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.
And THAT'S what makes you so angry. THAT'S what this whole thread is about. How "unfair" that is to men like you.
Actually, No; rather, that's the purpose of me getting surgically castrated (after all, having greater equality is certainly a great thing!). However, I am using a different argument to justify forcing male-bodied people to pay child support.
Quote:
If you have Internet access, you are undoubtedly more well off than many people who manage to support their children. There are people all over this world who manage to do it. That you have some phobia about dealing with the consequences of your actions (having sex) is your problem.
Causing someone to exist is a gift rather than a harm, though.
Quote:
This is all about how you resent having to be responsible for the consequences of having sex. A lot of red pillers and MRAs have the same lament. Yawn.
And forcing me to pay child support to a poor kid after I will donate a kidney to this poor kid isn't forcing me to be responsible for the consequences of extending/prolonging this poor kid's life and existence (by donating my kidney to this poor kid)?
Actually, No; rather, that's the purpose of me getting surgically castrated (after all, having greater equality is certainly a great thing!). However, I am using a different argument to justify forcing male-bodied people to pay child support.
But you're angry about it. You're angry that "male bodied" people are FORCED to pay child support. Just the men. Yep, a similar complaint of the Red Pillers and MRAs.
Quote:
Causing someone to exist is a gift rather than a harm, though.
Yes, but you act like it is harm. You deeply resent having to support a life you helped create.
Quote:
And forcing me to pay child support to a poor kid after I will donate a kidney to this poor kid isn't forcing me to be responsible for the consequences of extending/prolonging this poor kid's life and existence (by donating my kidney to this poor kid)?
Hey, if that's how it all worked, then everybody would be supporting everyone else. Anytime a person "saved" someone else's life, they'd be responsible for supporting them. So you might be supporting the lives you saved, but in turn others would be supporting you, because they saved your life. Each time you didn't hit someone in traffic, you "saved" their life. Each time they didn't hit you, they "saved" yours. Each time a doctor saved a life, they must support them. Every soldier would be supporting every civilian they saved. It would go on and on endlessly. At least, if we use your convoluted logic!
Again all I can say is that you share the same mindset as the Red Pillers and the MRAs. It's quite obvious. Women "get" themselves pregnant, and it's a terrible injustice that men can't be freed of the responsibility of helping support the life they helped create. Cry me a river!
But you're angry about it. You're angry that "male bodied" people are FORCED to pay child support. Just the men. Yep, a similar complaint of the Red Pillers and MRAs.
Actually, I am likewise angry about this for female-bodied people who have no access to safe abortion.
Quote:
Yes, but you act like it is harm. You deeply resent having to support a life you helped create.
Stripping someone of his or her money is a harm, though.
Quote:
Hey, if that's how it all worked, then everybody would be supporting everyone else. Anytime a person "saved" someone else's life, they'd be responsible for supporting them. So you might be supporting the lives you saved, but in turn others would be supporting you, because they saved your life. Each time you didn't hit someone in traffic, you "saved" their life. Each time they didn't hit you, they "saved" yours. Each time a doctor saved a life, they must support them. Every soldier would be supporting every civilian they saved. It would go on and on endlessly. At least, if we use your convoluted logic!
Again all I can say is that you share the same mindset as the Red Pillers and the MRAs. It's quite obvious. Women "get" themselves pregnant, and it's a terrible injustice that men can't be freed of the responsibility of helping support the life they helped create. Cry me a river!
You appear to be clueless about the principle of causation. After all, there is certainly a difference between refusing to end someone's life and extending someone's life, just like there is certainly a different between ending someone's life and refusing to save someone's life. Indeed, by your own logic, refusing to save someone's life (by refusing to donate your kidney to this person) is just as bad as murdering someone.
Actually, I am likewise angry about this for female-bodied people who have no access to safe abortion.
But I get the strong feeling that it is not your main complaint; which is, men are "forced" to be responsible for their offspring.
Quote:
Stripping someone of his or her money is a harm, though.
Right. And when my credit card company goes after me for not living up to my obligations to pay back my debt, they are "harming" me. And when my car is repossessed because I refused to pay, I am being "harmed." Sure. Right.
Quote:
You appear to be clueless about the principle of causation. After all, there is certainly a difference between refusing to end someone's life and extending someone's life, just like there is certainly a different between ending someone's life and refusing to save someone's life. Indeed, by your own logic, refusing to save someone's life (by refusing to donate your kidney to this person) is just as bad as murdering someone.
And there's a difference between making choices that result in the creation a life that is dependent upon support, and helping someone else who already exists. You seem to resent that the act of sex cannot be distanced from the consequences. You want to be absolved of any responsibility when you engage in a voluntary act which can impregnate a woman. You somehow think that some nebulous "other" should support this life, instead of yourself, it seems.
Cry me a river, go complain to your MRA and Red Pill brethren!
OP, if you don't want to be in the position of having to pay child support, a) make sure she uses bc, and b) make sure you use it, too. This isn't' rocket science.
OR: abstain until you're with someone you actually want to have a child with. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.
BTW, castration is when they cut yours off, which affects your hormonal level, so you lose interest. Getting snipped is not castration. If you don't know this, you need more help than we can offer.
OP, you cannot totally eliminate risk. Risk is part of life. As human beings we can mitigate the risk but there will always be a small element of the risk remaining and this is true in all aspects of life. That small element of risk is what keeps (most of) us from being reckless, careless and stupid. If you can't accept an infinitesimal amount of risk, it might be time to reflect on your life and decide whether you want to opt out.
Highly irrational. Estrogen is cardioprotective. Why on earth would a woman want to raise her risk of cardiovascular disease just because some misogynistic pigs want to control her? It's a useless thing to worry about, because a global ban on abortion will NEVER happen. EVER. The women of the world will see to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Led Zeppelin
Under no circumstances should men be given an "opt-out" on paying child support IF they are proven to be the parent through DNA testing. Why in the H should that be allowed? It's not anybody else's job to be a responsible father. And I would go even further. I would say that the US would get much tougher on the issue. If the father doesn't have a job, he needs to get one or go to jail if he refuses. If he can't get a job, he's going to be given one paying minimum wage by JobCorps or the state... whether he's in jail or not. If his job is inadequate or doesn't pay enough... he needs to be given a part time job on a state-road crew fitted to his work schedule. And that's the way it ought to be. And in the meantime, public media efforts should be directed to warning boys and young men about these consequences and to THINK about what they are doing. Because they won't be allowed to escape their responsibility. Anyway....
Abortion is totally banned in only 5 countries and Vatican City, all of them Catholic countries
Abortion is heavily banned in maybe half the world, only to save the life of the mother explicitly or in general legal principle.
Abortion is unconditionally allowed just about everywhere in North America, Europe and Asia. But most of those countries put gestational limits on those abortions. And these countries are just about the only countries that impose gestational limits. The exceptions among them with no limits on gestation would be Cuba, China, Canada, USA, Mexico and Cape Verde.
So, the USA has the most liberal, wide open abortion policy in the world. More liberal than countries like Sweden and Germany even. So, I don't think you will ever see a full-on ban on abortions anytime in your life. Not even if you moved to a Muslim country.
And I doubt even more that there would ever be a ban on birth control devices or having female sterilization performed.
I think there is a scenario where abortion (and birth control) could be totally banned worldwide and it has nothing to do with pro-lifers or religious fundamentalism.
Our entire world is now run by several pyramid schemes: social security, pensions, stock markets and capitalism in general. All of these things require an expanding population to function properly. Governments need social security and pensions to placate the huge older generation and the 1%ers need the stock markets and capitalism to continue enriching themselves. It could even be argued that Western Civilization is one gigantic pyramid scheme.
If the combination of abortion, birth control and voluntary sterilization causes the global birth rate to drop below what is necessary for these pyramid schemes to function you better bet the 1%ers and politicians will collude to take away these freedoms to protect the pyramid schemes. Right now those in power give the masses just enough freedom to placate them. That is why we don't have hormonal male birth control. If we can put a man on the moon and develop female hormonal birth control, we certainly should be able to make viable male hormonal birth control but the reality is that the powers that be don't want males to have hormonal birth control so they short fund the research required to develop it. If men had access to the same birth control options as women, the global birth rate would plummet and endanger the functionality of these pyramid schemes setup to enrich the 1%ers.
A global ban on birth control and abortion could very well happen.
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.
However, I am using a different argument to justify forcing male-bodied people to pay child support.
