(July 8, 2017 at 2:13 pm)mh.brewer Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 10:47 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Children need support. Nature doesn't really care about de jure equality, but I suppose the only real answer would be a precoital agreement, in writing, signed by both parties.

Man, talk about a heat of the moment passion killer. Is this Sheldon?

Answered above.

(July 8, 2017 at 10:23 am)Astonished Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 8:58 am)chimp3 Wrote: The issue of abortion is not a male issue unless the women chooses to involve him. If a man does not want to be involved in the pro-choice vs. pro-life debate he can wear a condom. If he does not wear a condom then he is willfully participating in the reproductive act. I don't understand why this is complicated. Take responsibility.

I somehow get the sense you back-pedaled against this on the next page.

I don't see it but if clarification is needed I am here to help.

(July 8, 2017 at 2:06 pm)Khemikal Wrote: They will anyway, as we've seen..and even if he does pay (and the taxpayer should, and obviously could..imo)....but, again, that wouldn't be anything to do with him.  He explicitly stated that he did -not- want to have the taxpayer come in, that he did -not- want there to be a child to support in the first place.  

It's not his decision that precipitates that wrinkle, but hers...and that's her decision to make (or isn't it).

He may not want to be a parent, but if he doesn't even want tax payers to pay for the child that he wants to abandon, then that's just too bad. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Even mothers who abandon their kids in fire departments understand that it's a tax payer supported foster care system that supports the child. The kid doesn't just magically go away just because someone wishes it. Someone has to take care of it. 

Sad as it may be, our ancestors chose our fates eons ago. The sexual reproductive system is what it is and we have to play the hand we're dealt. Fairness doesn't factor into the equation. A fetus is fully in the mother's custody until it's birthed and it's up to her and only her to decide whether to bring it to term or not. 

The bad cards don't lie entirely in the hands of the men, though.  Women also have disadvantages to deal with. She doesn't get unlimited number of abortions, and abortions carry physical risk to her health, safety and future fertility. Even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she has to go through the process of carrying and delivering the baby, she has to go through the hormonal changes, and the feelings of losing a child.

(July 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Aliza Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 1:59 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Not in the case of a "birthing agreement" - at least not without violating her 14th amendment rights.  It's an unenforceable contract on her end.  Amusingly, I maintain that;s it's a violation of those same rights and that same clause that a male can;t opt out - can't choose not to be a father.  His privacy and autonomy are impacted by the choice of another, it deprives him of his liberty -and- property, and he doesn't enjoy equal protection under law with respect to the other.

I think the only way to allow the father to opt out is if the tax payers are going to be prepared to step in and fill his shoes financially.

I really don't get this. You think the mother has no responsibility? If she chooses to bring a baby into the world knowing the father wants no part in it, then she should be responsible for that baby in every way. If she cannot do that, then she shouldn't have a baby.

(July 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm)Losty Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 2:05 pm)Aliza Wrote: I think the only way to allow the father to opt out is if the tax payers are going to be prepared to step in and fill his shoes financially.

I really don't get this. You think the mother has no responsibility? If she chooses to bring a baby into the world knowing the father wants no part in it, then she should be responsible for that baby in every way. If she cannot do that, then she shouldn't have a baby.

I didn't say the mother has no responsibility. I'm saying she has 1/2 responsibility. I'm suggesting that the tax payers need to fill the father's shoes, not her shoes. As pro-choice as I am, if I was put into the situation, I don't think I could choose to have an abortion. If people were to change the law to let him off the hook, I don't think that should compel the mother to become 100% responsible and making her fully responsible takes away from the child's long-term care. If she must pay more than her share, the family must make financial sacrifices. She may not be able to retire as comfortably because she couldn't save as much as she would otherwise have been able to (and become a drain on society). Maybe the kids won't be able to go to college or get the resources and care that they would otherwise have gotten with full parental support. Maybe instead of growing up to be an engineer, the kid grows up to be a mechanic. Both are respectable jobs, but one of those jobs has a higher probability of enabling the kid to better support their family.

If the mother has enough money to really cover it all financially, then that's one thing. But there are a lot of women out there who need that support to provide for the kids. Without it, taxpayers really have no choice at all other than to provide food, clothing, public education, child care, and even college. If not for the benefit of the child, then at least for the benefit of society as a whole so we can maximize our chances of having educated, informed citizens who can participate and contribute to society. Can some women really do it alone? Sure. Can all women? Will all kids benefit from this? At the very least will most kids fare just as well with one income as they would with two? I just don't believe so. 

Saying what women should or shouldn't do isn't going to address the fact that women do actually run single parent households that are barely scraping by, and that's with the expectation of paternal support. Removing the expectation of support may sound great and fair to the guys (and it is), but I think the kids would pay the price in the long run. 

Fortunately from my point of view, this is just an academic discussion where our opinions carry no real weight. As far as I know, no such law is being considered anywhere around where I live.

(July 8, 2017 at 4:19 pm)Aliza Wrote: He may not want to be a parent, but if he doesn't even want tax payers to pay for the child that he wants to abandon, then that's just too bad. You can't have your cake and eat it too on this one. Even mothers who abandon their kids in fire departments understand that it's a tax payer supported foster care system that supports the child. The kid doesn't just magically go away just because someone wishes it. Someone has to take care of it. 

No, kids 'don't magically go away..it takes a medical procedure....?  If a person doesn;t have that procedure, knowing that they cannot afford the child..it is they - and no one else- who has thrust that burden upon the taxpayer.  Personally, I don;t consider it much of a burden.  If the point of taxes isn't to support citizens and their needs..then what -is- the point?  

(rhetorical, I know, corporate welfare and mcmansions for senators, ofc)

Quote:Sad as it may be, our ancestors chose our fates eons ago. The sexual reproductive system is what it is and we have to play the hand we're dealt. Fairness doesn't factor into the equation.

Put than on a posterboard and go picket and abortion clinic?

Quote:A fetus is fully in the mother's custody until it's birthed and it's up to her and only her to decide whether to bring it to term or not. 

I agree, so does the law, and who's suggesting otherwise?  

Quote:The bad cards don't lie entirely in the hands of the men, though.  Women also have disadvantages to deal with. She doesn't get unlimited number of abortions, and abortions carry physical risk to her health, safety and future fertility. Even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she has to go through the process of carrying and delivering the baby, she has to go through the hormonal changes, and the feelings of losing a child.

-and she unilaterally makes the choice in -all- of that, that choice being federally protected by nothing less than the constitution of the united states as outlined in RvW.  What's the problem?

I;m beginning to suspect that a great many people who believe they support reproductive rights, in actuality, do not.  They support unjustifiable state enforced inequality and -womens- rights.  A nation full of captain save-a-hos to the rescue.  She doesn't need saving, she's a big girl, fully empowered to take this matter into her own hands.  Or not?

(July 8, 2017 at 5:55 pm)Aliza Wrote:

(July 8, 2017 at 5:04 pm)Losty Wrote: I really don't get this. You think the mother has no responsibility? If she chooses to bring a baby into the world knowing the father wants no part in it, then she should be responsible for that baby in every way. If she cannot do that, then she shouldn't have a baby.

I didn't say the mother has no responsibility. I'm saying she has 1/2 responsibility. I'm suggesting that the tax payers need to fill the father's shoes, not her shoes. As pro-choice as I am, if I was put into the situation, I don't think I could choose to have an abortion. If people were to change the law to let him off the hook, I don't think that should compel the mother to become 100% responsible and making her fully responsible takes away from the child's long-term care. If she must pay more than her share, the family must make financial sacrifices. She may not be able to retire as comfortably because she couldn't save as much as she would otherwise have been able to (and become a drain on society). Maybe the kids won't be able to go to college or get the resources and care that they would otherwise have gotten with full parental support. Maybe instead of growing up to be an engineer, the kid grows up to be a mechanic. Both are respectable jobs, but one of those jobs has a higher probability of enabling the kid to better support their family.

If the mother has enough money to really cover it all financially, then that's one thing. But there are a lot of women out there who need that support to provide for the kids. Without it, taxpayers really have no choice at all other than to provide food, clothing, public education, child care, and even college. If not for the benefit of the child, then at least for the benefit of society as a whole so we can maximize our chances of having educated, informed citizens who can participate and contribute to society. Can some women really do it alone? Sure. Can all women? Will all kids benefit from this? At the very least will most kids fare just as well with one income as they would with two? I just don't believe so. 

Saying what women should or shouldn't do isn't going to address the fact that women do actually run single parent households that are barely scraping by, and that's with the expectation of paternal support. Removing the expectation of support may sound great and fair to the guys (and it is), but I think the kids would pay the price in the long run. 

Fortunately from my point of view, this is just an academic discussion where our opinions carry no real weight. As far as I know, no such law is being considered anywhere around where I live.

She doesn't have half the responsibility though. She and she alone chooses to bring a baby into the world and if she cannot support that baby on her own then she is, by her own choice, a burden on the tax payers who will have to foot the bill.

If the guy agrees to have a kid and after 3 years the kid is born he suddenly decides he no longer wants it then...well, tough shit, take care of the kid, you have a 50% responsibility and she has the other 50%. But if he decides he doesn't want to be a father before the kid is born but she still wants to...then she has the 100% responsibility to care for the kid.. It's kind of unfair to force people into parenthood just because their SO decided that'd be nice.. I mean think about it in reverse, imagine if men had the power to make women go through child rearing, child birth and then parenthood against their will..I have no doubt pro choice supporters would be against that.. Her body her choice but not his life his choice...?lol

I remember last time we had this discussion in another thread a while ago, everyone was adamantly against precisely what I have posted here again. Now, it seems most everyone is in accordance with what I have posted. At least time since that debate seems to have changed minds.

The reason the man can't opt out is that men don't have wombs. Your womb, your rules, I reckon.

But if there's a baby, someone has to pay for its existence, and I'd much rather that be the man who caused the pregnancy than the society.