Child Support and Rape

[Ifreann]

Posted that in the wrong thread by the way

I totally didn't notice either...

Weird.

[Cosmopoles]

Yes, it is inequality, but it is worse than that. With abortion, the procedure denies a child its "negative" rights if you accept the anti-abortion view that life begins at conception. With child support, you're denying a child "positive" rights, which are inherently dubious rights because they impose positive obligations on others, so it is worse to force men to pay child support for a child they don't than it is to ban abortion (although with abortion you are also somewhat denying the fetus "positive" rights, as the fetus is dependent upon the mother to survive at early stages). Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term partially enslaves her for 9 months. Forcing a man to pay child support partially enslaves him for 18 years.

As a matter of basic justice, anything that partially enslaves a man for such a substantial portion of his life is an obscene evil. Telling a man to stay abstinent or get sterilized to avoid this is just as offensive as telling a woman to do the same so she doesn't need an abortion and banning effective forms of female birth control that don't rely on the co-operation of her partner and then forcing her to support the kid (denying her the opportunity to give it up for adoption). The people who advocate a woman's right to choose while denying a man his right to choose are revealing that they do not regard men as equal human beings with equal rights.

Nor does permitting a man to refuse to pay child support require the state to support the kid. The state could choose not to operate welfare programs and require people to support themselves on their own. Compelling a man to pay a woman child support has the same effect that the state giving her a welfare check for the same amount would. It perpetuates poverty for many women by taking away the incentive to seek out employment and be self-reliant (this is what most people agreed upon, including most people left-of-center, at the time welfare reform was passed in the 1990s). The only thing forcing a man to pay welfare ("child support") to a woman does is leave him destitute quite frequently. Have you ever heard the stories about men who lost their jobs and could not find new jobs paying the same amount of money, so they could not pay child support because they didn't make enough money? Then, they end up arrested under those draconian child support laws, which are straight out of the Dark Ages, and thrown in debtor's prison while the amount of "arrears" they owe constantly increases even while they are in debtor's prison. This is the horror that people are defending when they defend these grotesque child support laws.

Ideally, I'd like to see a society where nobody is compelled to pay child support or alimony unless they voluntarily agreed to pay. To me, it is just that the parent that is taking care of the kid at a specific moment support the kid at that moment. That means, in cases where the kids stay with the mother most of the time and see their father every other weekend, the father should only have to support the kids every other weekend when they visit him (I think this would probably motivate more parents to choose equal custody). Any agreement beyond that would have to be worked out between the 2 parents. In the case of divorced couples, ideally they would have to agree on the terms of the divorce and the judge would not be allowed to unilaterally impose terms upon them. If they can't agree, they can't get divorced until they do. But, a man's right to choose is more important and is about the basic and fundamental rights of the man, not about some ideal society where family law is fair and based upon consent.

The problem and the reason why men do not have equal rights today is because men, unlike women, are largely indifferent to sexism against them. Women complain whenever a TV program portrays a woman in an offensive manner. Men do not complain when men are constantly portrayed in offensive manners on TV. Women would complain if a TV show treated male domestic violence against women as a joke. Many men actually think female domestic violence against men is funny (violence against women and violence against men are equally wrong). For the most part, men buy into the idea that their lives are worth less than the lives of women or children and they are inferior to women. Many men even advocate for the reduction of their own rights, usually as a desperate and pathetic attempt to get sexual favors from women. No other group in society besides men has so little regard for their own rights. This indifference or even hostility to their own equality only makes it easier for those who oppose equal rights for men to bully those men that speak out for their rights into silence. There can be no equality for women without equality for men and there can be no equality for men without equality for women. Advocating equality for one, but not the other leads not to equality but supremacy.

To summarize, The partial enslavement of a man for 18 years for a child he didn't want and tried to avoid conceiving is a particularly nasty violation of the rights of men and permitting that injustice to continue only strengthens the anti-abortion movement and the anti-birth control movement. If men had reproductive rights of their own, there would be fewer men willing to support those that want to roll back the reproductive rights of women. It said it all when the advocates of women's reproductive rights could not come up with any response to bills attempting to roll back those rights other than trying to ban erectile dysfunction medication because men have no reproductive rights of our own. If, the next time somebody tries to roll back abortion rights, somebody else is able to propose taking away a man's right to choose, that will greatly reduce the amount of public support for the anti-abortion legislation. Men will be more supportive of the reproductive rights of women if we have our own reproductive rights.

And what of the right of the child to have some sort of support for the first two decades of its life? That support has to come from somewhere. Who is going to feed and clothe it until it is capable of supporting itself? If you devolve that support to the state you require other men to pay child support. Does that not fall within your ludicrous definition of 'enslavement' too, or does one have to pay a specific fraction of their income before they become 'enslaved'? When a woman has an abortion, no one suffers. When a man or a woman decide that they can't be bothered sacrificing part of their income because the poor dears feel 'enslaved' by the child they created an actual person with rights suffers.

[Yankee Empire]

It's not just disturbing, but irrational. From rather basic logic, children are not as much people as are most adults simply due to the fact that adults have more complex cognition, introspection, and preferences.

What type of logic is that? Are Retards not as much people as someone whos not retarted?

Inferior in mental ability yes but they are still both people.

[Yankee Empire]

Biological parents should not be forced into caring for a child they didn't want. I think people that do that are selfish pricks/cunts/whathaveyou, because I believe that they have a responsibility to care for their children, wanted or not. But when other avenues for child care are available (adoption by other adults, foster parents, state-run orphanages, increased welfare payments to single parents, etcetera) forcing biological parents into paying child support should be a last resort.

What the hell? Of course they should be forced or they should be sterilized if their not willing to care for their own spawn.

[Camicon]

Biological parents should not be forced into caring for a child they didn't want. I think people that do that are selfish pricks/cunts/whathaveyou, because I believe that they have a responsibility to care for their children, wanted or not. But when other avenues for child care are available (adoption by other adults, foster parents, state-run orphanages, increased welfare payments to single parents, etcetera) forcing biological parents into paying child support should be a last resort.

What the hell? Of course they should be forced or they should be sterilized if their not willing to care for their own spawn.

Yeah, sure, let's sterilize people for being assholes.

Hey, while we're at it, how about people that oppose gay marriage, or... I don't know... people that act "un-American"?

[Aerodius]

"Why would any rational person think it right to voluntarily sacrifice the well being of an innocent child for the sake of an adult?"

There we go. Children are innocent, learning, growing adults. Not adults in the traditional sense, adults in the sense that they are equally as human as everyone else. A two-day-old baby is as filled with potential and life as any adult. I don't understand how people are becoming so anti-baby, anti-children, anti-innocence, anti-responsibility. That isn't growth, it is a type of "de-evolution". Men are Men because we've shunned the ideals of animals. It may be futile to argue such, but how disgusted I feel when I see people hating on the youth of society. I'm not especially fond of the behaviors of babies, children, or even teens, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them less human, or less intelligent. If anything children are more important than any ol' adult. I imagine OP would be interested in rolling babies down chutes into a pit of fire, too?

[Yankee Empire]

What the hell? Of course they should be forced or they should be sterilized if their not willing to care for their own spawn.

Yeah, sure, let's sterilize people for being assholes.

Hey, while we're at it, how about people that oppose gay marriage, or... I don't know... people that act "un-American"?

Nice strawman, you have an actual argument?

I wasn't advocating sterilizing people for being "assholes" but people who keep reproducing and don't take care of their children.

[Yankee Empire]

"Why would any rational person think it right to voluntarily sacrifice the well being of an innocent child for the sake of an adult?"

There we go. Children are innocent, learning, growing adults. Not adults in the traditional sense, adults in the sense that they are equally as human as everyone else. A two-day-old baby is as filled with potential and life as any adult. I don't understand how people are becoming so anti-baby, anti-children, anti-innocence, anti-responsibility. That isn't growth, it is a type of "de-evolution". Men are Men because we've shunned the ideals of animals. It may be futile to argue such, but how disgusted I feel when I see people hating on the youth of society. I'm not especially fond of the behaviors of babies, children, or even teens, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them less human, or less intelligent. If anything children are more important than any ol' adult. I imagine OP would be interested in rolling babies down chutes into a pit of fire, too?

Because Fetuses are parasites don't cha know!

It's not a big step then to consider infants an toddlers to be "less human".

[Aerodius]

"Why would any rational person think it right to voluntarily sacrifice the well being of an innocent child for the sake of an adult?"

There we go. Children are innocent, learning, growing adults. Not adults in the traditional sense, adults in the sense that they are equally as human as everyone else. A two-day-old baby is as filled with potential and life as any adult. I don't understand how people are becoming so anti-baby, anti-children, anti-innocence, anti-responsibility. That isn't growth, it is a type of "de-evolution". Men are Men because we've shunned the ideals of animals. It may be futile to argue such, but how disgusted I feel when I see people hating on the youth of society. I'm not especially fond of the behaviors of babies, children, or even teens, but I wouldn't go so far as to call them less human, or less intelligent. If anything children are more important than any ol' adult. I imagine OP would be interested in rolling babies down chutes into a pit of fire, too?

Because Fetuses are parasites don't cha know!

It's not a big step then to consider infants an toddlers to be "less human".

Blah. Yeah, I know. Forgive me, I forgot.

[Camicon]

Yeah, sure, let's sterilize people for being assholes.

Hey, while we're at it, how about people that oppose gay marriage, or... I don't know... people that act "un-American"?

Nice strawman, you have an actual argument?

I wasn't advocating sterilizing people for being "assholes" but people who keep reproducing and don't take care of their children.

Also known as "assholes", i.e. a person that doesn't treat other people with respect.

You don't agree with the choice they are making, I don't think you'll find many people who do, but you disagree with it because of your own personal morals. There is nothing inherently "bad" about not wanting to care for your biological child, so long as there are other people and support structures in place that are willing, ready, and able, to step into the role you have vacated.

Dropping your kid in the woods? Bad.
Letting the other parent, helped out by government subsidies, care for your child, while you sever all ties to them? Asshole-ish thing to do, but not inherently bad.

[Yankee Empire]

If I believed the Welfare services were adequate then no I have no problem with the sttae caring for them.

But thats not what I've seen, but it doesn't matter all this stuff drawns money and we are not suffering from a lack of population.

But "There is nothing inherently "bad" about... " say who? Proven by what? And if so, so what?

We have plenty of laws and statutes in place in order to best run society (when these things aren't used to undermind it at least).
This isn't dependent on the absolutes of morals.

[Camicon]

If I believed the Welfare services were adequate then no I have no problem with the sttae caring for them.

But thats not what I've seen, but it doesn't matter all this stuff drawns money and we are not suffering from a lack of population.

But "There is nothing inherently "bad" about... " say who? Proven by what? And if so, so what?

We have plenty of laws and statutes in place in order to best run society (when these things aren't used to undermind it at least).
This isn't dependent on the absolutes of morals.

"Good" and "bad" are concepts imagined up by humans. They are values we assign to things. Killing another living creature? Not inherently bad. Depending on what vein of philosophical thought you subscribe to, you personally may assign a "good" or "bad" value to it. But that does not mean the action is inherently bad. There is no overriding authority on such matters. The universe is not discriminatory in such a way.It simply exists, and we make of it what we will.

So, perhaps you disagree and think abandoning your kid, no matter how good the circumstances you leave them in are, is a "bad" thing. Great. But laws should not be made to subscribe to your own personal preferences. When nobody is being harmed, then keep your hands off of it. A child is not being harmed by the lack of one parent, so long as there is another person or group to serve in that capacity for as long as required.

The problem's arise when the state makes it very, very hard for second-parties to intervene, does a half-assed job of it themselves, and doesn't properly implement the (highly discriminatory) structures it has put in place to address this sort of inequity. In which case, the answer is reform, not servitude.

If it was impossible for secondary support structures to be implemented (adoption, either by an individual or the state. State welfare payments in lieu of child support. Thing like that), then I would support forcing unwilling parents to support their children. However, a government that can't properly implement adoption probably has bigger things to worry about than forcing an absent parent to not be quite so absent.

"We" (and by that I assume you mean Americans, of which I am not) have a plethora of laws in place that other countries do not. Rights and freedoms that we consider to be fundamental human rights. Laws, rights, and freedoms, are simply rules that the majority of the community has agreed to abide by. They only exist so long as the people in the community agree they exist.

[Diopolis]

Rapists should be executed and their organs sold, with the money going to the victims.

[Neo Art]

Rapists should be executed and their organs sold.

Rapist penis! Get your rapist penis here! Gaurenteed to have entered the orrifices of at least THREE unwilling victims!

[Camicon]

Rapists should be executed and their organs sold.

Rapist penis! Get your rapist penis here! Gaurenteed to have entered the orrifices of at least THREE unwilling victims!

Why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion such a market would be created, if rapists were butchered for their organs?

[Diopolis]

Rapists should be executed and their organs sold.

Rapist penis! Get your rapist penis here! Gaurenteed to have entered the orrifices of at least THREE unwilling victims!

I was thinking more along the lines of kidneys and livers, but this works too.

[Yankee Empire]

If I believed the Welfare services were adequate then no I have no problem with the sttae caring for them.

But thats not what I've seen, but it doesn't matter all this stuff drawns money and we are not suffering from a lack of population.

But "There is nothing inherently "bad" about... " say who? Proven by what? And if so, so what?

We have plenty of laws and statutes in place in order to best run society (when these things aren't used to undermind it at least).
This isn't dependent on the absolutes of morals.

"Good" and "bad" are concepts imagined up by humans. They are values we assign to things. Killing another living creature? Not inherently bad. Depending on what vein of philosophical thought you subscribe to, you personally may assign a "good" or "bad" value to it. But that does not mean the action is inherently bad. There is no overriding authority on such matters. The universe is not discriminatory in such a way.It simply exists, and we make of it what we will.

So, perhaps you disagree and think abandoning your kid, no matter how good the circumstances you leave them in are, is a "bad" thing. Great. But laws should not be made to subscribe to your own personal preferences. When nobody is being harmed, then keep your hands off of it. A child is not being harmed by the lack of one parent, so long as there is another person or group to serve in that capacity for as long as required.

First off Good and Bad existing only as concepts "imagined by humans" is in itself also a "concept imagines by humans".

What the hell else would you go on? Do ethics have to be incribed on the makeup of periodic elements in order to be considered valid?

That aside from what I understood the whole welfare system is not an adewuate alternative to a home with a family.

Also like I said these services cost extra taxpayer money, why not limit the burden by just sterilising these layabouts?

[Camicon]

"Good" and "bad" are concepts imagined up by humans. They are values we assign to things. Killing another living creature? Not inherently bad. Depending on what vein of philosophical thought you subscribe to, you personally may assign a "good" or "bad" value to it. But that does not mean the action is inherently bad. There is no overriding authority on such matters. The universe is not discriminatory in such a way.It simply exists, and we make of it what we will.

So, perhaps you disagree and think abandoning your kid, no matter how good the circumstances you leave them in are, is a "bad" thing. Great. But laws should not be made to subscribe to your own personal preferences. When nobody is being harmed, then keep your hands off of it. A child is not being harmed by the lack of one parent, so long as there is another person or group to serve in that capacity for as long as required.

First off Good and Bad existing only as concepts "imagined by humans" is in itself also a "concept imagines by humans".

What the hell else would you go on? Do ethics have to be incribed on the makeup of periodic elements in order to be considered valid?

Ethics are a purely theoretical subject. There is no one set of ethics that overrides all others, no matter the person or situation. Like morals, ethics are a purely personal interpretation of the universe. The only difference is that they are supposed to be universally applicable.

Can you hand me a "good"? Can you touch a "bad"? No? Then it is a concept, a value that humans assign in order to make sense of things.

That aside from what I understood the whole welfare system is not an adewuate alternative to a home with a family.

In which case the welfare system needs to be reformed.

Also like I said these services cost extra taxpayer money, why not limit the burden by just sterilising these layabouts?

So now you want to sterilize layabouts?
I'm sorry, but I don't consider intelligent conversation possible when you're so willfully blind as to how wrong your position is.

[Salandriagado]

Rapist penis! Get your rapist penis here! Gaurenteed to have entered the orrifices of at least THREE unwilling victims!

Why is it that I have a sneaking suspicion such a market would be created, if rapists were butchered for their organs?

I think they call that "experience".

[Yankee Empire]

Can you hand me a "good"? Can you touch a "bad"? No? Then it is a concept, a value that humans assign in order to make sense of things.

Yeah the words are "created", but that doesn't mean they aren't real or valid.

Can you touch a Happy or a Sad? How about a Shiny? Or a Bright?
No? I guess they don't exist or have meaning then...

That aside from what I understood the whole welfare system is not an adewuate alternative to a home with a family.

In which case the welfare system needs to be reformed.

Perhaps we should reform our views on Eugenics?

Also like I said these services cost extra taxpayer money, why not limit the burden by just sterilising these layabouts?

So now you want to sterilize layabouts?

Your just cherry picking words to strawman my argument, some people may make that case; George Bernard Shaw for one but not me.
I was just calling them layabouts for not taking care of their children.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider intelligent conversation possible when you're so willfully blind as to how wrong your position is.

Translation, "Change your views to mine or I will refuse to speak with you".
Talk about closed mindedness...

[Conserative Morality]

Apparently, some people think that rape victims should be victimized twice.

[Yankee Empire]

Apparently, some people think that rape victims should be victimized twice.

Who?

[Conserative Morality]

Who?

The person in the OP's link, for one.

[Camicon]

Can you hand me a "good"? Can you touch a "bad"? No? Then it is a concept, a value that humans assign in order to make sense of things.

Yeah the words are "created", but that doesn't mean they aren't real or valid.

Can you touch a Happy or a Sad? How about a Shiny? Or a Bright?
No? I guess they don't exist or have meaning then...

I never said they didn't have meaning, I said that they are subjective terms. The things that make me "happy" and "sad" are probably not the same things that make you "happy" or "sad". the universe is never "happy" or "sad".
"Shiny" and "bright", on the other had, are adjectives. Descriptors. They describe something. They are not a thing, in and of themselves.

That aside from what I understood the whole welfare system is not an adewuate alternative to a home with a family.

In which case the welfare system needs to be reformed.

Perhaps we should reform our views on Eugenics?

No, because stripping people of their basic human rights (via sterilization) is something that the vast majority of society (hell, of the entire world), agrees that it is a Very Bad Thing^tm to do.

Also like I said these services cost extra taxpayer money, why not limit the burden by just sterilising these layabouts?

So now you want to sterilize layabouts?

Your just cherry picking words to strawman my argument, some people may make that case; George Bernard Shaw for one but not me.
I was just calling them layabouts for not taking care of their children.

And yet you still want to sterilize them. For being lazy.

Is anyone else getting a whole lot of "the fuck?" right now?

I'm sorry, but I don't consider intelligent conversation possible when you're so willfully blind as to how wrong your position is.

Translation, "Change your views to mine or I will refuse to speak with you".
Talk about closed mindedness...

Translation: Your views are ignorant, uneducated, steeped in bigotry, and built upon a foundation of fundamentalism. I never said I wouldn't continue speaking with you, merely that I don't believe anything worthwhile will come of it. Sort of like talking to a brick wall.

[Romalae]

Translation: Your views are ignorant, uneducated, steeped in bigotry, and built upon a foundation of fundamentalism. I never said I wouldn't continue speaking with you, merely that I don't believe anything worthwhile will come of it. Sort of like talking to a brick wall.

Nothing wrong with ignorance, though. It's the same thing as being uninformed, although it has a more negative connotation in the vernacular. You ought to just suggest that the user do more research and introspection before debating the points.