Forced Fatherhood

[Internationalist Bastard]

So this isn't an issue regarding men who otherwise didn't want children or who were raped and their rapist became pregnant, just your irrational hatred for the poor.

It includes them by definition because that is how I'd arrange it- to base "who should pay" child support on biological maternity or paternity. That is what makes the most sense from my perspective. Making exemptions for rape is only complicating it. Then people will just claim rape even if it might not have even happened just to get out of paying.

I don't view it as punishing people for being raped so much as just recognizing that someone has to financially support the child who now exists and ideally- it should be the people who conceived the child when that is possible. If not both, then just one of them getting garnished before tax subsidies kick in to make up for any shortfall.

“Making exceptions to rape complicates it”
Yeah because fuck rape victims

[Ors Might]

It includes them by definition because that is how I'd arrange it- to base "who should pay" child support on biological maternity or paternity. That is what makes the most sense from my perspective. Making exemptions for rape is only complicating it. Then people will just claim rape even if it might not have even happened just to get out of paying.

I don't view it as punishing people for being raped so much as just recognizing that someone has to financially support the child who now exists and ideally- it should be the people who conceived the child when that is possible. If not both, then just one of them getting garnished before tax subsidies kick in to make up for any shortfall.

“Making exceptions to rape complicates it”
Yeah because fuck rape victims

Clearly they were asking for it. Men are always down to get laid, 24/7. /sarc

[The Huskar Social Union]

“Making exceptions to rape complicates it”
Yeah because fuck rape victims

Clearly they were asking for it. Men are always down to get laid, 24/7. /sarc

Sure we are all just ravenous fuck monsters obvs.

[Kramanica]

So this isn't an issue regarding men who otherwise didn't want children or who were raped and their rapist became pregnant, just your irrational hatred for the poor.

It includes them by definition because that is how I'd arrange it- to base "who should pay" child support on biological maternity or paternity. That is what makes the most sense from my perspective. Making exemptions for rape is only complicating it. Then people will just claim rape even if it might not have even happened just to get out of paying.

I don't view it as punishing people for being raped so much as just recognizing that someone has to financially support the child who now exists and ideally- it should be the people who conceived the child when that is possible. If not both, then just one of them getting garnished before tax subsidies kick in to make up for any shortfall.

You want to forcibly extract money from rape victims because otherwise it might "complicate things"? That's a really fucked up mentality to have.

Let's see. Should we:
>be humane and risk fucking up some paperwork
or
>victimize people even further and keep the paperwork in order

You have chosen the latter for some strange reason. And yes, forcing people to pay money for their rape baby is in fact victimizing them even further.

[Kramanica]

Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.

Yes it is, if it's unprotected sex.

No it isn't.

[Chestaan]

“Making exceptions to rape complicates it”
Yeah because fuck rape victims

Clearly they were asking for it. Men are always down to get laid, 24/7. /sarc

Its sad that this is basically the unironic opinion of so much of society :/

[The Huskar Social Union]

Clearly they were asking for it. Men are always down to get laid, 24/7. /sarc

Its sad that this is basically the unironic opinion of so much of society :/

That amount of society needs to wise up.


wait for it.

[Chestaan]

Its sad that this is basically the unironic opinion of so much of society :/

That amount of society needs to wise up.

I think it is definitely improving in recent times. NSG is quite good on this topic in general also.

[Proctopeo]

That amount of society needs to wise up.

I think it is definitely improving in recent times. NSG is quite good on this topic in general also.

With some major exceptions, yes.
Is this what those people in the social sciences refer to as "being woke"?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

That amount of society needs to wise up.

I think it is definitely improving in recent times. NSG is quite good on this topic in general also.

NSers aren't the ones who vote, though. They're more skeptical than the average person, if only because a webforum kind of forces you to be.

The rest of society is hopeless. -.-

[Chestaan]

I think it is definitely improving in recent times. NSG is quite good on this topic in general also.

NSers aren't the ones who vote, though. They're more skeptical than the average person, if only because a webforum kind of forces you to be.

The rest of society is hopeless. -.-

This oldish article would definitely support your view.

[Ors Might]

NSers aren't the ones who vote, though. They're more skeptical than the average person, if only because a webforum kind of forces you to be.

The rest of society is hopeless. -.-

This oldish article would definitely support your view.

The unholy fuck?

[Illegal Planets]

Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.

Yes it is, if it's unprotected sex.

Uh, holy shit, no it is not.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Consenting to sex is not consenting to parenthood.

Yes it is, if it's unprotected sex.

And yet, child support law makes no exceptions for those whose condoms broke, overflowed, or slipped off.

[Gravlen]

Yes it is, if it's unprotected sex.

And yet, child support law makes no exceptions for those whose condoms broke, overflowed, or slipped off.

Because while consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, consent isn't a factor when it comes to parenthood and child support.

[Kramanica]

And yet, child support law makes no exceptions for those whose condoms broke, overflowed, or slipped off.

Because while consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, consent isn't a factor when it comes to parenthood and child support.

Ah shit, really?

Wow. No one here knew that.

[Kramanica]

NSers aren't the ones who vote, though. They're more skeptical than the average person, if only because a webforum kind of forces you to be.

The rest of society is hopeless. -.-

This oldish article would definitely support your view.

He said: “Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.”

The judge also took into account that the boy’s father spoke up for Hatt in court, claiming his son was “fully up for the experience”. However, the boy said he knew what had happened was wrong and he said he had not enjoyed it.

Everyone involved here is just... terrible.

[Saiwania]

You have chosen the latter for some strange reason. And yes, forcing people to pay money for their rape baby is in fact victimizing them even further.

I don't view extraction of payment as constituting re-victimization, but whatever. It is not to profit their rapist or ex-wife like might happen with alimony, but to help pay for the cost of keeping their biological child alive. Getting the money from the biological parents is nonetheless the most logical approach. The people who oppose are likely doing so out of emotion, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

[The Huskar Social Union]

This oldish article would definitely support your view.

He said: “Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.”

The judge also took into account that the boy’s father spoke up for Hatt in court, claiming his son was “fully up for the experience”. However, the boy said he knew what had happened was wrong and he said he had not enjoyed it.

Everyone involved here is just... terrible.

Father is a cunt, that woman is a raping cunt and needs jailed and the judge is a cunt who needs fired and prevented from ever working in that role again.

[Kramanica]

You have chosen the latter for some strange reason. And yes, forcing people to pay money for their rape baby is in fact victimizing them even further.

I don't view extraction of payment as constituting re-victimization, but whatever.

Then you have a pretty fucked up view of things.

It is not to profit their rapist or ex-wife like might happen with alimony, but to help pay for the cost of keeping their biological child alive. Getting the money from the biological parents is nonetheless the most logical approach. The people who oppose are likely doing so out of emotion, instead of looking at the bigger picture.

Or... or... you could leave it up to the man to decide if he wants to be involved in the child's life or not. And if not then put the child up for adoption.

[Camicon]

And yet, child support law makes no exceptions for those whose condoms broke, overflowed, or slipped off.

Because while consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, consent isn't a factor when it comes to parenthood and child support.

It is for women. They can (in most places) get an abortion, or give their child up for adoption.

[Ostroeuropa]

Because while consent to sex is not consent to parenthood, consent isn't a factor when it comes to parenthood and child support.

It is for women. They can (in most places) get an abortion, or give their child up for adoption.

Drop off centers too.
Further, consent is related to the mans involvement too. It's only if the woman consents that he's forced to be involved, the act of consenting to the mans parenthood is placed in the womans power and agency. She can refuse to name the father and such without any consequences to herself, despite this denying the child the resources. Or she can decide to name him and force him to be involved. Only one sex is forced to be involved against their will, the other can force the other to be involved against their will.

Only one sex is at risk of legal punishment for denying the child resources it is supposedly entitled to. (Because that entitlement does not exist until the Woman signs the man up for it.)

The one sided and gynocentric nature of the system stems from the worldview of the people who lobbied for it, and the way their ideology blinds them to how it is only concerned with womens situation, problems, experiences, etc, and treats men as props to best facilitate womens agency and decisions.

[Saiwania]

It is for women. They can (in most places) get an abortion, or give their child up for adoption.

It has been explained over and over again, it is primarily because pregnancy only takes place in the woman's body which the law recognizes as their having full control and ownership of. Can't well prevent an abortion if a pregnant woman is intent on causing herself to miscarry, not very practical.

So far as adoption goes, traditionally- women make way less money for the same work as men do, the legal system which lags behind most of the rest of society; still recognizes women as having more of an overwhelming need for money or social safety nets than men.

[Kramanica]

It is for women. They can (in most places) get an abortion, or give their child up for adoption.

It has been explained over and over again, it is primarily because pregnancy only takes place in the woman's body which the law recognizes as their having full control and ownership of. Can't well prevent an abortion if a pregnant woman is intent on causing herself to miscarry, not very practical.

So far as adoption goes, traditionally- women make way less money for the same work as men do, the legal system which lags behind most of the rest of society; still recognizes women as having more of an overwhelming need for money or social safety nets than men.

And what about drop off centers? The baby isn't occupying her body any more after that.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It has been explained over and over again, it is primarily because pregnancy only takes place in the woman's body which the law recognizes as their having full control and ownership of. Can't well prevent an abortion if a pregnant woman is intent on causing herself to miscarry, not very practical.

And the drop off centers?

So far as adoption goes, traditionally- women make way less money for the same work as men do, the legal system which lags behind most of the rest of society; still recognizes women as having more of an overwhelming need for money or social safety nets than men.

Not more of an overwhelming need for money than the men kept in poverty by said child support bills in the first place.