments about-because at one point she was struggling and could not get child support or much help besides a small amount of food stamps. Single mothers in USA who are in poverty and don't get child support are the only ones that qualify for welfare. Those that are just making it don't get welfare(even if the man doesn't pay child support). They certainly don't get a paid year of maternity leave. It's an unfortunate system that rarely provides great bonuses for the women in question the way your system in Canada does. In fact as I said before part of the reason that many single moms qualify for it in our country in the first place is because the man did what you propose and walked away without helping raise the baby or paying support.
This is why I say that your proposal would place even more burden on tax payers, just to let the men off the hook, and to allow the women to keep the babies without being in a horrid state of poverty. Frankly I think the goal should be to reduce pregnancies from taking place by making both sides responsible for being more preventative. Once the pregnancy happens that's when things tend to get complicated, but before it happens things are a bit more simplistic: protection and talking with the partner you get intimate with.
Your link said the reasons are that U.S. clinical trials would be very expensive, since they'd have to be completely replicated domestically, and major pharmaceutical companies aren't that interested. The injection would be relatively inexpensive for consumers (less than an IUD) and Big Pharma wants people to buy drugs they have to take over and over for a long time. There's a lot more profit in the Pill. It's capitalism, not politics.
Unless a woman is in a committed, monogamous relationship or marriage, she'd have to be an idiot to trust a man who says, "Don't worry, baby, I got the shot."
Because women are the ones who end up pregnant, if they don't want to get pregnant, they'll need to ensure it doesn't happen for themselves. I would never in a million years leave my reproductive fate in a man's hands.
As for men, if a man is that much against getting a woman pregnant, he needs to buy his own condoms that he keeps with him, and puts on himself, AND he should insist that his partner use a spermicide. The legal fact of the matter is that a man's choices end once a woman is pregnant. And if he knows he never wants to be a father, he needs to get a vasectomy.
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.
