I agree with this. I think there should be a 14 week period for men to be able to "get rid" of the child, per-say.
It is fair and equal. The current system is sexist towards women (Which is why nothing is being done about it)
You're not wrong. I absolutely hate kids.
Having them and even having to abort them for that matter entirely disgusts me.
Abortion is terrible. Having kids is just as terrible.
Lose lose situation.
Lets all just walk away and never look back.
You could just not fuck dumb cunts who don't take the pill.
Amerifag here I see no problem with this in states which have made abortion legal as long as the male went through some legal Chanel expressing wishes for the fetus to be aborted when it would be legal. I say this to keep people from being like "yeah we want the baby, then him be like nah fuck this" after the baby is born and having no responsibilities.
Yeah, sorry my post might be confusing. I'm just saying he would need to make effort to have pointed out he didn't want the baby before it came to term. Ya'know to keep people from being like "yeah we will keep it" and then a year later leaving and being like "yeah, didn't realize this would be that hard, sorry"
It actually is fucked up.
People tell males, if you can't handle raising a kid, don't have sex. That's just fucking stupid.
A woman is told to be safe, have as much sex as she wants, and if she gets preggo it's no biggie she just goes and buys herself a fancy ass coat hangar.
But men? Nope! No say, and after 9 months full responsibility. That's right. You pay for the kid you didn't want, with some whore you only wanted to sleep with. But now because women are inferior and weak on their own.
I for one am FOR abortions, with equal rights, naturally the woman can say a bit more, but she can't just force a man into raising a child just because she doesn't want to do it alone/get an abortion.
Thats why I said its a good idea and I agree with you. A man should have a right to leave if he doesn't want the child, just as much as a woman should have a right to an abortion if she doesn't want it. I was just putting the stipulation he needed to let the wishes be known before the child came to term.
You're wrong because these women will still be irresponsible whores and have the kids, and with no father paying support they will suck instead on the taxpayer's teat -- because the government won't allow the child to suffer for the mom's poor decision.
If you let the fathers off the hook, then everyone pays. That's why.
men and women are equally to blame, she has the right to not get drunk and fuck him, or be on the pill, or put a condom on him.
it goes both ways at that point, but after it's all her decision.
Always sounded like a good idea. If the man wants it aborted and the woman says "no, I'm keeping it", then fine, SHE'S keeping it. He's not.
In the process of making that decision, though, he would also have to waive any and all rights of visitation and anything else, and would be legally declared a stranger with no relation to the child whatsoever.
Sorry OP. I think we should be held accountable for our actions.
I know when I fuck my girlfriend that we're being responsible and she's taking the pill. If you're old enough to bang a girl, you're old enough to deal with the consequences.
You can't make her have an abortion. I know it's a one sided sort of thing but that's probably the reason I was a virgin until I was 22 and now I'm in the best relationship of my life with a girl who doesn't want kids for at least a few years but fucks me most nights and I'm able to set up my life before fucking it up with unplanned kids.
If people can take responsibility for their actions, this thread wouldn't exist.
And, if there is no safety net for women, more will make the sensible choice.
Rather than thinking, oh, the father will support me, even though I don't let him see the kid, or be involved, or have anything.
It's fine ripping his heart through his wallet with him having no say in the matter, at all!!
Woman: "I don't want to raise it, so I'll kill it!!"
Society: "Wohoo, you go girl!"
Man: "I don't want to raise it so I'm just going to absolve responsibility."
Society: "You horrible pig monster!! It's your duty to raise a child if the woman doesn't kill it!!!"
Sure, you can't make her have an abortion. But why pay for her irresponsible decision. A girl could lie and say she was on the pill, condoms are only 98% effective, mistakes will happen
>And, if there is no safety net for women, more will make the sensible choice.
Clearly you don't know women. And what do you mean by "no safety net"? That the government would allow a child to go homeless and starve because its mother is a dumb cunt? Never gonna happen.
Women will keep having kids they can't afford, and the kids will always be bailed out. This is why the "financial abortion" idea is DOA.
Eh, who gives a shit. Social welfare programs are a completely different thing, you don't resolve them by pointing at ONE person who shouldn't be held responsible and saying "you deal with it. Just you."
>you don't resolve them by pointing at ONE person who shouldn't be held responsible and saying "you deal with it. Just you."
Well, it *is* that person's problem. He's the one who knocked a woman up. It's not like we're randomly assigning responsibility. The taxpayers taking the hit is far more unfair than the father taking the hit.
I've been this exact thing for years now.
If both of us don't want a kid > she gets an abortion.
If both of us want a kid > she gives birth to it.
If only she doesn't want a kid > she gets an abortion, fuck me.
If only I don't want a kid > fuck me, she's having it and I'm paying for it.
you are fighting the wrong battle.
The reason why a father cannot walk away from the kid if he is born is that once born somebody has to pay for it. The government believes it costs them less money when the father pays and they are not likely going to change their minds.
The only place where you have a point is that it is not fair that a woman can decide to keep or dump the baby. There should be a way for the father to have a say on wether the baby is aborted or not and women should not be able to abort without fathers consent.
This dates back to olden times, a matrimony was defined as a wife coming into a household. Any kids born belonged to the household, there was no concept of a divorce where the mother would keep the sons.
Once the law was changed so that the mother kept the children in the case of a divorce marriage stopped making sense. We need to get back those rights
>Well, it *is* that person's problem. He's the one who knocked a woman up. It's not like we're randomly assigning responsibility. The taxpayers taking the hit is far more unfair than the father taking the hit.
By this logic, unemployment should be phased out in favor of court-mandated stipends to be paid by former guardians.
Lost your job? Hooked on crack? Well, it's your mother's fault for bringing you up so poorly. She can be legally obliged pay the $1300 a month, we'll take it out of her social security checks.
Do you see the problem here?
No one is saying you shouldn't bang chicks. There's something called a condom that you should be using regardless of whether the chick is on the pill or some other birth control. No one wants an STD.
Oh, sorry, I'm slightly drunk and may have missed some of this thread. I didn't consider the who payment after separation thing.
still though, you can't make her and it seems like she should have financial support. But it's a tough one.
Hopefully I'm never in that situation but I feel like if I was, the only logical solution would be that I would have to pay up. Because unless you get funky with paperwork that shows you're on the same page beforehand, you'll always have to just deal with it. And no one is going to sign a contract before sex.
I know it's unfair and I agree that if the guy wants out early, it'd be fair that he wouldn't have to pay but it'll never happen
>implying there's no difference between being responsible for a child and being responsible for an adult
What a stupid argument. This isn't a negligence issue. Parents are already legally responsible to take care of their minor children. However, the government isn't going to punish the child if the parent doesn't live up to that responsibility.
Adults are expected to get jobs and fend for themselves. Children are not.
>no one is saying you shouldn't bang chicks
you mean besides all the anti-abortion / femminists /mothers of daughters / stupid people / Christians?
Yeah no one says that ever bro. good point. I'm glad you cleared that up for me.
>You're wrong because these women will still be irresponsible whores and have the kids, and with no father paying support they will suck instead on the taxpayer's teat -- because the government won't allow the child to suffer for the mom's poor decision.
I don't think you can say this for all women, maybe some. The way it is now, women can comfortably go into a pregnancy knowing the father will be paying a large sum
Its a hierarchy of rights and responsibilities
The first right is deciding what to do with your own body. You both have the right to choose to have sex, but you both also have the responsibility of dealing with the consequences.
The man is not the one to bear the child, so his rights over his body end there; whereas the woman has the right to decide whether or not put her body through 9 months of pregnancy, labor, and recovery, so she chooses.
If she chooses an abortion, it ends here.
If she chooses to carry the baby to term, the two people who made the child have the responsibility to follow through with what they both knew was a potential consequence of sex. You both knew you might make a baby, so now you have to take care of it.
In addition, the child has a right to food, shelter, etc which is more more important on the hierarchy of needs than your right to property, so the court orders you to surrender property (child support) to ensure this child has its need.
You can't complain if it turns out that way because you (and your partner) had the responsibility to take proper measures to prevent pregnancy and to discuss what you would do if unplanned pregnancy occurred. If you know that she is pro-life, then you're consenting to her carrying an unplanned pregnancy to term.
So if you want to make it "fair" to both men and women, what needs to happen is that you both discuss those responsibilities beforehand and what needs to happen is to have some kind of "baby prenup" where you both agree your course of action if this happened.
If you both have legally agreed to go through with an abortion and she doesn't do it, then you don't pay child support. If you come to an agreement where you both support the child or no agreement is reached, it is assumed that you both assume responsibility for the child.
>tl;dr the rights of the child is the most important thing here
The framing is wrong. Child Support is thus called because it is in support of the *child*, not the mother (or the father). Because, in the US, we have this boneheaded idea of "bootstraps" and labor under the myth that this is some kind of "meritocracy", the legal and wellfare systems are constructed to shift the maximum burden possible for child rearing onto parents. Many states will extort women into naming a father for the state to pursue for child support before allowing her access to benefits.
if she wants the kid, she should pay for it
if he wants he kid, he should pay for it
>but this guy fucked me and now he is running away!
shouldn't have opened the legs slut
>but this girl told me we would take care of the baby and now she is gone!
shouldn't have fucked a slut nigger
>This is an argument about equality, not economics.
You can't have an argument about equality when only one sex can get pregnant. There is no equivalence for men. The women get the abortion choice because they get pregnant. The financial abortion option is not equivalent to a real abortion because the kid is still alive with a financial abortion.
You can't discuss this issue without considering who will pay for the kid a father financially aborts.
You are forgetting a step.
After birth, the woman has the right to put the child up for adoption. She can do this without the consent of the father, even if he wants to keep the child and the courts will uphold her decision.
To start ill say this. I am against abortion, but as a free Canadian I also believe in free choice. Now this is the biggest struggle on this point pro choice or pro life. To wich do we draw the line? As the girls has the right to her body, we also had the right to choose to sleep with her. Two equal parties committing an act of procreation, even if it is not to repopulate, an act of procreation. If this isnt a rape, It all falls on one thing pro choice. A man may not want to have a child, but his choices can not be forced upon another. This would go against the basic rights we have.
TLDR IF you have sex, and you were both consensual, you have to face the music.
Fuck does that have to do with anything?
The argument here is for a man's MORAL right to "abort" an unwanted pregnancy. He can't force the woman to do anything with her body, but if she decides unilaterally to keep a child, it becomes her responsibility financially and socially.
You're saying "well technically he's sort of responsible since he did get her pregnant, so he should still have to pay child support" and I'm saying "well technically your father's sort of responsible if you grew up to be homeless, he should have to pay your welfare".
And for that matter, your boss is sort of responsible when you lose your job, so he (personally) should have to pay your unemployment benefits. Your children are sort of responsible for your health in old age, so they should have to pay your Medicare expenses.
No. Forcing someone to pay should only happen when they have a clear moral responsibility. You can't grab someone from a list of people who shouldn't be held accountable and say "you should be the LEAST-not-held-accountable, this is now your fucking problem exclusively".
Not that you have any reason to bitch about putting it on "the taxpayer", it's not like public spending and taxes are even remotely correlated. How do you think we ended up with $13 Trillion in debt? We spend with zero regard for income. Who gives a fuck if this adds a $60mil annual drop to that fucking bucket? That tiny savings isn't worth the moral expense of ruining the lives of men who don't want to be fathers.
You're a retard if you think the public would stand for the concept of taking a child away from its mother because she's indigent. There are major Constitutional hurdles that would prevent this from happening anyway.
Also, the fact that you think that it's so easy to find parents for children displays your ignorance about the number of children out there already waiting to b adopted.
You're right. I forgot that, so thanks. I haven't thought of that before so I'm gonna throw a rough solution at you
Just make it so either parent can't give the baby up for adoption without the other's consent. Whoever isn't consenting takes the baby.
My only concern here is when you don't know the paternity or if the father was never told about the pregnancy. I feel like you'd need to prove that somehow, but I'm not sure how the courts would handle that.
Maybe if the mom wanted to give the kid up, he/she would live in a foster home until the father was found/came forward, with some kind of statute of limitations / other time limit. If no one was identified or wanted the kid after that time, they'd go up for adoption. I'd also include some kind of appeal process for fathers who didn't make the deadline
Ugh, I hate this argument
>"If its a baby of rape or incest you can abort it"
Most people who argue this feel this way because "every life is precious" and "life begins inside the womb." And if you truly believe that, then a fetus is the same thing as a baby. And who are you to decide that that a rape/incest baby is of any less value than a "normal" baby. If you call a fetus a life, then you have the obligation to protect that life regardless of how it came to be
But you are acting as though there is no way for a woman to pay for a child she CHOOSES to have. They are both equally responsible for the pregnancy, yet she is the only one who has a choice afterwards, but her choice affects them both. If she cannot raise a child herself when the father makes it clear he will not support it, she should have an abortion, and if she doesn't she should have full responsibility for the financial needs of the child. You're implying the only way ever for a woman to support a child is by tax payer money, which is simply untrue.
woman: im going to fuck this guy without protection (which btw there are way more Birth control methods for women than for men)
society: yeah you do it girl is your body fight the patriachy
woman: buhuhuhu your priviledge is to pay for this i am pregnant
society: yeah girl its your right your right you are fighting the patriachy
will you sign up to work in one of these homes?
Also what if I go to work there? Im comparatively so much better as a parent that itw would be rational to take EVERYBODIES children and give them to me
>You're saying "well technically he's sort of responsible since he did get her pregnant
What I'm saying is that *someone* is going to pay for the kid. Better the father than the taxpayer, because the father does hold some responsibility for knocking a woman up.
Your unemployment insurance example is hardly appropriate because unemployment benefits are contingent upon the recipient actively seeking work.
Your bullshit about the taxpayer already being screwed doesn't justify screwing them further.
Morally, the father holds a lot more responsibility than the taxpayer, so even a moral argument fails.
The point he is trying to make is that if women have the option to eliminate their respomsiblities for fucking some random dude then the guy should have the same opportunity aka equality you fucking halfwit
I agree with you 100% that both should have to sign off on an adoption, but currently it isn't like that. Even if the dad wants the baby, the courts will not give him his own child. . . . Just think about that and let it sink in. Your wives or girlfriends can legally sign away YOUR child, and you get no say in it.
>well a virus is a life, we should protect that
no nig, we dont breed tigers, we dont have farms with thousands of tigers, we have farms with cows, because cows are useful
in the same way you want useful offspring
Point taken. To amend my post, most normal, rational people who don't glean their moral code from a fairy tale aren't telling you that you can't bang chicks. Still a moron if you aren't using rubbers.
This thread is about how we think it should be, not how it is, ya know?
I want both people to share the responsibility of the child and the right to have the child. Its just tricky because of the questions of paternity and it being the woman's body. I wish more people would read my posts and give honest feedback, because I think it could actually work if we got the word out about it. But everyone here seems focused on throwing mud. But hey, its /b/ ha
>What I'm saying is that *someone* is going to pay for the kid. Better the father than the taxpayer, because the father does hold some responsibility for knocking a woman up.
But the woman holds the MOST responsibility for deciding to not abort the fetus, for making the unilateral decision to bring the child into this world. As the person who holds the MOST responsibility, she should pay for it.
Better the father than the government, but better the mother than the father.
the father knew of the situation when he had the child. If he did not understand it why should he be let off the hook?
Heres my suggestion: Every abotion should come with sterilisation for both parents. You can only abort with both parents agreeing to getting sterilised. May have a comittee for special cases, bt I think this is a good first workaround compared what 4chan has to offer.
so much this. you either take responsibility for birth control to protect yourself (like a smart person of either fucking gender bothers to do) or you shut the fucking hell up and take whatever you get after you fob that responsibility off just to bust a god damn nut. blame the system or women if you want, faggot. society won't fucking care about you because you are whining trash with a misplaced sense of entitlement and zero sense of responsibility.
And the solution is?
Obviously you can't make her have an abortion. And if you act without thinking, you need to face the fucking consequences.
/b/ is full of fucking children these days
>But you are acting as though there is no way for a woman to pay for a child she CHOOSES to have.
No, I'm not. I'm saying that many will be unable to afford to, because lots of jobs won't even cover day care expenses.
>They are both equally responsible for the pregnancy, yet she is the only one who has a choice afterwards
Her choices don't put the burden of paying for the kid on the taxpayer, because she gives up the child either way. His choice would shift the burden of paying for the kid to the taxpayers.
>she should have an abortion, and if she doesn't she should have full responsibility for the financial needs of the child.
Again, the government won't let a child suffer just because he has a stupid mother who has a kid she can't afford.
>You're implying the only way ever for a woman to support a child is by tax payer money, which is simply untrue.
No, but this is true for a large percentage of single mothers.
A virus isn't a life. It can't reproduce independently. Learn2Biology
But my point is, that if we are valuing a fetus as *human life* then we don't have the right to judge. That's like putting a baby to death because they the child of rape or incest. That of course, is assuming that you accept the premise of a fetus being a human life.
I personally don't believe that; I don't think life starts until a decent way into the pregnancy and I'm pro-choice. I just find the "these things are babies but it's okay to kill some babies" thing really hypocritical
You, my friend, are wrong.
Your comment implies that if the woman chooses to just replace contraceptives with sugar cubes, the male is obliged to raise the child...NO.
THIS is what feminism has bestowed upon us.
If one DOES make a contract regarding how the couple will deal with a baby, should it arise (pun intended), it is certain that the court will dismiss the contract as "unfair to the mother and the child"...
broken condom is how I got my 2nd sibling..
It's called male abortion and there are activists fighting for it already.
Simply put the law would allow a man to give up all of his rights to a child. He would also have no legal obligations to the child or the mother.
Basically you tell the bitch that if she wants to keep it she's on her own. Obviously you can't do it once the child is born or if it's too late for her to have it aborted.
In my field. When you take all important precautions and it still goes wrong, it is called a "normal accident". The general way to deal with these is to suck it up and face the consequences. Since the only other way to prevent such an "accident" from happening is simply to not perform said action.
That said, I do agree that the current system is unfair and biased towards females. Then again the system is unfair towards both females and males in many other ways, so it's just how it is for now.
>As the person who holds the MOST responsibility, she should pay for it.
No one's saying otherwise. However, the facts are:
1) A large percentage of single moms can't afford to pay for their own kid
2) Constitutionally, the government can't force a woman to get an abortion
3) The government won't let children starve for the poor decisions of their financially irresponsible mothers
These are the facts the financial abortion advocates are ignoring.
Why the fuck? Why punish people for aborting? Idealing people can have sex, and not worry about kids because they always have the luxury of aborting. If the woman backs out of this plan then that's her problem.
The potential father does still have a choice
If the woman won't come to an agreement about having an abortion / forgiving the father's responsibility, then the father knows that if he gets her pregnant, she could / will keep it and he'll be responsible for it. If you don't want to assume that responsibility, don't sleep with her. That's the choice you make.
If they both agree to abortion / forgiving responsibility, then he doesn't have a risk if she does get pregnant and he can choose to sleep with her knowing it won't blow up in his face
The consent/choice is in the risk and agreeing what to do before anything happens
You wüt m8? Working in reverse order, what does sterilization have to do with anything? Furthermore, the same could be said about the mother. It is not a situation where a male does something to the female. They both chose to have sex, yet only one of them gets to have choice while the other gets responsibility. Turn it around, if the MOTHER understood it, why should she get off the hook?
life is a self-replicating, evolving system.
I am against calling even children life.
Gays: not life
Most people like me: not life
you can have consitency, just you sometimes need to take bold steps.
No, I said that you should have an agreement about what to do about a pregancy before it happens. If she doesn't consent to having an abortion / forgiving responsibility, then you face potential consequences if she does get pregnant. Then you choose whether or not to keep having sex with her
If you have the agreement and she replaces her birth control with sugar cubes, then she's stuck with it and the responsibility.
No agreement and she goes off BC--well, you should have seen that coming, now do what's right for the child
I have a kid because my ex decided she wanted one and stopped taking the pill without telling me.
She had mentioned that she wanted a kid one night after a few drinks. I expressed that I definitely didn't at that stage of my life. I didn't expect her to go ahead and deliberately try to get pregnant without my knowledge.
I love my daughter and I would do anything for her. The financial support doesn't bother me. It's the fact that when I look at the situation I have to accept that my life would have been a lot easier without her. Its hard to reconcile that.
the choice in terminating should come before a child is ever conceived and be discussed by both potential parents
maybe you shouldn't have slept with someone who didn't agree to terminate
>why doesnt the woman carry the condom
Often they have one with them. So no generalization whatsoever? Female condoms are shit. Condom is not the same as the pill, but so isn't fucking a lose slut compared to passionate fucking with your girlfriend. Jesus Christ man
yeah, but why doesnt the man carry it? The woman is already taking the pill and using a cream which is much more expensive. Also you dont get condoms on womens toilets.
no matter what it is, your cause would benefit from you having better arguments.
>1) A large percentage of single moms can't afford to pay for their own kid
Neither can a large portion of deadbeat baby daddies.
Following your logic, what if neither the mother NOR the father can afford to pay for it? Does it then magically become more the responsibility of the government to care for it? Or do you have a list of like 60 people related to the mother and the father to whom the buck will get passed in turn? Mother can't pay, force the father to; he can't pay, force the grandparents to; they can't pay, force their employers to; and so on until the hairdresser of the woman's third cousin twice removed gets the bill because "the taxpayer shouldn't have to"?
>2) Constitutionally, the government can't force a woman to get an abortion
Nor can they ethically. That'd be a fucked up thing to do.
>3) The government won't let children starve for the poor decisions of their financially irresponsible mothers
Well shit, anon, sounds to me like THEY just claimed responsibility! If you say "I won't let this child starve", then what I hear is you volunteering to get it food. You want to take the moral high ground, that's great, but responsibility comes with it; you don't get to be a hero by finding people in need and then accosting a stranger with a pistol and saying "this guy's your responsibility now, so keep the checks coming!"
Or, more broadly, if we as a society (and I hate to conflate government with society since they're distinct, but for the purposes of this ethical stance I'm gonna do so) say "a child should not go hungry because his mother is an impoverished twat", then WE have a responsibility to deal with that. If it's a collective moral crisis it's a collective moral responsibility.
You morons are talking about this as if the girl is forcing the guy to fuck her.
we do have a choice.
If you don't want to have kids, don't fuck the girl.
If you don;t want a DUI don't drink.
If you don't want to go to prison, don't murder someone.
You have the choice from the beginning. If you don't realise the consequences of sex, you're to immature to be getting any.
Ehh...Your comment makes me shiver.
It should not be a males responsibility to raise a rape child, or a child that he does not want, the same way the woman can make the same choice regardless of the male's opinion
>>maybe you shouldn't have slept with someone who didn't agree to terminate
Neither should the mother then.
You shouldn't sleep with a man unless you are prepared for the eventuality that he will not want the child, nor support it.
Furthermore, a woman has the choice to terminate the child WITHOUT the fathers consent, so its a double-whammy in terms of freedom of choice on the mothers side.
If she doesn't want to have a fatherless child, she should not engage in intercourse with a man who will not support it.
If she does anyways, she can then either choose to keep the child on her own, or terminate it.
None of which are choices the father is allowed.
Do you understand?
one of my uncles had a kid that he is paying child saport for cuz the woman he was with took the condom inside out and used a dilldo. thats why my mom told me to take that shit with me when i left, shit like that can happen.
the best way is to take away laws that prevent geting your self fixed and finding a way to make it cheaper. if a guy and a girl got fix at the age they start to have sex it would solve alot o the problems. that way if both party's wanted to have kids they would both have to have the surgery reversed. i dont have sex cuz i dont have the cash for a vasectomy.
Point taken, and no mud intended to be thrown. How it should be is that at the time of puberty, every person should be forced to undergo a reversible form of birth control. either a vasectomy or IUD. Only when two persons have mutually agreed to parent a child and can pass both a mental and physical exam. Then they need to be able to prove they can provide financially for the child. After that they may have the birth control removed or reversed and they may have a child together. Once birth has been achieved the birth control is put back in place. Population control, check. Welfare babies, check. No reason to have more of these threads, check.
You'll be paying, even if you're not paying. Where do you think your tax dollars go, fag? If you said "to raise the conceptus of whores," then by jove, YOU ARE CORRECT!
Image related: IUDs, which should be mandatory for garbage people.
There's a lot of things I hate in this world
But the ones i mostly hate are children and women
Although, in a scene your right its still not moral. Plus no one in the media or internet will shut the fuck up about your decision
I'm sorry, but I just don't agree. I honestly don't care much about the financial burden of the taxpayer in this situation, which means we will probably just disagree no matter what and keep going around in circles.
You're right, right now the father does have the choice whether or not to sleep with a girl who would or wouldn't have an abortion. But this is an argument about what is right. Right after the act of sex, both parties has had equal choice, and by extension equal responsibility. Say abortion was illegal, they both would be responsible for raising a child of pregnancy was to occur. Now, let's say abortion is legal in its current state, now the female has much more freedom than the male. This is unbalanced; the male should have just as much choice as the female. He should not be more responsible for the action of the sex than the female, because they were both equally responsible for it. Furthermore, you can look at it another way. With the more freedom of choice the female receives, she should also be given more responsibility. If she knows the male is not willing to pay, it should be her responsibility to either be able to pay, or get an abortion.
>>The current system is sexist towards women
Actually its sexist towards men.
Because technically to be sexist towards something, means you have a negative bias towards it.
But I get your point, you just have it backwards.
Her right to her body trumps his right to a child, so yeah she gets to do that without his consent
If you have sex, you are consenting to the risks of it, including STIs and pregnancy. If you don't have a plan or minimize the risks, you are responsible for dealing with the consequences whether that is seeking medical treatment or caring for the child you made.
If you don't want a baby, don't have sex with a woman that won't terminate
If you want a baby, find a nice girl who will have that baby for you or adopt
The choice is yours
>THERE IS ONLY ONE CLEAR SOLUTION
in order to get pregnant, you need a liscence.
It is illegal to have sex without birth control by both parties.
In order to get a liscense, you have to meet a minimum financial requirement, and answer a skill testing question to prove you are not retarded.
All pregnancies that do not meet these requirements are illegal and will be answered with sterilisation of both parties and abort any subsequent fetuses.
Fine. She can do that then.
None of which means the father should be responsible to pay for a child he does not want and has no choice in terminating on.
If a woman does not want a fatherless child, she should not have sex with a man who does not want children.
If she does, she still has the choice to either keep the child on her own expense, or to terminate it. These are completely unique choices which men do not have.
yeah but as this thread shows, there is an imbalance in aborting that needs to be fixed. Also the people thinking about it (and probably having experience with it) clearly all could use sterilization.
The solution for the way you have described the problem also would be sterilization beforehand, since you could just have sex then.
My own choice, faggot. I wear a condom and play it safe. There's no need for some asshat med student to rush my junk with a scalpel. The fact is that when two people agree to have sex, both are taking the risk of having a child. Not just the male.
If you can't see that you're probably a white knight faggot who has never had to deal with a preggo before.
None of which justifies why a father should have to pay for a child he does not want.
You have not answered that.
(Don't try saying the consensual act of sex means he is automatically held responsible. Because if you follow that logic, then abortions should be available only to rape victims, because a woman having consensual sex has then agreed to responsibility for the child, in the same way the father has per your logic).
That interferes with the right to your own body. Just like how you can't force a woman to have an abortion. Both of those procedures are invasive and carry a lot of risks, including permanent infertility
Not to mention that neither of those methods protect against STIs. Only condoms / barrier methods do that
it's not her body anymore. we're talking about killing or not killing a child here, not whether she wants boob implants or not.
both parts are parents, yet only one gets choices about either scamming the father or killing the child.
a man should be free to decide if he wants to be parent or not, JUST like a woman.
This logic is what bothers me. It isn't the guy shooting her, it is herself and a guy, both willing, shooting her. Now let's say she can either remove the bullet, or she can take pills for 18 years, that they would both have to pay for. They guy doesn't want to pay for the pills, and says she should get the bullet removed. Since she has the complete choice of whether the bullet gets removed or not, she should have complete responsibility for the consequences of getting it removed or not. It isn't a guy doing something to a girl, it is a girl having a choice and guy having responsibility, which is wrong.
she isnt getting off the hook though.
Sure another option would be to just force them to raise the child together, but I think the fathers are happier with paying than with raising children.
sterilization simply solves the imbalance of the situation and is good practice.
No nigger! as a man you have the options to use a condom, don't cum in her cunt, don't come at all. Like others have said if the baby is born in the US someone will pay for it. and it should be the double nigger who dropped the load in the bitches box. Not me!
nope. once born both parties have responsibility, its not the same argument at all. bodily autonony lets a woman abort at will - only douchebaggery lets you walk away from you're respinsibility.
>Neither should the mother then.
wut? of course she should if she wants a child. Youre essentially a dumb fall guy who didnt think about the siutaution.
If she said yes to running parkour with you and then died because she was a woman and didnt have your upper body strengh you wouldnt bare the responsibilty (in the eyes of the law at least)
I'm saying what is right is to get any of this in writing before a baby can happen. That equals the playing field and the woman still has the right to control her body
I'm talking about an ideal, where the courts respect the contract. If they agree to terminate and she doesn't, the courts shouldn't deem that unfair imo. She should bear the responsibility
Because he put the child onto the earth and has a responsibility
Your logic is like, why should a driver who is intoxicated face jail time he doesn't want? Because he drove drunk and got caught. Now its time to deal with that
Its her choice whether she keeps it.
Its therefore her choice that someone in the US will have to pay for it.
If a woman doesn't want a fatherless child, she has two choices:
1) Dont get pregnant by a man who does not want her child
2) Abort it
How is abortion not getting off the hook for a girl, but a financial abortion is getting off the hook for a guy? Are you even trying to think openly and objectively or are you just trying to keep the status quo of what you were raised with?
>>Because he put the child onto the earth and has a responsibility
Then why are women allowed to terminate the abortion. Where is the responsibility there?
You aren't making any sense, fucking sexist.
If you claim that a man automatically has to take responsibility for a child he has sired, then so does the mother also automatically has to take responsibility for it too.
That means according to your logic she should NOT be allowed to abort it, because she is RESPONSIBLE for it already.
Growth is good.
Infact growth is negative in many western countries from indigenous births. Only immigration keeps the population growing.
We are not overpopulated.
Resources are just distributed unevenly.
I would say that if she said to him "oh baby shoot a bullet in me yeah do it do it" and then three days later she stuck him with her hospital bills because she lied about wearing kevlar.
Then she should have to get in writing beforehand she would get an abortion, and if she doesn't she cannot legally get one. That's just stupid, they should be able to deal with it legally afterwards as well.
But the man should not then be required to be financially responsible for a child he does not want, and had no choice in "keeping".
The woman should not have sex with a man who does not want a child with her. If she does, she then has the two extra choices unique to a woman, which are to keep it independantly on her own responsibility, or to terminate it.
None of this justifies or explains why a man is to be held financially responsible for a child he does not want.
>It isn't the guy shooting her, it is herself and a guy, both willing, shooting her
I meant just that.
A teenage boy and girl come together and say lets shoot you/me. Bang! She suddenly decides that she didnt want to be shot afterall. He thinks this was just dandy and he never agreed to anything else.
Who do you think will pay and who should?
This is why I propose both parents have to be sterilized for an abortion.
The woman's right to her body comes before that of a potential human life or the father's desire to become a parent. You can't force a woman to undergo pregnancy or an abortion
Surgical sterilisation runs certain risks, so I can understand why people avoid it. But it would be effective in reducing pregnancy. However, I vote that people whove had children get it, because they were the ones too irresonsible to get an abortion
>> You can't force a woman to undergo pregnancy or an abortion
Nor should you force a man to be financially responsible for a child he does not want with that woman, and had no choice in "keeping".
It is not justifiable by any means.
well if she desnt want an abortion, she isnt getting off the hook getting one. (again sterilization for both parents on an abortion is a good quick fix)
look at my posts, Im not the guy you previously argued with and "accusing" somebody of wanting to keep the status quo makes it feel like youre thinking you were talking to a 55 year old. On 4chan.
>>(again sterilization for both parents on an abortion is a good quick fix)
Why would you sterilise the man, when he has no choice in whether the child is aborted or not?
That is not his choice or responsibility.
Ultimately, the idea that anyone should be held legally responsible for another person's welfare is specious at best. Mother OR father. If a mother doesn't want a child she can give it up, pretty much any time. A father should have the same right, as should anyone else.
Being a caregiver is a voluntarily accepted responsibility and it should always be possible to renounce it.
If he had signed off his parental rights before the child was conceived, then sure, he can walk away free. But if he never did that, then they're still in place unless they agree to give it up for adoption or if she agrees to forgive his responsibilities and take them on for himself
I have an aunt that adopted her own son (meaning the father had no rights or responsibilities over their child) and she raised him completely independently because they had both talked about how he didn't want a child and she talked about how she was against abortion. It can work, but right now there isn't a legal process to come to those terms. She followed through on her own, but there should be a way to set that up legally is what I'm saying
FYI there is a small but growing push for "after birth abortions". and the fringes of that say "up to 4 years you can abort your child"
call it a slippery slope now but one day the pro lifers will be fighting vs after birth abortion even if its just the "doc botched the abortion and the child was born so ill just abort it now" that is being pushed for.
this guy will always fuck women with a condom, like the faggot he is.
even if hes married, he will always fuck with a concom like an idiot.
I mentioned this already, but:
the definition of life is a self-replicating elvolving system.
fetuses, gays,children and maybe even virgins are not life.
sterilised people arent either.
So I say ney to your suggestion.Not being life myself I still will accept human life as the highest good.
Nobody is saying we should force women to get an abortion if the father doesn't want to have the kid, we're saying that men should have the option to have no obligation to care for a child he never wanted to have.
Similar to a woman getting an abortion so she doesn't end up with a child she doesn't want, the only difference is the woman can still have the child but the father would have nothing to do with it.
The way it is now:
Woman doesn't want a kid = has an abortion.
Man doesn't want a kid = woman has it anyway because she wants to, leaving the father responsible for it.
The way it should be:
Woman doesn't want kid = she aborts it.
Man doesn't want kid = woman has the kid because she wants to, but father isn't responsible for it.
It was just funny.
You have no idea how much I agree with you. The world would be cleansed.
I've always wanted to kill those who are stupid, but sterilizing them is a hundred times more likely to ever be approved than murder.
Mind you, there's a lot of people I'd kill- I mean, neuter. Fat and proud? Kill. Feminist? Kill. Run a red light? Kill. Take two parking spots? Kill. Not hetero? Kill. Blindly religious? Kill. Entitled asshole? Kill.
Consider any job where you're required to wear safety gear. If you lie to your supervisors about wearing it, and then you get injured because you weren't wearing it, whose fault is that? Yours or theirs?
Legally, theirs, for a number of complex reasons (and it's why you'll get disciplined or fired for not following safety protocol), but morally it's your fault.
You had several opportunities to prevent what happened and you wilfully ignored them all. The mess you're sitting in is your own doing. Same with a pregnant woman; she could have used better protection, she could have aborted, she could have given the kid up for adoption, but she didn't. SHE made those choices, on her own, and so SHE has to deal with them. Not the guy who happened to be the source of the relevant baby batter.
If you read my original post >>577883479 my goal is to make that financial responsibility more equal. But certain rights take precedent over others
I'm basically agreeing with you, but I'm saying that those decisions should be made before a child is ever conceived
Sure reply with that...
let me answer the rhetorical questions for you:
The boy would pay for the girls hospital bills
he should because he is SO FUCKING DUMB
so tremendously dumb and irrespesonsible, that perhapst we should, as a society, think about limiting his influence on the future of human... life
the up to 4 years part is a very small number of people.
but there is a very real threat of after birth abortions... obama voted for it while he was working for IL not the prez.
this is "abortion was botched and kid was born, ok im going to abort it now" it is NOT saying its ok the abort your 4 year old.
I'm fairly certain that, at the moment, abortions can only be performed before a certain amount of time has passed after conception (three months, I think? I'm not sure). Abortions performed after that time are all only legal because the baby has a serious defect (i.e. won't survive birth or won't survive long).
And I'm equally sure the vast, vast majority of pro-lifers are okay with that timeframe. Late-term or after birth voluntary abortions would be considered murder, I believe.
he would of course get a say.
shit I shouldve mentioned this.
You cant just sterilize people on the whims of some dumb bitches thats not what I meant.
on the realization of the mother she doesnt want the child she can just push it on the father and pay support or vice versa
OR they can get an abortion, for which they both have to come to the hospital.
It varies from state to state. Some states draw the line at first trimester, some at second trimester, some draw it somewhere in between.
Last I read the relevant data suggested that a fetus starts to develop a rudimentary sentience at around 22 weeks and the line is usually drawn NEAR that point; some studies say before, some studies say after.
Best believe pro-lifers are NOT really okay with that. At all.
Thats raping all women of the world at once. Rape is about power, not sex.
Rape is a particularly difficult crime because it's about both power and violence. Rapists use sex organs as the locus of their violence, but rape isn't about sex, at least not in the sense of being motivated by sexual attraction or an uncontrollable sexual urge. Rape is about sex in the sense that rapists not only commit acts of sexual violence, but that the pervasive threat of sexual assault is used to limit women's sovereignty and justify sexual assault itself. The reality is that men are much more likely than women to be victims of violence outside of their own homes, yet I know far more women than men who internalize certain supposed violence-avoidance methods: walk with your keys in your hand, take cabs at night, don't accept drinks from strangers, be careful what you wear, don't walk alone after dark. When women are the victims of rape, there's an immediate assessment of what she did wrong and which of her perceived mistakes made her vulnerable to an assailant. An eleven-year-old girl is gang-raped in Texas by a group of grown men and the problem was that she wore make-up and "provocative" clothing. Women in Egypt are stripped and assaulted and their brightly-colored underwear is evidence of immodesty.
Rapists don't rape because they can't "get" sex elsewhere. Rapists don't rape because they're uncontrollably turned on by the sight of some cleavage, or a midriff, or red lipstick, or an ankle. They rape because they're misogynist sadists, and they flourish in places where misogyny is justified as tradition and maleness comes with a presumption of violence.
I that version the man was asked:
"Will you take this retarded bitch as your wife and love and live with her forever?"
and he said
"YAAAY JESUS! I will definitely fuck this retarded bitch in my car later! WITHOUT PROTECTION"
>woman gets pregnant
>secretly decides to keep the baby
>doesn't inform father until it's too late
>father stuck paying child support anyway
Your system is terrible, but not as terrible as the current shitty system. Too bad there is literally nothing that can or ever will be done because the father can remain unaware of the pregnancy whether through intentional or unintentional means.
The only way would be to somehow get rid of the whole child support system. but that would mean women have to take responsibility for their own actions when they decide to keep the baby or have a baby when they can't afford one.
>Rape is about power, not sex.
stopped reading there.
rape is about sex.
it IS sex. forced sex.
you can do thousands of things to dominate someone, but there's only one method to forcefully stick your dick in a vagina: rape.
Right but there is nothing more powedful than basically saying to woman I can get into the most private and most protected part of your body. It is powerful because it is sacred and has been taken from the woman.
>>If he had signed off his parental rights before the child was conceived, then sure, he can walk away free
False. If you imply a consent to responsibility to conceived children f rom the act onto the male, then in equality you must also carry that responsibility to the mother.
In which case, according to your (false) premise, abortions SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED unless the act was unconsensual (ie: rape). The mother is then also equally responsible to carry the child to term and to rear it, as is the father.
Your logic is flawed and false.
still some fault on the father not checking women he had unprotected sex with for 9 months, but yeah here I can see where the system is flawed.
if were compuerized enouh we will just keep track of every babyrelated cost though and split it 50/50. Still slightly unbalanced, since the man might pay for food that wasnt turned into milk, but I for one welcome our new drone overlords.
>if she agrees to forgive his responsibilities
what is this bullshit feminist lingo.
a man has to get "forgiveness" from a woman in order for his rights and equality to be determined?
are you fucking insane?
Amen. Especially when they lie about taking the birth control or the conversation you gas with her when she clearly said yeah I don't want kids either except now that I know your gonna leave me, now I'll have it. Cause I'm a conniving cunt of a personal/
If you imply that a male has responsibility to the child he has conceived, then you must also carry that responsibility in all equality to the mother as well.
Thereafter, per your flawed logic of "implied consent to having a child and being subsequently responsible for it when you have sex", it becomes irrational for the woman to have a right to terminate HER responsibility and the man's, without the man having any determination for himself and the child he is responsible for (according to your flawed logic).
That is why you cannot imply responsibility for children simply from the act of sex. You then end up in a situation where it becomes necessary to remove abortion as a legal choice from the mother, inorder for responsibility for the child to be equal and equitable between both parents.
The solution is simple.
If a man does not want to be financially or otherwise responsible for a child by a woman he does not want, he should be free to formally relinquish all ownership and rights to that child within a short period after its birth.
This is the closest we can get to equality in these matters.
Lol, agreed. I'm a male anon. And I don't give a fuck. I've been royally fucked by the system to the point that I now feel the only out IS suicide. I had the talk upfront and everything and this cunt had had previous abortions. She ended up getting me when I was weak from my fathers death and then cried poor me in court. So yeah, rape porn is cool with me. The system is completely fucked. These cunts want all their feminist rights but want help when they see fit. And they get it. That's the sickest part of all.
Men face the consequences of their actions, boys run away. If you were tricked into impregnating a woman somehow, that's your own fault for not taking the proper precautions. Also it's pretty inhuman to just abandon your offspring, the kid you're walking out on carries 50% of your genetic makeup.
Another thing the fear of knowing they'll have to pay for the kid actually stops Men from just shooting off loads in random cunts. I have a friend who got some bitch pregnant and now he doesn't even get half his paycheck, and I know for a fact that if he didn't have to pay for the little shit he'd be having a new baby every week. Image millions of dudes just unloading into drunk bitches without consequence. Just anarchy far worse then how things are now
true power is not just playing a struggle snuggle.
true power is taking a person everything it has.
you seduce her and then tell her husband she's a cheating slut.
you out her as a slut and fake evidence to make her lose her job.
you break into her new apartment, steal everything she has, and break her limbs.
she will have nothing. no love, no job, no home, not even a full-functioning body.
THAT is showing power: showing that you have the power to wipe out a person's life cleanly and easily.
even simpler is murdering her family. she could not protect them, because YOU are stronger, and YOU have the willpower to overcome anything she does just to fuck her up.
rape is not just about power, it's about fucking.
do you think those black gangrapist thugs think "GRARHARHAR, FEEL MY BIG BLACK PENIS, TINY WEAK WOMAN!"? are you this stupid?
they want pussy. it's the animal overcoming the human when you rape someone, because the sexual drive is, next to the survival instinct, the strongest drive a human has. if it's on full charge, it temporarilly turns of your entire self-control.
I agree. If we want things to be truly fair and equal between men and women, then men must be allowed freedom of choice as well. Obviously, we can't force a woman to have an abortion. Nor can we stop them from getting one if they don't want to keep OUR child. So if a man inadvertently impregnates a woman, he should be allowed the same choice as she. Short of forced abortion, I think full termination of parental rights seems very just. As it stands now, you can relinquish your rights as a parent if the court sees fit to grant you this complicated legal request. However, you are still obligated to pay child support in most cases (in the interest of doing what's best for the child). Well, I say an unwilling father is not what's best for a child, and no man should be held accountable for any more or less than a woman.
Feminism is female oppression. It's not for the rights of all. It's for the rights of women. If feminism was about equal rights for all people, it would be called egalitarianism.
>> that's your own fault for not taking the proper precautions
According to your logic, women should not be allowed abortions unless they where raped.
>>Men face the consequences of their actions, boys run away.
Women face the consequences of their actions, girls have an abortion.
How do you like that logic, sexist?
The only reason fathers have to pay child support to mothers is because otherwise those mothers would be on welfare getting government handouts, and the state thinks that it's better that you pay for your own wretched creation, rather than taxpayers.
What they really need though is a situation where if a woman wants the child and the man doesn't, and she can financially support herself and that child, then he can just sign his rights away and not pay a penny. That would be fair.
Yeah but if I want pussy I make a phone call. I don't go rape. I don't have to so I guess having to go there strictly for sex makes no sense to me. If you want it that bad, pay for it.
I think it's a pretty good idea.
It could result in couples having to make "consent and responsibility" contracts prior to having kids. If there is no contract, responsibility can be withdrawn, abortions could be had, etc.
It would create a pretty big incentive on both sides to use birth control. If you're born with a baby making machine you should damn well be responsible with it.
How does that logic work? Women can do whatever they want concerning their own bodies, if their significant other tricks them into getting impregnated, they have the right to an abortion if they choose.
I'm not weighing in on the morality of abortion, keep making leaps of logic.