Forced Fatherhood

[United Citizens of North America]

And how many children would be raised by the adoptive system?

Probably not a significant change from now, but it's hard to be certain.

This is okay IF every state has easy access to contraception and abortion.

That's also something that needs to be done, but men have even less access to contraception than women do, and is less reliable.

That is why we need easy access to contraceptives and abortion.

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

Not really. Over a million men are raped by women annually in this country, not counting things like contraception deception and such like that. This problem won't be lessened until the law gives equal rights.

Rape is a whole separate issue. If men were raped by women, and there was a child conceived, the man should not have to pay money. But more women are raped or sexually harassed then men. Sex Ed classes that normalise consent, abortion, and contraceptions can reduce unwanted pregnancies and children.
(sorry for my bad coding skills)

[Galloism]

Probably not a significant change from now, but it's hard to be certain.



That's also something that needs to be done, but men have even less access to contraception than women do, and is less reliable.

That is why we need easy access to contraceptives and abortion.

We do, but when it comes to disproportionate impact, men have less access to contraception, it's less reliable, and more expensive for most people (exceptions exist for uninsured women, but while all female contraception is mandated covered by law, NO male contraception is covered by insurance).

3) Continue our obviously sexist path, where women and only women can give up their rights and responsibilities, and men and only men are required to be responsible and have no choice.

If abortion and contraception was easy to access and men were taught to treat women with respect in sex ed classes, then this whole problem would not exist, or be lessened greatly.

Not really. Over a million men are raped by women annually in this country, not counting things like contraception deception and such like that. This problem won't be lessened until the law gives equal rights.

Rape is a whole separate issue. If men were raped by women, and there was a child conceived, the man should not have to pay money.

Yet they are - even if they were raped as children by adult women.

But more women are raped or sexually harassed then men.

Arguable to the point of being extremely suspect. The latest CDC report actually shows more men raped each year than women raped each year, although the prior two years showed rough equality among men and women, at least among adults.

Sex Ed classes that normalise consent, abortion, and contraceptions can reduce unwanted pregnancies and children.

Agreed, but that doesn't justify us being sexist against men. The status quo is sexist against men. ONLY men have responsibilities that can't be ceded. ONLY women have rights that can't be taken from her (without significant legal proceedings, high expenses, and even then chances are damn low).

This sexist status quo cannot stand.

[Kramanica]

And yet you've still been spending a good chunk of this thread advocating against men being able to do the same thing and even demanding rape victims pay child support for their rape baby.

Why dont you think men should be able to do the same thing?

Because it doesn't change the fact that their child exists and will need financial support from someone if not them.

I believe that ensuring child support is paid (when that is still possible) is more important than the fact that someone might get inconvenienced at having to pay for their child. I'd rather it be the biological parents being that they did after all, create the child via unprotected sex- one or both of them should pay up.

I believe that more often than not, blood is thicker than water. I insist that it be determined by whoever has biological paternity or maternity.

Do you support allowing mothers to surrender their children?

And you say that they both created the child by unprotected sex. Rape is different than regular sex, yet you don't seem to have been taking that into consideration at all in this thread.

And what if its unprotected sex? Protection is never 100% effective.

[Saiwania]

Do you support allowing mothers to surrender their children?

Yes, provided she genuinely doesn't have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant. If she does, she should at least partially pay for up to half the cost of that child if not do the child rearing herself.

If either parent doesn't have financial independence or are too poor, then they obviously shouldn't have custody. But I'm not opposed to either of their wages being garnished if eventually they move up in the world and can now afford child support.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Do you support allowing mothers to surrender their children?

Yes, provided she genuinely doesn't have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant. If she does, she should at least partially pay for up to half the cost of that child if not do the child rearing herself.

And if a man doesn't yet have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant, and needs some time to get to that point, instead of being trapped in poverty by child support bills that don't adequately provide that amount anyway?

[Saiwania]

And if a man doesn't yet have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant, and needs some time to get to that point, instead of being trapped in poverty by child support bills that don't adequately provide that amount anyway?

I'm in full agreement that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. If there really is no money to be had, then a court should recognize their low status and relieve them of their financial burdens. The legal system in the US and many other countries however, isn't "there" yet unfortunately; as it stands now. If they move up economically, I wouldn't oppose their new wages being partially garnished; if their child is still a minor.

[Galloism]

And if a man doesn't yet have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant, and needs some time to get to that point, instead of being trapped in poverty by child support bills that don't adequately provide that amount anyway?

I'm in full agreement that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. If there really is no money to be had, then a court should recognize their low status and relieve them of their financial burdens. The legal system in the US and many other countries however, isn't "there" yet unfortunately; as it stands now. If they move up economically, I wouldn't oppose their new wages being partially garnished; if their child is still a minor.

Why does the mother get to unilaterally abandon for all time and never have any responsibility, while the fathers responsibility can only be temporarily suspended until some future time?

[Dogmeat]

I'm in full agreement that you can't squeeze blood from a stone. If there really is no money to be had, then a court should recognize their low status and relieve them of their financial burdens. The legal system in the US and many other countries however, isn't "there" yet unfortunately; as it stands now. If they move up economically, I wouldn't oppose their new wages being partially garnished; if their child is still a minor.

Why does the mother get to unilaterally abandon for all time and never have any responsibility, while the fathers responsibility can only be temporarily suspended until some future time?

Doesn't really seem fair, does it?

[Saiwania]

Why does the mother get to unilaterally abandon for all time and never have any responsibility, while the fathers responsibility can only be temporarily suspended until some future time?

I would say that it is punishment enough that the woman carried the pregnancy for 9 months and birthed the child, and presumably has to do all the child rearing activities pertaining to the child if they have custody. No biology never has been fair. The sexes of our species have different and clearly defined roles which are socially ingrained.

[Galloism]

Why does the mother get to unilaterally abandon for all time and never have any responsibility, while the fathers responsibility can only be temporarily suspended until some future time?

I would say that it is punishment enough that the woman carried the pregnancy for 9 months and birthed the child, and presumably has to do all the child rearing activities pertaining to the child if they have custody. No biology never has been fair. The sexes of our species have different and clearly defined roles which are socially ingrained.

So you view the responsibility towards children as a responsibility or a punishment?

I'm now slightly confused whether it's a responsibility taken on by your actions, or a punishment handed out as a result of those actions. Before this conversation proceeds, we need to make that determination.

[Saiwania]

I'm now slightly confused whether it's a responsibility taken on by your actions, or a punishment handed out as a result of those actions. Before this conversation proceeds, we need to make that determination.

It is nonetheless what I view as most honorable. I don't mind mandating it because it is what I deem to be the greater good. Child support by definition benefits a child (provided they actually get the money or material things provided by that income) but disadvantages whoever is paying it (they lose income or become poorer than before, that is obvious- this process has a clear winner and loser).

[Galloism]

I'm now slightly confused whether it's a responsibility taken on by your actions, or a punishment handed out as a result of those actions. Before this conversation proceeds, we need to make that determination.

It is nonetheless what I view as most honorable. I don't mind mandating it because it is what I deem to be the greater good. Child support by definition benefits a child (provided they actually get the money or material things provided by that income) but disadvantages whoever is paying it (they lose income or become poorer than before, that is obvious- this process has a clear winner and loser).

I don't give a shit about honor, but if it's the greater good, why is it only for the greater good for men and not women?

If it's the greater good, then women should only be able to temporarily suspend obligation, just like men.

[Saiwania]

I don't give a shit about honor, but if it's the greater good, why is it only for the greater good for men and not women? If it's the greater good, then women should only be able to temporarily suspend obligation, just like men.

For the benefit of the child which will need financial support, not for the benefit of either the man or the woman who produced the child.

[Galloism]

I don't give a shit about honor, but if it's the greater good, why is it only for the greater good for men and not women? If it's the greater good, then women should only be able to temporarily suspend obligation, just like men.

For the benefit of the child which will need financial support, not for the benefit of either the man or the woman who produced the child.

I understand, so why should women be allowed total abdication instead of just temporary suspension (like men, in your plan)?

After all, it's for the benefit of the child.

[The Snazzylands]

Yes it is, if it's unprotected sex.

Uh, holy shit, no it is not.

Unless you can show that most pubescent teens have absolutely no idea where babies come from, I'm going to have to disagree.

People know that sex leads to pregnancy. "Consenting to sex isn't consenting to parenthood" is just another way of saying "I want to be able to do whatever I want without dealing with the consequences."

[Camicon]

Uh, holy shit, no it is not.

Unless you can show that most pubescent teens have absolutely no idea where babies come from, I'm going to have to disagree.

People know that sex leads to pregnancy. "Consenting to sex isn't consenting to parenthood" is just another way of saying "I want to be able to do whatever I want without dealing with the consequences."

People have been seriously injured playing hockey. I do not consent to being seriously injured when playing hockey.

[The Snazzylands]

Unless you can show that most pubescent teens have absolutely no idea where babies come from, I'm going to have to disagree.

People know that sex leads to pregnancy. "Consenting to sex isn't consenting to parenthood" is just another way of saying "I want to be able to do whatever I want without dealing with the consequences."

People have been seriously injured playing hockey. I do not consent to being seriously injured when playing hockey.

Then you should consider wearing protection like padding and a helmet to significantly reduce the chances of getting seriously injured.

[Galloism]

People have been seriously injured playing hockey. I do not consent to being seriously injured when playing hockey.

Then you should consider wearing protection like padding and a helmet to significantly reduce the chances of getting seriously injured.

People DO do that, but then sometimes it doesn't work anyway.

Also, there's the rather disturbing fact that, according to the CDC, over a million men and a million women are raped by the opposite sex each year. It's really hard to use contraception when getting raped.

[Kramanica]

Do you support allowing mothers to surrender their children?

Yes, provided she genuinely doesn't have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant. If she does, she should at least partially pay for up to half the cost of that child if not do the child rearing herself.

If either parent doesn't have financial independence or are too poor, then they obviously shouldn't have custody. But I'm not opposed to either of their wages being garnished if eventually they move up in the world and can now afford child support.

So you support child surrender for mothers but not fathers?

We're entering levels of hypocrisy that shouldn't even be possible.

[Galloism]

Yes, provided she genuinely doesn't have the financial or economic means to adequately care for an infant. If she does, she should at least partially pay for up to half the cost of that child if not do the child rearing herself.

If either parent doesn't have financial independence or are too poor, then they obviously shouldn't have custody. But I'm not opposed to either of their wages being garnished if eventually they move up in the world and can now afford child support.

So you support child surrender for mothers but not fathers?

We're entering levels of hypocrisy that shouldn't even be possible.

Ironically, this is still less sexist than the status quo.

[Kramanica]

So you support child surrender for mothers but not fathers?

We're entering levels of hypocrisy that shouldn't even be possible.

Ironically, this is still less sexist than the status quo.

Whaddaya mean?

[Galloism]

Ironically, this is still less sexist than the status quo.

Whaddaya mean?

In the status quo, men get no breaks for being poor, or incarcerated, or even underage and prohibited from working. They are still responsible regardless. Women by contrast can surrender their newborn children literally in any circumstance without even a question.

Saiwania wants to give those men a break and give a pass on child support when they physically can't pay it, until their situation improves. This is more leneint than the status quo.

Saiwania wants to only give mothers a permanent pass when the current situation is bad ("doesn't have the financial or economic means"). This is less lenient than the status quo.

That system STILL treats women with more compassion than men, but is less wildly disparate than the current system.

[Kramanica]

Whaddaya mean?

In the status quo, men get no breaks for being poor, or incarcerated, or even underage and prohibited from working. They are still responsible regardless. Women by contrast can surrender their newborn children literally in any circumstance without even a question.

Saiwania wants to give those men a break and give a pass on child support when they physically can't pay it, until their situation improves. This is more leneint than the status quo.

Saiwania wants to only give mothers a permanent pass when the current situation is bad ("doesn't have the financial or economic means"). This is less lenient than the status quo.

That system STILL treats women with more compassion than men, but is less wildly disparate than the current system.

Unwitting leniency is better than no leniency, I guess.

[The Snazzylands]

Then you should consider wearing protection like padding and a helmet to significantly reduce the chances of getting seriously injured.

People DO do that, but then sometimes it doesn't work anyway.

When used correctly, a condom is up to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. Same thing with birth control pills. If a sexually active couple uses both, the chances of getting pregnant are practically zero.

Also, there's the rather disturbing fact that, according to the CDC, over a million men and a million women are raped by the opposite sex each year. It's really hard to use contraception when getting raped.

Yeah I mentioned in one of my previous posts ITT that instances of rape are completely different situations. I'm talking about consenting couples that choose not to use any contraceptives and then get upset when they're expected to raise their own children.

[Galloism]

People DO do that, but then sometimes it doesn't work anyway.

When used correctly, a condom is up to 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy. Same thing with birth control pills. If a sexually active couple uses both, the chances of getting pregnant are practically zero.

Yeah, typical failure rate in the general population for condoms is 18%. Typical use failure rate of the pill is 9%.

CDC goes over this whole thing here:

https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/ ... /index.htm

There's a staggering number of people who fail to use the condom or the pill correctly, even when trying.

Also, there's the rather disturbing fact that, according to the CDC, over a million men and a million women are raped by the opposite sex each year. It's really hard to use contraception when getting raped.

Yeah I mentioned in one of my previous posts ITT that instances of rape are completely different situations. I'm talking about consenting couples that choose not to use any contraceptives and then get upset when they're expected to raise their own children.

Again, it's not really a remote possibility for the typical couple to be using contraception and have a kid anyway. And there's the rather disturbing fact that rape is pretty stinking common in our society, and often the rape victim isn't even really aware that they've been raped because it's so shocking we often rationalize it away.