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.
Is it just me or does some of your argument read like "A Modest Proposal?" Of course, why would we have the illegitimate parents be responsible for any of their actions? Let's just make everyone get castrated, or if a woman gets raped, let her or the state foot the bill! I hope this argument was written in jest.
What about safe harbor laws where a woman can just drop her newborn at any church or fire-station? Or if she doesn't know for sure who the father is (and there is no eager contender asking for a paternity test) - can't she give it up for adoption then?
Even in those cases (which are ridiculously rare, BTW), an effort is made to find the birth mother, father, and their families.
They could but not many people truly like condoms and they do sometimes tear easily even if put on and used properly. I know that from personal experience.
Not a lot of women like taking hormonal birth control either. In fact, some can't. And they don't work 100% of the time either. Suck it up or deal with the consequences.
I guess that you're never heard of vasectomy failure, eh? Indeed, injuring a person's body in a non-drastic manner in order to make this person sterile sometimes fails due to the fact that the body sometimes heals itself afterwards.
You do realize that vasectomies are one of, if not the most, effective forms of birth control available, right? Assuming to do the follow-ups to make sure there are no swimmers left.
You do realize that vasectomies are one of, if not the most, effective forms of birth control available, right? Assuming to do the follow-ups to make sure there are no swimmers left.
That simply indicates that all of the current non-drastic birth control methods that we have are rather shiitty, though. After all, please read about the law of truly large numbers:
Yes, if used correctly and in conjunction with one another there will not be an unplanned pregnancy. I was very clear in my answer. Use a (1st method)female or male condom, (2nd method) spermacidal jelly, (3rd method) sponge/BC pill/ diaphragm, (4th method) knowing the females cycle, (5th method) reduce your fertility through hot baths and tight undergarments. combine them. The reason they individually don't work 100% when used alone is user error or compromised efficacy due to outside influences.
Can't all of these methods' effectiveness simultaneously be affected by user error and/or be compromised by outside influences, though?
Also, some of these either involve abstinence from penis-in-vagina sex (such as the cycle part) or strict maintenance (such as the hot baths and tight undergarments part), both of which are utterly unacceptable for me!
Quote:
Think about how many high school and college students are sexually active. They certainly were at my school. I graduated with over 500 peers, and there was ONE pregnancy. I guarantee that girl was not the only sexually active teen. That's the most fertile time in any woman's life. The teens who are getting pregnant are not using birth control or using it effectively.
Yes, and your point here? After all, even if there was 1 in 1 million odds of an unplanned pregnancy, I myself should just as easily be that 1 in 1 million as anyone else can!
Quote:
Removing your reproductive organs is your choice. I am sure you could get it done tomorrow if you go to Mexico. They have lots of medical tourism down there, so you might want to look into that.
Frankly, I strongly prefer to get surgically castrated here in the U.S., especially here in California.
Not a lot of women like taking hormonal birth control either. In fact, some can't. And they don't work 100% of the time either. Suck it up or deal with the consequences.
There are also IUDs, though.
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.
Indeed, injuring a person's body in a non-drastic manner in order to make this person sterile sometimes fails due to the fact that the body sometimes heals itself afterwards. 
