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.

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

Idiots who gambles money they can't afford to lose are already forcing other people to pay for their bad choices.

And, if you really are one of those aspie psuedo-libertarians who imagines that he should go through life entirely removed from the burden of living in society, go live in the desert. The rest of us are sick of your shiat.

Baryogenesis:
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.

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.

Agreed on some points... we can't ever manage a law that's 100% perfect, fair and consistent... but that's where negotiation and discretion comes in, but you seem to think that neither is acceptable.

I absolutely think fathers, and men in general, should be responsible... but you can't force responsibility externally with a blunt instrument like this and not call it tyranny. Mind, it could arguably be a beneficial tyranny SOME of the time, but tyranny it is.
Why? Because you are at least on occasion, taking his choice away and making him pay for the consequences of that choice.

I think you've missed most of my point.

Responsibility is not a result of participation, but of CHOICE.
If someone involved in a military operation is given orders to drop a bomb on a given region he knows nothing about, and that region happens to have no enemy military presence, and that bomb happens to kill hundreds of civilians, injure thousands... we don't convict the soldier who dropped the bomb of war crimes... we convict his commanding officer.
If I were to put you in a bomb vest, in a crowded hospital... with the sure knowledge that if you tried to remove it, disarm it, or disobey my orders, I would set it off- killing you and everyone in the building with you... and order you to smother an old man, with the understanding that if you do, the bomb will be deactivated...
Who's at fault if you obey? Who do we convict?

Our legal system is built from the ground all the way up to the top on this premise... entirely on this premise...
And yet you're the one that wants to skate by.
Because that premise- that foundation for the law that is true EVERYWHERE but here states that if it's her choice, it's her responsibility.
End of story.

So we can either abandon "her body, her choice" and share responsibility...
Or we can keep it, and absolve men of the majority of the responsibility...
Or you can admit that you're taking advantage. That you're using "her body, her choice" when it benefits  one gender, and ignoring it when it benefits the other. Which is (again, calling a pig a pig) sexist.

One last time- I'm not looking for 50-50 here... never have been... stop telling me I am.

Baryogenesis: 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.

This is the most reasonable thing I've heard from you- which leads me to believe that for the most part, we might just be missing eachothers' points here.

What I'm railing against is the guy's powerlessness in the situation.

I think that summary rulings should be out. The guy should get a chance to make a solid case for himself... and if he can make a case that he wasn't negligent about BC, and did not support carrying the child to term (that she made that decision without consulting him, or overruled him completely), it should be taken strongly into consideration in reducing the degree of his payments, or in some uncommon cases, negate them altogether.

And I'd /like/ to see the need for courts lessened by responsible adults handling the negotiation with eachother, without the need for dragging it into litigation at all.

A complete opt-out is just as unfair in the opposite direction, and I stated that poorly, several times over- but some measure of control on his part is due and overdue.

Otherwise... heh... Like I said in the last post: admit the man a say SOMEWHERE in the process, or admit the system is unfair to men at least a significant minority of the time (and could be better, we know not how), and I'll happily walk away from this debate...

If [Group A] wants to ask for equality, I'll give it to them, but it comes with consequences and responsibilities... the same ones everyone else pays for that right.
If they want to ask for favorable treatment, I'll likewise give it to them, but that too comes with consequences and responsibilities...
Either way, I expect them to accept those consequences/responsibilities... "Her Body, Her Choice" fails to do that... and so far in this debate, you've been seemingly refusing to do so. (Emphasis on seemingly.)

FizixJunkee: onyxruby

It's unfortunate to hear that he was violent. I am used to interacting with false claims of violence that are used as a divorce tactic. It's something that I've had to become intimately familiar with over the last couple years.

I have learned that it's a relatively common method of gaining the upper hand in a divorce. After my personal experience with my ex-wife where she was actually the violent person it makes me skeptical be default when I hear stories. At least your father wasn't violent with your sisters and you as kids.

Baryogenesis: 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.

1) I may not have DIRECTLY voted for it, but I did vote for the congressmen/women who voted for it. I at least had some input.
2) Such a law is unconstitutional- Freedom of Speech and such.

Oh, and BTW laws do get overturned when enough people don't like them.

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).

That's the fault of BIOLOGY, not MEN. Go blame "Mother Nature". :-)

Of course, the whole thing could be avoided if the women took responsibility and used contraception (of which she has many, many, many more choices). But that would mean SHE has to be responsible, and we cant have that, can we?

your solution to both people making the mistake is to let one of them completely opt out of responsibility.

BECAUSE THE OTHER ONE CAN DO THAT, TOO. A woman can, currently, completely opt out of responsibility for a baby by getting an abortion, or by putting it up for adoption, or by abandoning it. Yes, those options come with consequences- what choices don't?? But at least she currently has options. HE DOES NOT.

The Larch: And, if you really are one of those aspie psuedo-libertarians who imagines that he should go through life entirely removed from the burden of living in society, go live in the desert. The rest of us are sick of your shiat.

Pay my bills or STFU.

arentol: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: Jesda: GAT_00: antidisestablishmentarianism: GAT_00: Oh look, supposed personal experience used to condemn the system as a whole.

I got a bit off topic but the main problem is that a father is a father after conception whether he want's to be or not. After conception a mother has the choice to abort the baby or give it up for adoption.

Which is in fact still completely off topic.

Topics can expand and diverge if they want. Whiner.

Exactly. Not to call GAT_00 out but I know he is pro choice for women. In an endlessly gray area like this how can you not be pro-choice for men too?

Having to take responsibility for a child changed my life, it's hard to wonder what would have happened if I had the choice not to be forced to take responsibility for a child I wasn't ready for and didn't want to raise with that person.

In short, until men can carry a fetus to term without being transgender, or until we get fully functional ecotanks where a fetus can grow to term outside a human body, 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.

If one were to apply actual logic they would apply 100% bias towards the child.

I find it intensely hilarious (and sad) that almost everyone who is anti-gun because they want to  "protect the children" are also pro-choice. I can't fathom how they manage to lie to themselves that much without their heads exploding from the massive amount of hypocrisy contained therein.

I'll bite...

Being pro-choice =/= not wanting to protect children. You see, people who are pro-choice often do not consider an unborn fetus and a child that one has been raising to be the same thing and therefore do not feel they should be treated the same.

Flint Ironstag: Baryogenesis: 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.

She can opt out completely. There's the morning after pill or, if too late, then abortion. Unless you think a woman having an abortion is more traumatic for her than it is for a man to have his child abortion by a woman where he wants to keep it but she doesn't. She can do that without him having any say.

Just kick her in the stomach. Takes the guesswork out of the equation.