Explain how it isn't your position. Do you or don't you want a man to be legally excused from child support after impregnating a woman? And since the man is not involved in the pregnancy, coping with it would be left to the woman only, as would responsibility for birth control because the man would have no incentive to prevent a pregnancy.
Your question implies a whether man should be responsible for child support depends on if "he impregnated" the mother, not because he's the biological father or ever showed an intent to create a child. Your spin is not my position because I'm not implying women are passive participants in the pregnancy process. If two people have consensual sex without the intent to create a child and take the proper precautions, they should both be able to "skip away" without having to worry the subsequent choices and actions of the other will have a subsequent impact upon their livelihoods. Men have a very high incentive to take measures to prevent a pregnancy: if they don't then most women won't consent to have sex with them. Also, if he doesn't take precautions, he'll have a harder time claiming he never intended to have a child. If a man deliberately impregnated a women without her consent, then that is a crime. Men and women should both be responsible for their own bodies, and not someone else's.
They are responsible for their own bodies. They're also responsible for their own actions - and if their actions result in the birth of a living child, then they're responsible for its upkeep. Hyperbole.
"""""Men have a very high incentive to take measures to prevent a pregnancy: if they don't then most women won't consent to have sex with them."""""" Not ALL men. There are men who WANT to impregnate women(whether the woman wants to be pregnant or not) . And they ALWAYS find women either dumb enough to have sex with them or they lie a lot to the woman they want to have sex with (ain't that a shocker). They do it to: To prove their "manliness" (ya, I know that's really "Caveman" but they still exist) To control/keep a woman. To "stake a claim" (see above). Because they can. Men don't always think ahead
There is no spin, it is a biological fact that the man impregnates a woman, and a woman becomes pregnant, whether it is intentional or not, and does not imply the woman is a passive participant in the process. I agree that would be ideal, but in reality, a woman never gets to simply skip away. She is the one who must cope with the pregnancy in some way. For some women--those who are victims of reproductive coercion, poor women without access to legal abortion (like the women being "protected" by legislators in Texas), and women with deep pro-life convictions--abortion isn't an option. And even if a woman is able to get an abortion, she will likely be forced to endure anti-abortion restrictions (vaginal ultrasounds, waiting periods, mandated counseling, parental consent, etc) and a lifetime of slut-shaming. This is why your idea to make laws for men and women "equal" is flawed. The result would be that women would have the entire burden of birth control, pregnancy or abortion and all of the resulting aftermath of either. Many young men, like the one who fathered 20+ children, don't worry that much about future responsibilities, they are just intent on having sex now. Would a man be required to prove he never intended to have a child? That might be difficult. Also difficult to prove. Both men and women should both be responsible for their own children.
It is the woman's action that results in the birth of a living child and the man has no say in this. If a mistake happens (contraception does not work) then it is the woman's decision whether or not to clean up the mistake. (The man should help to clean up the mess by paying for a morning after pill or abortion. If the woman makes a unilateral decision not to clean up the mess then she is responsible for the consequences. This is not rocket science.
He had his say when he helped cause a pregnancy It's not necessary for a man to pay for any medical procedure undertaken by a woman forany reason. yes, mistakes happen, but there is nothing a man can do to rectify a mistaken pregnancy. It's not rocket science that children have two parents and that men cannot abort an unwanted pregnancy.
So what are you claiming here ? That a baby exists at conception ? The man consented to sex .. not to a baby. You have not made any argument to the contrary. Sure there is ..men often perform abortions on women. Theoretically a man could abort an unwanted pregnancy. Current law allows for the woman to have the unilateral choice in the matter as it is her body .. thank goodness. With that choice comes the unilateral responsibility to deal with the consequences of that choice.
If a women is given the right to abort a baby for financial reasons (not wanting to have a baby because she cant afford to raise one because she isn't financial ready) so why cant a man? why cant a man tell the women he isn't financially ready to have a kid and if she decides to continue with the pregnancy he should be allowed to forfeit all financial responsibilities (no child support)
OK, fine, but legally he should sign the papers BEFORE having sex so IF she becomes pregnant she has time to abort.....if HE waits too long he'll have to accept his responsibilities to a live, living, right here now child. Then to make EVERYTHING fair to men science should invent a way to have THEM have periods and endure pregnancy because until then it will not be TOTALLY fair......and that's what these "men should escape caring for an actual child who is here right now" folks want. Then, of course, they'll happily pay more taxes to feed and shelter all the kids born into single parent homes because the "man" slithered away...
then she should also sign a paper saying if she gets pregnant it is her financial responsibility if she decides to keep it also the responsibility is hers to notify the father of the pregnancy before it is to late to abort. it is her that is pregnant after all how is he supposed to know unless he is informed as such
DUH, he should know that if he has sex with her it MAY result in a pregnancy so the paper has to be signed first.....can't depend on a "man" to sign papers after the fact in a timely manner. Oh, and there should be an accompanying law that gives severe penalties including jail time to the man if, once he signs away his RIGHTS and responsibilities, if he EVER tries in any way to see or contact the child....he can't change his tiny mind once the hard part is over....
Because he doesn't have a pregnancy to abort Because she cannot make decisions that affect the welfare of a man's future born children and neither should she have the legal right to do so. That would be outrageous.
Of course she can make decisions that affect the welfare of a man's future born children. If she decides unilaterally to have a child that child is more likely to be raised in a single parent home. All this victimization of women in an effort to make them somehow not responsible for the consequences of their actions. Shame on you.
Nobody's victimizing women but you sure want to make children victims. Now, NO one ever answers this question: Do YOU agree that there should be an accompanying law that gives severe penalties including jail time to the man if, once he signs away his RIGHTS and responsibilities, he tries in any way to see or contact the child....he can't change his tiny mind once the hard part is over.... ? Agree? Or don't you want the child to have any protection from this "man":.
Why would the penalty be severe ? I agree that he should not have the right to see the child though. Continued attempts should be treated the same as Stalking. Of course current laws treat women as victims. If a woman has not the means to take responsibility for a child, then she should not be bringing one into this world. Forcing some man to be responsible for a woman's irresponsible actions is treating the woman as a helpless victim.
The father could be a part of his child's life if he chose. He is under no compulsion to see or care for his child, though. There's no victimisation. Parents have to help support their born children. What on earth is wrong with that?
The penalties should be severe because once he signs away his right AND responsibilities to that child he has NO BUSINESS trying to see or contact that child, it has noting to do with him, it is not related to him, it owes him NOTHING and if the child tries to contact HIM then he should run away as fast as possible and severe penalties will be his incentive. The reason? You won't understand but it's for the mental, and possibly physical, health of the CHILD...it's about the well being of the CHILD which some consider way more important than that of some slob "dad"..... NO child should ever hold any sentimental or loving thoughts about this "father"....and making sure neither child nor father EVER make contact is an aid to that...
You are welcome to your opinion. I just don't think it makes any sense. We should not just make up penalties based on a whim ... (although this seems more and more the case) The punishment should fit the crime. The child may well want to contact their genetic father some day. You do not get to dictate what another human should or should not feel or think. You seem to have issues with men. Perhaps some man did a bad thing to you. This does not make all men bad .... just that man. I come from equality and stand up for equality and equal treatment under the law. I also believe strongly in individual rights and freedoms. You believe strongly in individual rights and freedoms when it suits you.. Such as a woman's right to choose. If you only believe in freedoms that you agree with, then you really don't believe in freedom at all. You only believe in freedom for things you agree with. There is a difference between having a belief, and forcing that belief on others. "The Golden Rule" Do unto others as you would have them do to you. If you do not want others forcing their beliefs on you (forcing a woman to have a child for example) then why do you think it is ok for you to force your beliefs on others ? You are breaking the Golden Rule and making yourself a hypocrite in the process. If a woman wants to have a child ... great .. have a child. This desire should not give her the right to force another human being to pay for the consequences of here desire and actions. A human being not wanting to be made responsible for the actions of another .. does not make that human being a slob. You believe that the cost to a man for having sex with a woman is that he should somehow be responsible for a child that he neither intended, did not agree to and so on. You believe that the woman should be able to force another person to be responsible for her actions. You make the woman out to be some helpless victim who had no choice in the matter yet you fight like hell for choice. Newsflash. The woman was not a helpless victim. She not only consented to sex, she wanted sex as much as the man. The woman was not some helpless victim and had a choice. She made the choice, as did the man, to have sex. Neither consented to having a child. Had the woman stated "I want to have a baby" prior to the sex the man would be running for the hills and the sex would never have happened. This is not just about the woman not being a victim and having a choice. This is also about misleading the man as to her intentions. Not only was the woman not a helpless victim .. in this case she was cold and calculating in her intentional deception. Every woman knows that if she tells some dude ..."If there is an accidental pregnancy I am going to continue that pregnancy and force you to pay support" there is a high probability that the fellow will run for the hills. If she does say this prior to having sex ... the dude deserves what is coming to him. This is not the dark ages. Two people having sex are generally not doing so with the intention of having a baby. Having a baby is a lifelong commitment .. a decision that should not be taken lightly. It is irresponsible to bring a child into this world on the basis of "oops accidents happen". You not only condone this irresponsible behaviour but encourage it by favoring laws that encourage such decisions. And that is that.
The problem with your argument is that women don't become pregnant on their own. It takes a man's actions to make it happen. No, but the only thing men can do to stop it happening is to always use a reliable condom, though they're not 100% reliable so they should also make sure they have a good relationship with the woman they're having sex with. Women have more choices, because the government discriminates against men. ( that bit's a joke)
I'll take the "progressive" approach this time. Every man and woman should have a say in every woman's pregnancy. Why? Because "progressives" have placed the burden of medical care, the cost of education, and the cost of criminal justice system, on society (the taxpayer). If I am going to have to shoulder the burden of your child, then I get a say in whether you can have that child. It doesn't matter how much you want a child, if you cannot afford to care for it, if I think you are not intelligent enough to raise it properly, if your genetic background is questionable, if I think your child will not be a productive member of society, then I should be able to demand you not get pregnant and not have a child. Its no different than the govt supervising the financial system, or the health care system, or the education system, for the good of society. If your child is not good for society, then you cannot have a child. In fact, if a woman doesn't meet certain standards, then she should be sterilized. The public treasury and resources are not unlimited, and we need to be prudent in its use. As a good steward of the public trust, the govt should strictly control who can have children. Just like the govt strictly controls medicare and obamacare. And if this seems harsh, just remember that everything "progressives" do is "for the children".
LOL! All that from my post quoted above... ....must've upset you greatly for you to make up so much stuff Must be the part where concern is shown for the CHILD
Of course your post does not upset me. Consider the source. A bit baffling though because I know you are not as ignorant as your comments. I have seen other posts of yours that prove this. That you went into demonization mode, void of all rational response, suggests that you were upset by my post. That was not my intention. My intention was to help you see how hypocritical your position is... a failed attempt obviously. It is not like this is the first time someone has responded with demonization. I expect this from lifers, fundamentalists, the far right, and so on when they run out of material. Should I expect this of you as well ?
Fine if that also includes other people having a say on funding the armed forces, religious funding, anti-immigration funding, school funding, in fact every single thing that taxes go towards funding . .are you ok with that and would you agree to abide by what the majority decide .. somehow I doubt it very much. Strawman
No, my posts very obviously upset you ....the tiniest hint that a woman or child may have an edge on fairness over men terrifies you. You have demonized me because I feel a need to protect and support children...something you abhor. Only senility or ignorance or a sick need for power would keep you telling me how you think I'm hypocritical when I have made clear (to a NORMAL person) that I do not care. Maybe looking up the individual words of " I do not care" in a dictionary would help you. You sound so like a righty/ Anti-Choicer when you want when you demand MORE equality for men than women have. You believe men should have the right to legally "abort" a child just as a woman would ...but then you want them to have the right to see or interact with that child after all the hard work of raising it is done. No, a woman does not get to see or interact with a child she aborted so, you want to be equal !???????? THEN THE MAN CAN'T EITHER..EVER! Now quit trying to hard to make all men look like scumbags because YOU had a bad experience with a woman...
