If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(WXYZ Detroit)   Not your child? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways. Child's an adult? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways. Child's been dead for 20 years? Fark you, pay ongoing support anyways   (wxyz.com) divider line 259
    More: Obvious, child support, Action News  
•       •       •

17720 clicks; posted to Main » on 16 Feb 2013 at 7:48 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



259 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-17 02:20:43 AM  

antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.


Except the out for the man means they can now fark and run, so to speak. There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.
 
2013-02-17 02:23:38 AM  

FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.


It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.
 
2013-02-17 02:27:01 AM  

Baryogenesis: There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.


So the women, who has a far greater level of control over whether an unwanted child is created or winds up coming out, bears no responsibility on that point?
 
2013-02-17 02:27:51 AM  

redmid17: Baryogenesis: redmid17: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.

That part doesn't really matter. What matters is a woman has all the control between conception and birth, then mostly everything after that. The dude is shackled to the womans whims and decisions even though he is only half responsible for the situation.

If everyone were to take personal responsibility before it got this far we wouldn't be having this debate in the first place.

No, that's exactly the part that matters. The woman carries the fetus so she gets to choose to keep it or not. It's unequal because biology is unequal. And since kids don't stop needing food, yeah, the next 18 years are already decided.

Personal responsibility you say? Like not farking random chicks bareback?

You're naiive or clueless if you think that women couldn't find ways around birth control methods. There is no male pill.

If you're that worried then you need to
A) not fark the girl
B) take steps to ensure she can't circumvent your protection by disposing of it yourself
C) get snipped
D) stop pretending you're powerless to avoid her trapping you

I'm not that worried. I have a girlfriend who isn't crazy. I just think you're an idiot for thinking that men should shoulder most of the responsibility for something that, at best, they are only 50% responsible for.


I apologize for that if that seems snarky, but this is pretty slanted toward one side in a way that cannot even be debated.

Men and women can both not sleep with people they do not trust. That is equal.

Men have one tool that is 99% effective against pregnancy. Women have at least three, and they have a backup option the man has no control over that is just as if not more effective.

Of course both sexes can use a condom, but those are much less effective.

To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool. This is even before one touches on the rampant inadequacies with the child support system.
 
2013-02-17 02:29:41 AM  

cptjeff: FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.

It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.



So you're saying a negligibly small fraction of mothers who aren't a representative sample?
 
2013-02-17 02:38:42 AM  

FizixJunkee: cptjeff: FizixJunkee: cptjeff: Baryogenesis: . The choice is if one party bears the burden of an abortion or if the other party bears the burden of a massive financial penalty for the next two decades, and the only person involved with that choice is the one who would be benefiting from the other party paying a massive amount of money.

While some of these moms never work a day in their lives, I have a very hard time believing that most of them don't contribute a single penny to their children's expenses given that these kids actually live with them.   In fact, it seems unlikely that the non-custodial parent pays 100% of the cost of a child's upbringing.

It happens, but mainly on the extremes- women getting money from pro athletes, for example. With child support often calculated as a percentage of income, if you get somebody with a high enough income, it certainly can and does happen.


So you're saying a negligibly small fraction of mothers who aren't a representative sample?


I feel like you do not know what the words "for example" mean.
 
2013-02-17 02:46:56 AM  
Typical Wayne County bullshiat. Things ran smoother when now Referee Schewe was running it, but it was still screwed up even then. Since Zennell Brown took over it just keeps getting worse. I've had three cases I've had to do audits on because they erroneously charged past spousal support dates or charged for adult children. Trying to get the referees to admit that FOC made a mistake is no easy task either. Oh well. It's these clowns that keep me in a job.
 
2013-02-17 03:04:54 AM  

FizixJunkee: onyxruby: FizixJunkee: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Not always true.  My father got custody of me and my two sisters way back in 1981 and was supposed to receive child support from our mother.  She rarely paid.

Must have been something you weren't told then. My ex put my 4 year old in the emergency room 5 times through neglect in two years.

She physically and psychologically neglected him and let him get sexually abused by his 10 year old half brother. I got a forensic doctor to do a full exam of everything and write a report.

That's what it took to get a court date (next month) to challenge her having half custody. It really is that hard for a man to get custody, even when the child is being neglected and abused.


I found out later that my father threatened to kill my mother if she contested his request to get full custody, and it worked.  She never showed up in court.

He was violent towards the women in his life though not us kids (all daughters).  Oddly enough, he was great to us.


My ex tried claiming battered wife as a divorce tactic. That is until we got into the court room where she knew I could provide proof she was the violent one.

The police from multiple agencies saw right through her and refused to bother me (911 calls are recorded etc, witnesses, recorded encounters etc). In fact they advised me to record every interaction with my ex for my own protection.

As I said my ex was violent towards me. The day we separated was the day she slammed her older kid into the concrete floor. Violent people can't control themselves like your 'oddly enough' suggestion.

In other words, if your sisters and yourself never saw violent behavior then there probably wasn't any violent behavior from your father to see. You were probably simply told stories to slander him.
 
2013-02-17 03:10:27 AM  

spidermann: Karac: spidermann: (And don't let that word kid you; I pay to hopefully make my child's life better. I wouldn't know; ex moved years ago and never told anybody where she is... but she still collects the support through direct deposit to her account, of course.)

Holy shiat.  You have to pay child support, but you don't even have so much as an address for your kid?  That just ain't farking right.
I realize you wouldn't necessarily get any kind of custody, but I would think that the exchange of monies would come with at least a theoretical possibility to see the kid.

Ah, but I have a penis.

See... this is where we get into the whole "Child Support/Custody Needs Reform" area. Within the divorce decree I still have my parental rights (never signed them away) AND a set amount of time to have my child. I am supposed to have her around 30% of the time (alternating holidays, my birthday, summers, etc) as well as be able to talk to her at least once, although strongly suggested for twice or more, a week via phone; uninterrupted and unmonitored by anybody else for at least one hour.

My ex has my number. She has my address. She knows where I work. She doesn't care, plain and simple... and neither do the courts. My ex has broken the decree, put in place by a judge, but nobody wants to do anything about it. She broke the law by not following the decree and I get a big "meh". Every person, even the nice DA I deal with on the support/healthcare decree issues, tells me "get a lawyer".

My response is "With what money? You're taking half of everything I make."

Yet every time my seasonal layoff comes around? Local DA starts hounding me on paying even though I'm being brought back a scant time later and my unemployment pays 80% towards support. I  better pay, I  better find another job or they'll take my license that I need to get to work. They'd take my passport so I can't go out of country even if there were work in Canada. They'll remove any licensing that any certifications I ...


Wait.  You actually have a court ruling that you're supposed to have partial custody?  I would assume that the ex taking off with the kid in violation of that would be some kind of felony.  Parential something-or-other title that I can't remember, if not outright kidnapping.  For shiats'n'giggles you may want to head over to the nearest FBI office some day off.  After all, if she's getting the money into her bank account it shouldn't be too hard for them to find her current address.

Maybe you get lucky and find some nice agent who's pissed about his divorce and lack of seeing his own kids and will be willing to listen.  You never know, even if he can't arrest her,  maybe he slips you the address or agrees to call her himself and let her know she's breaking the law.
 
2013-02-17 03:15:45 AM  
I feel like I'm lucky sometimes when I read a lot of these stories only because I know what it feels like to be a non custodial parent with a bat shiat crazy ex.  She went full retard when it came to abusing the child support system.  Caught abusing TANF (got thousands back from that; her, nothing).   I had a good lawyer.  Mom got custody, and a little bit of gold she dug, BUT

..got my boy back almost 40 percent after she almost disappeared with him
..she can't move more than 60 miles without going back to court
..got about a third of what she asked for
..has to tell me wherever she moves in town, as well as any job info.  This part is great because she's a shatty waitress, and should she ever apply the degree her poor dad paid for bye bye goes her meal ticket.  I win either way seeing I love my job, and my kid is insured thanks to me.
..the list goes on and on....it's like a crazy biatch insurance policy

I was lucky that I was in Oregon.  Whooped her ass in court 4/5 times.  Only one I consider losing was the custody battle.......but even my lawyer told me that never would have happened.....

Long story short....keep records of EVERYTHING, and never try to represent yourself if male
 
2013-02-17 03:23:19 AM  
Donnchadha: GAT_00: Taking child support for a dead child isn't fraud?

Court ordered payments are legal because the court orders them. If the court says she's entitled to the child support, then she's entitled to it, whether or not the child that is supporting is 3, 12, 18, 34 or dead.

It's only fraud on her part if she initiated seeking child support for a child who didn't exist at that time.


But as the legal guardian, isn't she responsible for notifying the agency of the death of the child?
They said they had no record of it until HE provided the death certificate. Clearly, the state didn't forward the certificate to them, so where exactly were they supposed to get it from if not her?

Or is it his responsibility too? Just like everything else?
If everything is the responsibility of the male involved, that makes us de facto the more important gender... a statement I disagree with, mind, but... sexism is sexism, even if it benefits women.

I've seen cases where a woman in a supposedly casual relationship wanted a child, knew her significant other didn't, and rather than work this out with him, went off her birth control without telling him... got pregnant... he felt betrayed, and left her. Court ruled he still owed child support.
But if it's her body, her choice, isn't it also her responsibility?

 EDIT: That the system is set up the way it is (re: Welfare to the parents, Child Support to the state to reimburse or outsourced firm for profit) is absurd to me, and only makes the problem worse on all fronts.
I've yet to father anyone, but hope to... and plan on doing right by them.
This... makes me sick to my stomach despite my confidence in never needing to cross such a system. I've heard of too many cases of accidental fathers being screwed over to the effect of most or all of their pay (with multiple jobs no less) to understand such a system.
As for the mothers in this: Since they're ultimately getting less than he's paying... why would they ever submit to it, when direct support is also an option? Why wouldn't the mother in this case comment- after all, she'd been cheated too.
 
2013-02-17 03:59:11 AM  

cptjeff: Baryogenesis: There's no reason to avoid creating unwanted children which is bad.

So the women, who has a far greater level of control over whether an unwanted child is created or winds up coming out, bears no responsibility on that point?


Riiiight.  That's exactly what I said.  Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.  Your "solution" involves removing all responsibility from the man because apparently carrying a child to term, giving birth and raising the kid is a much smaller burden than paying $500/month (or 750 or what have you).  And apparently, abortions are no big deal in your world, roughly equivalent  to filling out some paperwork.

If you don't want to be a father then use protection and don't fark a girl you don't trust.

redmid17: Men and women can both not sleep with people they do not trust. That is equal.

Men have one tool that is 99% effective against pregnancy. Women have at least three, and they have a backup option the man has no control over that is just as if not more effective.

Of course both sexes can use a condom, but those are much less effective.

To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool. This is even before one touches on the rampant inadequacies with the child support system.


The problem with demanding a 50-50 split in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is that men and women aren't on equal terms when it comes to pregnancy.  You're never going to get an equal situation there.  And once that decision is made and the child is born both parties have to support that child.  The man can't just back out because he doesn't feel like raising or paying for the kid.


cptjeff: Baryogenesis: I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?

Morning after pill is over the counter. Women have many more birth control options than men do, and can insist on men wearing condoms. Make men pay for the morning after pill or the abortion. Just have the clinic and the debt collection agencies have at if he doesn't want to pay.

The women always hast the power to stop or avoid an unwanted pregnancy, for the cost of $50 for a pill or a day at a clinic, which, under my system, she wouldn't ever have to pay. She also has access to a number of convenient and reversible birth control systems that men don't have access to.

The current system works fine with the presumption that an unintended pregnancy will result in birth and that women have no say in whether men use birth control or not. It was set up at a time when both of those things were more or less true. Now, neither of those things are true.


You didn't address men not caring about pregnancy in this solution of yours. Why should only the woman care?  You just complained because you thought I didn't care about a woman's role in birth control yet here you are essentially saying women have all the options so it should just be up to them.  Allowing men to skip out on their responsibility for creating a child isn't reasonable. And hey, if you're going to focus on this small subset of women who dupe men into child support then let's talk about men who would poke holes in condoms because they know they could just file some paper work to get off the hook.

 Men don't have to carry the baby to term and that is also an unequal situation.  You don't seem too concerned with that inequality.  Why is that?  Is it because women have so many ways of "shutting that whole thing down"?  Abortions are so quick and easy all over the U.S.!  And there's no emotional impact or social stigma whatsoever!  No one cares about your system or what the ideal world would look like.  Here in the real world there's nothing simple about getting an abortion.

What about accidental pregnancies instead of this small subset of "gotcha" pregnancies (do you have any statistics on how common those are or should we just stick with anecdotes)?  Does the man get to file some paperwork to get out of that or is it just when he's trapped by the woman?  How would a court know the difference?

What if a couple does everything right, but the condom breaks or the 1% failure rate kicks in?  Is the man absolved there too?  Do you see the problem with this "get out of jail free card" yet?


antidisestablishmentarianism: I have to know; are you pro-life or pro-choice?


I'd say it's pretty obvious if you've read my posts in the thread.  Of course, pro choice means that women have control over their own bodies.  No one ever phrases it as control over being a parent, but go ahead and give me a line about not allowing men a choice about being a father.  Guess what?  Limiting that choice has nothing to do with restricting a man's control over his body which is what pro choice is about with regard to women.

redmid17: antidisestablishmentarianism: Baryogenesis: men from caring about unwanted pregnancies

In the situations that have been presented men are the only ones who care about pregnancies and have no choice in what happens after them. I'm not saying guys who foolishly trusted a girl wasn't trolling for a baby daddy isn't supposed to take ownership of his oops, but if a guy had an out from an unwanted baby like a woman does, baby daddy trolling would go away.

Hey don't worry. Bary will just tell you to spend up to 2 grand to get a possibly irreversible surgery to ensure that never happens to you.


What's the cost of 18 years of child support?

And I also said not sticking your dick in crazy is an option (free) and condoms are an option (free in many places, cheap to buy in others).
 
2013-02-17 04:06:46 AM  

GAT_00: the right to decide what to do with a pregnancy should ultimately be biased towards the women. And the guy who impregnates her is responsible.


So, with great power comes ... no responsibility?

/Uncle Ben is spinning in his grave
 
2013-02-17 04:10:41 AM  

redmid17: To pretend that men and women are equal in the matter of preventing pregnancies is a complete folly and anyone who thinks they are even close is a fool.


I'll expand on this point.  I'm not contending men and women are equal in their options for preventing pregnancy.  In fact, I've been saying the whole thread how biology makes men and women very unequal with regard to pregnancy.  Men don't have as many options for prevention, but they also don't have to deal with actually being pregnant, possibly getting an abortion, giving birth and, in some cases, they can walk away with no ramifications at all (1 night stands, ineffective enforcement of child support or just outright lying to the girl, e.g. fake name).

The situation isn't equal, but I'd rather have a system that makes both parents responsible for a child instead of just the mother.  And yes, divorce, custody and child support all need reforms, but the solution isn't just to give men a free pass to fark without being responsible for the child they helped create.
 
2013-02-17 04:12:30 AM  

onyxruby: FizixJunkee: onyxruby: FizixJunkee: antidisestablishmentarianism: 
In other words, if your sisters and yourself never saw violent behavior then there probably wasn't any violent behavior from your father to see. You were probably simply told stories to slander him.


Except that it's not true.  I've seen my father knock his mother to the floor and break her glasses, and I've seen him hit my former stepmother when she was 7 months pregnant.

But he never once laid a hand on his kids.  Not even a spanking.
 
2013-02-17 04:13:09 AM  

cptjeff: What if she gets that out of the guy through fraud? Holes in the condom, lying about birth control? It wasn't proven, because the court didn't care and was just gonna stick him with child support anyway and wouldn't let the guy litigate the point, but there was a case where it was alleged that the women gave the guy a blowjob, went to another room, spat out the sperm, and used it to impregnate herself after he left. Another one where it was alleged the women used the sperm from a sock the guy had used for masturbation.


To be honest I don't find these individual accounts of blatant misconduct compelling.  People can do f**ked-up things to screw people over in all sorts of ways.  These sorts of cases are not, by any slightly reasonable stretch of the imagination, applicable to even a tiny minority of cases on the whole.  If you want to make laws to fix the problem, a better solution by far would be to disincentivise child-having by either making such fraud prosecutable in court, or...


Baryogenesis: I notice you still haven't addressed the glaring hole in your solution. You've now completely disincentivized men from caring about unwanted pregnancies. You don't think THAT would be a huge problem. Or is it just not a big deal because abortions are so simple and easy?
 
Wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust. Problem solved.

Just take some farking responsibility.  As a man, I don't see why this is such a huge farking deal.
 
2013-02-17 04:26:42 AM  

Baryogenesis: Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.


There are three time frames here. Before conception, after conception (but before birth) and after birth. The man can only affect one of those, while the women has power in all three. If she has more power, she should have more responsibility.
 
2013-02-17 04:51:16 AM  

Mija: antidisestablishmentarianism: The whole child support system needs an overhaul, it's a broken system that makes the child's father a victim to the whims of the mother.

Remember a few years back the guy from Michigan who fought against paying support for the kid he never wanted? I bet he lost because the girl wanted her meal ticket. (Is it fair that a woman has a choice about abortion and the guy doesn't? What about adoption?)

Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex. Once you begin you accept the odds and consequences. It's not like men aren't aware of how babies are made.


And then Mommy kissed Daddy, and the angel told the stork, and the stork flew down from heaven, and left a diamond under a leaf in the cabbage patch, and the diamond turned into a baby!
 
2013-02-17 05:05:59 AM  

2xhelix: He's going to need a really good forensic accountant and attorney to straighten it all out.


oh I've heard that before, god help me I can't afford either
 
2013-02-17 05:52:01 AM  

libranoelrose: Gyrfalcon: For not noticing he was still paying 25 years later?

He was under the impression that he was paying for his other child.


Which is why it's very difficult to feel any real sympathy for this one. He didn't even bother to keep track of how old the kid was? It hadn't occurred to him the boy was at least 18 by now and he could stop paying any time? (even if he wasn't dead) Way to care about your kids, dad. Or at least, way to care about your bank account. If he'd cared about either, he'd have known the date the kid turned 18 and he was no longer financially responsible and been down at the courthouse, papers in hand, filing for termination of child support.

As I said before, nobody in this sorry tale is guiltless.
 
2013-02-17 05:55:28 AM  

cptjeff: The legal system simply stereotypes fathers as being the breadwinners, but completely clueless in raising children


To be fair, even now how much are most men actually involved in raising their children?   Most of you want a pat on the head and victory sex if you deign to spend a half a day "watching" the kids (i.e. being present in the vicinity while the kid plays video games and watches tv).

How much are most men involved in the real, hands-on day-to-day raising of their children?  Who gets them out of bed, gets them dressed, feeds them breakfast, makes their lunch, gets them off to school, makes them dinner, cleans up after them, helps them with their costumes, makes sure homework is done, shops for their food and clothes and schoolbooks, drives them to their friends and the movies and after school activities, does most of the discipline, talks to them about their day, holds them when they cry, looks after them when they're sick, knows all their friends, organises their parties, bathes them, gets them to bed, all whilst usually trying to hold down a job?  Honestly, how much of the actual childcare and rearing do most fathers do?

So if the Court has a choice between the woman who has been doing 90% of the child rearing vs the man who has magically managed to be mostly absent whilst living in the same house, they're going to chose the woman even if she is a crazy biatch.

Oh look, here come all the men who think they're "awesome fathers" because they do a few token fun things and yells at the kid when they annoy him.  Amazing how much praise men want for doing so little.

/Take responsibility for the whereabouts of your sperm
 
2013-02-17 06:02:12 AM  

Gyrfalcon: It hadn't occurred to him the boy was at least 18 by now and he could stop paying any time?


He almost certainly owes the state of Michigan a ton of money to reimburse them for any medicare and welfare the mother received, plus he owes a huge amount of late charges, collection charges, administrative charges, interest charges, or any other surcharge they could invent to the FOC.

The FOC doesn't stop trying to collect on all that money owed to them just because one of the kids who benefited from that welfare long ago is now an adult and one of the kids is dead.
 
2013-02-17 06:16:45 AM  

fredklein: Baryogenesis: Of course she has a responsibility to engage in safe sex, but so does the man.

There are three time frames here. Before conception, after conception (but before birth) and after birth. The man can only affect one of those, while the women has power in all three. If she has more power, she should have more responsibility.


So your argument is completely based on a spiderman quote?

Guess what, it's her choice, that's biology, and the guy has to deal with it.  Men and women don't have equal roles in pregnancy, but you're still on the hook if you help conceive a child.  He doesn't get to tell her what to do with her body, but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.  Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

And since when do men not have a say after the child is born?  If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.
 
2013-02-17 07:15:03 AM  
Baryogenesis:
The problem with demanding a 50-50 split in the decision to carry a pregnancy to term is that men and women aren't on equal terms when it comes to pregnancy.  You're never going to get an equal situation there.  And once that decision is made and the child is born both parties have to support that child.  The man can't just back out because he doesn't feel like raising or paying for the kid.

You're technically right... and on that front, there will never be such a thing as perfect equality between genders, as a result of that.
What we can, though, ask for is consistency.
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I decide I want to keep it but she doesn't... because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I don't want it, but she does... but because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!

This is a flawed morality.

After all, if she deliberately went off birth control (without telling me), poked holes in the condoms (or pulled a save-for-later maneuver) in order to get pregnant without my approval- in fact, with my express disapproval... then what she has done is committed theft of my genome.
But I still have no say. In fact, I have no rights whatsoever. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
And I might be held responsible for the cost of her actions for years to come... why? Because all of the sudden, it was my sperm, and my responsibility... even though it was used in a way I did not consent to or allow.

It's a little like holding a man responsible for every murder committed with a gun that was stolen from him.

If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.
 
2013-02-17 07:50:28 AM  

ARedthorn: You're technically right... and on that front, there will never be such a thing as perfect equality between genders, as a result of that.
What we can, though, ask for is consistency.
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I decide I want to keep it but she doesn't... because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!
Example: I accidentally get a girl pregnant, I don't want it, but she does... but because I'm male, I have no say. Why? Her Body, Her Choice!

This is a flawed morality.


I'll assume that the consistent version is the same thing others have argued in the thread: the man can opt out even if the woman keeps the baby.  However, as I keep pointing out, since the two sides aren't equal biologically you can't expect to have equal standing legally.  It just doesn't work.  There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.  You're suggesting a system where women are the only ones responsible for conceiving and raising a child.

ARedthorn: After all, if she deliberately went off birth control (without telling me), poked holes in the condoms (or pulled a save-for-later maneuver) in order to get pregnant without my approval- in fact, with my express disapproval... then what she has done is committed theft of my genome.


I suggest you don't leave birth control entirely up to whoever you're farking.  It's called being responsible for your own actions.  That means buying, using and disposing of the condoms yourself like a big boy.

ARedthorn: If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.


Let's flesh this out.  You want a say in whether she keeps the baby.  What happens when the man and woman disagree?  She's either being forced to abort a baby that she wants to keep or she's being forced to carry a baby to term she doesn't want.  Obviously, that's not an acceptable situation.  That's just the nature of biology, but that doesn't mean it's no longer your responsibility.  The situation is asymmetrical yet you keep demanding symmetry.  It doesn't work that way.  The alternative is men having ZERO responsibility despite helping create a child.  And by the way, that's something no one in favor of that idea has actually addressed.  What are the consequences of allowing men to opt out of raising/paying for children they father?

If you don't want to be a father then wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust.  Due to the differences in biology, the time for the man to opt out is BEFORE you have sex, not after.
 
2013-02-17 08:24:53 AM  

quatchi: I don't really see what your point was there.


That you latched onto the child support part like it was something special. All that matters is paternity. It's his child so there was never going to be any debate. That's just how it works because it doesn't matter if one or both of the parents are massive, raging psychopaths, it matters that the child is supported.

If you don't like that and you're worried you'll be that 1 in a billion guy this happens to, don't shoot your load at random women you can't trust. There's two problems with your "example":

1. It's an extreme outlier and extraordinarily non-representative of how these spats actually work
2. You're ignoring that no matter how extreme the circumstances, what matters in paternity claims is the paternity, not how it happened. It's his child, it's his child support.

Yea, paternity cases often turn shiatty for the father, but, as usual, Fark's whiners have taken it waaaayyyy beyond reality. Latching onto extremes doesn't help that, it just makes the people doing it appear whiny and senseless.

The Larch: Well, I'm glad you've used this as an opportunity to validated your belief that when bad things happen to people, it's always their own damned fault.


Yep. Pointing out that one person with a spotty employment history, spotty payment history and who didn't notice he was paying child support on a man approaching middle age means that I'm saying everybody who ever has a bad thing happen to them brought it on themself.

I'll assume you're idiotic strawman is your way of ceding the point and acknowledging I'm right in the typically cowardly, backwards way of the internet.
 
2013-02-17 08:39:05 AM  
I'll just leave THIS here. (New window)
 
2013-02-17 08:42:26 AM  
Of course when the deadbeat other parent doesn't pay support, or falls behind, they owe back support. And it doesn't disappear, so yeah, if you didn't pay your fair share, you will still owe that money even if the child is dead or over 50. As well you should, because you are a piece of crap. So there are plenty of legitimate ways this can happen.
 
2013-02-17 09:16:26 AM  

Baryogenesis: antidisestablishmentarianism: Mija: Both parents have a choice BEFORE they decide to have sex

But only one parent has a choice after they have sex. Fix that part of the system and I bet the 'welfare queen' boogieman goes away.

There is no way to make it equal because biology gets in the way. A woman can't simply sign a piece of paper to remove her responsibility.


If she wants to keep it, and the father doesn't, then she should accept that she will have to pay for it.  Everyone goes on about how men should be responsible and consider the consequences of their actions so why do women get a free pass? She chose to have sex just as much as the guy did. She could have used contraception just as much as the guy could have.
But if babby is formed then suddenly she gets to say "I'm keeping it, you have no say, now pay up and keep paying for the next twenty years"

Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?
 
2013-02-17 09:23:19 AM  
 
2013-02-17 09:39:18 AM  
It's very simple: miss payments, you owe more. The payments don't automatically stop when your kid turns 18, you owe until the court says otherwise. If you don't fight for joint custody, you won't even get visitation.
Cletus here missed some payments and had no real interest in the kid's life. Boo farking Hoo.
 
2013-02-17 10:37:35 AM  

cptjeff: Loren: In the end he caved because it was cheaper than fighting it. That's probably why they did it--they knew he would see it that way.

That's what countersuits are for.


Good luck countersuing the government.

ongbok: Yes sir. I remember one of my friends went through this. He got his girlfriend pregnant. The day after his daughter was born he took the birth certificate down to the child support office himself and got the child support process started. So they gave him a court date 3 months from then, but between that day and the court date his daughter had gotten sick and needed to be hospitalized. Instead of using the insurance card that he gave her for his daughter, she used the medicaid or medicare, what ever it is called, card because there was a $75 dollar copay for emergency room service with his insurance. And don't ask me how she qualified for the medical card, she was a very well paid accountant at the time.

Well skip forward to his court date. He went in there expecting to be order to pay about $500 a month. However the prosecutor pulled out paper work showing that he had an almost $20k arrearage. He asked how he could have a $20k arrearage on a 3 month old and that is when he found out about what the mother did at the hospital. Because of that arrearage his child support was set at almost $900 a month. I remember after that hearing he just sat in his seat with a beer and said, "Now I know why OJ did it".


And the state doesn't give a hoot she committed fraud, they just want their money anyway.
 
2013-02-17 10:43:32 AM  
This thread may have some of the longest replies I've ever seen on Fark.  Who knew?

/deadbeats
 
2013-02-17 11:04:13 AM  

Baryogenesis: So your argument is completely based on a spiderman quote?


No- the basic morality behind that quote.

Guess what, it's her choice, that's biology, and the guy has to deal with it.

And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

Men and women don't have equal roles in pregnancy, but you're still on the hook if you help conceive a child.

Thanks for re-stating the problem.

He doesn't get to tell her what to do with her body

Good thing no one's suggesting that, then.

but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.

Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

Of course it is. But since it means women won't be able to trap men, it'll never happen.

And since when do men not have a say after the child is born? If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.

Have you been reading this thread?? Women move away with the kids, father never sees them again. Woman accuses father of abuse, father never sees them again. Women violates custody order, man only gets to see them rarely, if at all. How, exactly, does the man get to "be a father"; in these cases??
 
2013-02-17 11:08:05 AM  

Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.


Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.
 
2013-02-17 11:52:35 AM  

fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.


Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.
 
2013-02-17 11:56:21 AM  

Flint Ironstag: fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.

Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.


Not to mention that in the UK being sixteen and a single mother equals "Here is your free house/apartment with all the bills paid".  It queue jumps all others, even those who are genuinely homeless. Even if single mom's parents have a big house and spare bedrooms. Doesn't matter, teen and babby get an apartment of their own.
 
2013-02-17 12:11:18 PM  
Baryogenesis:
I'll assume that the consistent version is the same thing others have argued in the thread: the man can opt out even if the woman keeps the baby.  However, as I keep pointing out, since the two sides aren't equal biologically you can't expect to have equal standing legally.  It just doesn't work.  There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.  You're suggesting a system where women are the only ones responsible for conceiving and raising a child.

Not entirely. I think you're slightly missing my point... hang on a second.

I suggest you don't leave birth control entirely up to whoever you're farking.  It's called being responsible for your own actions.  That means buying, using and disposing of the condoms yourself like a big boy.

Granted, to a limited degree. Remember- my example given (and one that's happened before) was where the male did exactly what you describe and still failed... why? Because the female in question used deceptive means to bypass that. They're in a casual relationship... she's on BC, he's using condoms... she decides she wants something more serious and that a kid is the best way to that (as opposed to talking about it)... so she goes of BC without telling him, and deliberately damages the condoms (poking holes in them, or saving the sperm from them, or slipping one off or tearing it mid-coitus... more than one option here). Prior to this, he had no reason to distrust her, so the BC is a betrayal, but the condoms were his backup plan... the backup plan you say should be enough- the control he has that she doesn't... she took from him.

Mind you, I'm not saying this is a common example- it's not. But it has happened, and Proof-of-Concepts only need to be displayed as possible, not as common.
My point: Her Body, Her Choice is a flawed morality. My proof: there are several circumstances in which it fails dramatically to be anything like fair, equal or consistent.

ARedthorn: If I have a say, it's not her choice. If it's her choice and hers alone, I bear no responsibility. Pick one. I don't farking care which anymore. Just pick one. you can't have it both ways.

Let's flesh this out.  You want a say in whether she keeps the baby.  What happens when the man and woman disagree?  She's either being forced to abort a baby that she wants to keep or she's being forced to carry a baby to term she doesn't want.  Obviously, that's not an acceptable situation.  That's just the nature of biology, but that doesn't mean it's no longer your responsibility.  The situation is asymmetrical yet you keep demanding symmetry.  It doesn't work that way.  The alternative is men having ZERO responsibility despite helping create a child.  And by the way, that's something no one in favor of that idea has actually addressed.  What are the consequences of allowing men to opt out of raising/paying for children they father?
If you don't want to be a father then wrap it up and don't fark women you don't trust.  Due to the differences in biology, the time for the man to opt out is BEFORE you have sex, not after.

 ...

Yes, in theory, I do want a say in whether she keeps the baby... not perhaps overwhelming majority vote, but you're looking for a black-and-white answer here, I'm not.
No black-and-white solution is ever perfect... that's why Her Body, Her Choice is such a problem.

I'm not saying I favor it. I'm saying that it has consequences:
IF it's true, it absolves men of any responsibility in the pregnancy or raising of the child- after all, they had no choice, and we're in the habit of holding people responsible for THEIR choices, not the choices of those around them.
IF it's false, then it gives men a say in the pregnancy, not just the care for or raising of the child. It's his genes, his legacy, his child as much as hers. She carries the physical burden for 9 months, granted, and this is important, but this does not give her a lifetime of advantage over his rights.

It's used as a rallying cry by women when it benefits them, but the moment those consequences come up, it's immediately forgotten.
That's what I find unacceptable.

Here's my alternate proposal:
The man has a say in the pregnancy... final decision goes to her, but that's not a matter of morality- only practicality. If they agree, no big deal... if they disagree, he lacks the power to enforce his side of the decision anyway, so we may as well just admit that it's not 50/50... and I never thought it should be. More like 60/40 or 70/30 at worst.
But if they do disagree, he gets an out. He gets to make it known publicly and legally that she is making this decision without his support, and he publicly, legally withdraws that support from her. He should not have to pay the price for her decision when he opposed it. Period.
Anything else is a dictatorship, not equality.

If that means she gets an abortion when he wanted to keep the child- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
If that means she carries to term when he wanted her not to (adoption or abortion both as viable and equal alternatives for my purpose)- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
Her decision should be made taking into account his presence- will he be there for the child, physically, emotionally or financially? If those factors don't matter to her, she's an idiot. If they do... then they should have weight, and she should be willing to accept that he holds sway over her decision, and allow him to do so as an equal or nearly-equal partner, not as a silent and powerless boycotter.
Some room for discussion or negotiation may be allowed- but that's between them... and this is where discretion comes in. Maybe he wants the abortion, and she doesn't... but knowing that he will completely withdraw his support if she gives birth, can talk him into paying for the abortion completely if he wants it that badly... or talk him into accepting an adoption instead... or if the fault for the pregnancy lies with him (being an idiot about BC), negotiate a small child support settlement instead of the full amount.
Only in the cases of real culpability or serious negligence do I see the need to bring courts in.

So if you want equality, take it... consequences and all.
That I support fully. If though you intend to ask for equality AND take advantage when it suits you... shut me out of having the same equality you demanded I give you? Not kosher. Not in the slightest.
 
2013-02-17 12:17:45 PM  
fark... wish there were an edit feature.

So, I neglected your question about consequences... As I suggested, there may still be cases where negligence (someone sleeping around, taking no precautions at all) or culpability (in the case of either partner being deceitful about BC, as well as cases of rape, etc) where the courts would still be called in.

Even if the male has the option to opt out, he has incentives to use BC... for one thing, because if it can be readily shown that he's taking risks with that right, he'll lose it... for another, STDs... for another, even if he can opt out, the kid is still out there, and for many guys, the financial responsibility comes second to the idea of having a kid at all.
Could there be problems? Sure... but we've already got plenty of guys doing this sort of thing already, or 1:3 of Americans wouldn't be infected with an STD.
I'm not suggesting this system would be perfect... but it would be more fair, more consistent and equal than what we've got, where the man involved is assumed guilty until proven innocent, and often never given the chance to state his case.
 
2013-02-17 12:59:05 PM  

ARedthorn: Here's my alternate proposal:
The man has a say in the pregnancy... final decision goes to her, but that's not a matter of morality- only practicality. If they agree, no big deal... if they disagree, he lacks the power to enforce his side of the decision anyway, so we may as well just admit that it's not 50/50... and I never thought it should be. More like 60/40 or 70/30 at worst.
But if they do disagree, he gets an out. He gets to make it known publicly and legally that she is making this decision without his support, and he publicly, legally withdraws that support from her. He should not have to pay the price for her decision when he opposed it. Period.
Anything else is a dictatorship, not equality.

If that means she gets an abortion when he wanted to keep the child- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
If that means she carries to term when he wanted her not to (adoption or abortion both as viable and equal alternatives for my purpose)- the financial and personal responsibility for that decision falls with her.
Her decision should be made taking into account his presence- will he be there for the child, physically, emotionally or financially? If those factors don't matter to her, she's an idiot. If they do... then they should have weight, and she should be willing to accept that he holds sway over her decision, and allow him to do so as an equal or nearly-equal partner, not as a silent and powerless boycotter.


I'd agree with that. The woman gets to choose. But she has to take into account whether she can afford to raise the child. It's her decision. If the man doesn't get a say then why should he have to pay? And pay for her to spend the next twenty years doing nothing? It's a baby, not a lottery ticket.
 
2013-02-17 01:46:28 PM  
Gyrfalcon: My phone is acting weird and not letting me quoote. Your opinions are not very well thought out, and just plain wrong, mostly.
 
2013-02-17 04:42:39 PM  
Detroit, figured.
 
2013-02-17 05:59:24 PM  

jgeisle: This thread may have some of the longest replies I've ever seen on Fark.  Who knew?

/deadbeats


I've never had a kid, I've never owed child support.  I've just seen what has happened to others I know.
 
2013-02-17 06:29:31 PM  
Pretty soon women won't even need to have a child in order them to sue you for child support.

"It's for the child we *should* have had together!"
 
2013-02-17 07:55:31 PM  

Flint Ironstag: Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?


Holy shiat, man.  In what world is carrying a baby to term, giving birth and raising the child not bearing the (financial) responsibility?  Oh, it's no big deal because she got a check from the father?

fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.


It's the consequence of HIS choice to FARK the woman.  That's a risk of having sex.  Women, due to the differences in biology, have a few extra options down the line.  Men don't.  It's not equal and it won't ever be equal so demanding that the man's situation matches the woman's is absurd.

fredklein: but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.


Actually, those are her options.  There's no third option.  What world do you live in?

fredklein: Men having no responsibility isn't a viable option.

Of course it is. But since it means women won't be able to trap men, it'll never happen.


Oh really?  You think there would be no consequences if no man was responsible for creating a child?  Stop considering only this tiny subset of pregnancies where the woman traps the man.  What about totally accidental pregnancies?  Should that be only the woman's responsibility?  What if the man wants to have a kid, but then he panics a few months after conceiving and bails?  And since none of you can let go of these examples of woman trapping men, how about a situation where, because the man holds no responsibility, he intentionally pokes a hole in the condom to knock her up and then leaves?

Tell me more about how not being responsible for your actions is a good thing.

fredklein: And since when do men not have a say after the child is born? If all you just want to pay child support you can do that, but you can actually, you know, be a father.

Have you been reading this thread?? Women move away with the kids, father never sees them again. Woman accuses father of abuse, father never sees them again. Women violates custody order, man only gets to see them rarely, if at all. How, exactly, does the man get to "be a father"; in these cases??


So because some women violate custody laws we should just absolve ALL men of any responsibility in caring/paying for a child they helped create?  I'm not arguing those situations aren't shiatty for the men, but your solution isn't a solution.

fredklein: Baryogenesis: There's no equivalent "opt out" for women.

Bullshiat.

A woman can:
Use 'Emergency Contraception' (aka: plan B)
Abort
Adopt

and that's just POST-conception. Women have lots more options pre-conception, too.


You don't seem to understand "equivalent".  We're talking about a situation where the woman is pregnant (contraceptives and plan B don't apply) and the man can file some paperwork and then just walk out the door.  The woman under your plan either has to get an abortion or carry a child to term and then either give it up for adoption or raise the kid alone.  Abortions are not equivalent to paperwork. Carrying a child for 9 months only to give it up for adoption isn't equivalent to paperwork.  Raising a child isn't equivalent to paperwork.  Guess what?  Not all woman are going to be cavalier about an abortion or adoption.  It's not some simple thing.

Flint Ironstag: Exactly. It takes two to make the mistake, or both or either. But once that mistake happens the woman holds all the cards, and has the biggest incentive to make a decision that will allow her, in many cases, to never have to work again while the man is forced to give up half his paycheck to support her, even if he never gets to even see the, his, child.

It takes two to make the mistake. Why shouldn't both parties have a say in what happens next?  If the woman wants to keep the child but the man doesn't? Fine. As long as she pays for it.


Both parties don't have a say because biology.  Why does everyone have such a problem understanding this.  The situation isn't equal and you can't force it to be equal.  Sure, you've solved the problem (no one can give me numbers for how common it even is) about women trapping men with pregnancy, you've created a much worse problem.  A system that allows men to have zero responsibility isn't reasonable.

ARedthorn: Mind you, I'm not saying this is a common example- it's not. But it has happened, and Proof-of-Concepts only need to be displayed as possible, not as common.
My point: Her Body, Her Choice is a flawed morality. My proof: there are several circumstances in which it fails dramatically to be anything like fair, equal or consistent.



We can't make laws that are 100% perfect in all situations you can possibly think up.  The world doesn't work that way and it's an absurd standard to judge a situation by. And what about the reverse situation where men don't have any responsibility to stick around?  You don't think there would be some epic failures in fairness in that situation?
You still need to be responsible for your own birth control.  If you're worried about her circumventing your protection then keep it on you or buy new ones every time or not fark her.

ARedthorn: Here's my alternate proposal


Again, the situation isn't fair because of the biological differences.  It won't ever be fair and you can't make a law forcing it to be fair.  It won't actually end up being fair.  In your case, you've decided women now carry all the burden of contraception, pregnancy and raising children.  Men have no responsibility.  It doesn't matter if they get a girl pregnant because they can just opt out with minimal fuss.  They have no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility if she gets pregnant.  How is that acceptable?  We already have a problem with men dropping their seed and avoiding responsibility and you want to eliminate the one mechanism that regulates that behavior.  You demand a system where both parties have equal say and equal responsibility and then when you realize biology doesn't work that way you decide on a system where one party has all the responsibility and the other has none.

And please, let's not call having to pay for a child you fathered tyranny, okay?  You have the power to not sleep with a girl you don't trust.  You have the power to use contraception.  You have the power to get a vasectomy.  You're not a little boy at the mercy of a succubus.  You don't get to opt out of your responsibilities because you don't think it's fair.  The situation is asymmetrical so it's not going to be a 50-50 deal.  Sorry, that's life.  The alternative you presented doesn't work.  If you don't like it then don't have sex because it will always carry a risk of pregnancy.
 
2013-02-17 08:28:22 PM  

fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.


That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking
 
2013-02-17 08:34:26 PM  

Baryogenesis: Flint Ironstag: Why does no one expect the woman to be responsible? Why does everyone consider her a mere passive pawn who has no say and never needs to accept the financial consequences of her actions?

Holy shiat, man.  In what world is carrying a baby to term, giving birth and raising the child not bearing the (financial) responsibility?  Oh, it's no big deal because she got a check from the father?



It's not bearing the responsibility because she can make a decision that forces him to have to pay for the next twenty years. Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years for what, in many cases, could have been her mistake, or even, as has been reported, her deliberate actions.

Couples who find they are expecting a child have to decide what to do and consider if they can afford it. yet a woman can decide unilaterally, overrule the father, and doing so obliges him to pay up.
Couples have to consider if they can afford to raise a child on what they earn. Why shouldn't single mom's have to make the same decision based on what she earns?
Many couples have had to give up a child because they couldn't afford it. Why should single moms be able to skip that part by being able to force someone else to pay?
 
2013-02-17 11:49:58 PM  

Baryogenesis: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

It's the consequence of HIS choice to FARK the woman.


And SHE didn't make a choice? You say "he farked her", not "they farked", which shows your bias from the start.

Women... have a few extra options down the line.  Men don't.

Exactly. You understand perfectly.

fredklein: but he also doesn't have to get an abortion or carry a child to term and give birth.

Neither does she.

Actually, those are her options.  There's no third option.  What world do you live in?


One where a woman can:

1) practice abstinence
2) insist he use a condom
3) use a 'female condom'
4) use a diaphragm
5) use a cervical cap
6) use a cervical sponge
7) use spermicide
8) use the 'rhythm method' (ie have sex only when not near ovulation)
9) engage in, um, non-standard sex acts that won't lead to pregnancy (oral, anal, etc)
10) Get a hormonal implant (norplant, etc)
11) get her tubes tied
12) get an IUD
13) if all else fails, use 'emergency contraception' (aka 'plan B')
14) abort
15) adopt out
16) abandon the baby

That's a LOT more than two options. And I think I may have missed a few.

Women have WAY more choices than men.

And since none of you can let go of these examples of woman trapping men, how about a situation where, because the man holds no responsibility, he intentionally pokes a hole in the condom to knock her up and then leaves?

Then she can avail herself of one of the many options she has left. There is no way for a guy to 'trap' a woman, like women can trap men now. neither side could trap the other, thus: fairness.

So because some women violate custody laws we should just absolve ALL men of any responsibility in caring/paying for a child they helped create?

The man made 1 decision. The women ALSO made that decision, AND many more. it was the result of those decisions that resulted in a child.

Who's more responsible for the loaf of bread- the guy who mixes the dough, or the woman who takes some, puts it in a pan, puts the pan in the oven, and bakes it?

The woman under your plan either has to get an abortion or carry a child to term and then either give it up for adoption or raise the kid alone. Abortions are not equivalent to paperwork. Carrying a child for 9 months only to give it up for adoption isn't equivalent to paperwork. Raising a child isn't equivalent to paperwork. Guess what? Not all woman are going to be cavalier about an abortion or adoption. It's not some simple thing.

Then maybe they should take responsibility for their decision to fark the guy. You keep saying MEN have to take responsibility. Why don't women???

Sure, you've solved the problem (no one can give me numbers for how common it even is) about women trapping men with pregnancy, you've created a much worse problem. A system that allows men to have zero responsibility isn't reasonable.

Yeah-it would force the women to only fark guys they love and trust to be fathers, and it would force them to stop trapping guys. Not reasonable at all.

In your case, you've decided women now carry all the burden of contraception, pregnancy and raising children.

As you say, that's because of Biology.

Men have no responsibility. It doesn't matter if they get a girl pregnant because they can just opt out with minimal fuss. They have no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility if she gets pregnant. How is that acceptable?

"no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility"- kinda the way women are now!!
 
2013-02-17 11:52:33 PM  

The Larch: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking


If I have a huge debt due to gambling, should YOU have to pay it? Of course not- it's MY problem.

If you disagree, lemme know, and I'll tell you how much to transfer to my paypal account.
 
2013-02-18 12:22:26 AM  

fredklein: The Larch: fredklein: And that's the problem. People should not have to deal with the results of other people's choices.

That is the single most stupid thing I have ever read in my life.

I'm not joking

If I have a huge debt due to gambling, should YOU have to pay it? Of course not- it's MY problem.

If you disagree, lemme know, and I'll tell you how much to transfer to my paypal account.


Congress just passed a law making the username "fredklein" carry a fine of $10,000.  You didn't vote for it, but you still have to deal with the result.

fredklein: Then she can avail herself of one of the many options she has left. There is no way for a guy to 'trap' a woman, like women can trap men now. neither side could trap the other, thus: fairness.


Err, no.  A man being "trapped" isn't the only unequal situation that can arise from conception.  What happens if a truly accidental conception happens, but the man can simply opt out?  There's nothing "fair" about a man being able to sign a few slips of paper to get out of being a father, but the woman has to either get an abortion (always fun!) or carry the child then give it up for adoption (also fun).

fredklein: "no incentive to care about contraception as they bear no responsibility"- kinda the way women are now!!


Clearly you're not worth continued conversation if you can't even understand women bear responsibility for contraception and pregnancy by virtue of the fact that they carry the unborn child.

Flint Ironstag: Both made the mistake, yet now he has no say but can be forced to pay up for twenty years


And your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.  How are you not getting this?  You can't complain about the situation being unfair and then turn around and propose a solution that is even more unequal.
 
Displayed 50 of 259 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report