patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,192,718 comments by 13,871 users - AD, steverbeaver online now
invite response« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 99 Next » Last » Search these comments
Come on now, do you mean Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg were not entitled to have children in your plan when they did?
Maybe. I don't know their situations. However, as a principle, one should not rely on the remote possibility that one is going to strike it rich in the future when deciding whether or not to have a child today. One should prepare for the worse-case scenarios rather than assuming the best-case scenarios.
The point was that all three men had no bachloreate degree when they were worth hundreds of millions if not billions, far more than enough to raise their own children. Your degree requirement was self-serving and pointless. The means test should simply be whether the parents can support themselves and children, not through some artificial formula like people having wasted too much time in school cook up like you just did, but simply whether they ask for welfare . . . if they do, regardless whether it's due to them not making enough or them trying to game the welfare system, they'd have to deal with mandatory contraception. Perhaps that will stop the over-educated slobs from seeking welfare.
If the parents can afford to raise their own children, let them.
The keyword being "if" and the criteria for satisfying the premise is having a trust fund to ensure that the child will not experience poverty. I'm not talking about a billion dollar trust fund, if you're thinking that because you associate trust funds with only rich people. I'm talking about financial security. If we don't allow financially insecure people to get a mortgage, then why the hell should we allow them to have children they cannot take care of if the children have a right to financial security as you claim?
If the financial security of a child is a right of that child then it's not solely the father's responsibility. The woman should not be allowed to even produce the child until she has secured that child's provisioning. And if any of that provisioning is to come from the biological father, then his consent is required as well because consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent for either men or women.
Like I said, mandatory contraception should be condition for receiving welfare. The problem with trust fund is that the calculation of what is sufficient fund can be very subjective and liable to fraud. Making receiving welfare == mandatory contraception OTOH may well get some fraudulent welfare recipients to stop themselves.
That's why paternal responsibility should be raised, not lowered, and the guy unable to pay child support should be given the choice between vasectomy and jail.
Should this also apply to a any woman who produces a child that she cannot support by herself? Would you support the forced sterilization of women with the threat of jail? Or are you just a vile, sexist pig? By the way, this isn't an academic question. The state has forced sterilized poor women including those who have never gotten pregnant. Your position is as morally repugnant today as when the Nazis practiced it. Oh, and we all know from history, and the war on drugs, that such a power would never, ever be abused in order to attack racial groups.
Like I said, make mandatory contraception a condition for receiving welfare. That applies to both men and women. No, I'm not advocating forced sterilization. Long term contraception is either reversible or expires on its own after 1-3 years. As for the hysteria about "Nazi did it," no, Nazi did not have the long term contraceptive technology like the implants (nor even the pill); OTOH, Nazis brought national healthcare to Europe, but that doesn't seem to have stopped the socialists from copying the National Socialists.
lostand confused
2016 Feb 4, 9:08pm
Child support is the child's right, not something the woman can give up on the child's behalf
Child does not have a right to 55k a month in tax free income. Whoever can support the child should get custody-no money needs to exchange hands. This whole problem will vanish. if there is no gold, there will be no gold diggers.
Child support is the child's right, not something the woman can give up on the child's behalf
Child does not have a right to 55k a month in tax free income. Whoever can support the child should get custody-no money needs to exchange hands. This whole problem will vanish. if there is no gold, there will be no gold diggers.
Almost all of the $55k a month is not child support, but alimony. Child support is usually capped at $2k/mo in most states.
The guy is not paying because he had sex. He's paying because he got a girl pregnant. There are ways to have sex with minimal risk of getting a girl pregnant and hence minimal risk of any financial burden.
Minimizing risk does not eliminated it. If a woman giving birth to a child means the biological father must pay for that child's first 18 years or more given college, then that father must have every bit as much right and power under law to abort the pregnancy as the woman does as. In other words, if either the mother or the father wants to abort the pregancy and the other parent does not, the abortion must happen. Are you comfortable with that?
The guy can eliminate the risk by having a vasectomy, which is a far less risky operation than most forms of abortion, and bleeds far less while involving far less pain.
lostand confused
2016 Feb 4, 9:18pm
Almost all of the $55k a month is not child support, but alimony. Child support is usually capped at $2k/mo in most states
Not in CA. In which state is it capped at 2k/month??? Most states it is percentage of your income that you automatically give.
Alimony too needs to be capped-equality, means get off your ass, stop eating bonbons and get a job.
Almost all of the $55k a month is not child support, but alimony. Child support is usually capped at $2k/mo in most states
Not in CA. In which state is it capped at 2k/month??? Most states it is percentage of your income that you automatically give.
Alimony too needs to be capped-equality, means get off your ass, stop eating bonbons and get a job.
Look up the formulae and guidelines. Child support is capped in most states, unless there was an existing level of "accustomed living standard." Alimony, well that involves a man foolish enough to get married.
lostand confused
2016 Feb 4, 9:25pm
Look up the formulae and guidelines. Child support is capped in most states, unless there was an existing level of "accustomed living standard
I have. it is capped at evry high levels-there are people giving 55k a month in child support-eg Charlie Sheen. Brittany spears is about 17k a month. Halle berry is quite high. Certain new Yorkers pay much much more. Tx cap is a bit lower- but I don't know of a single state where it is capped at 2k as you claim.
Here you go
http://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/guideline-models-by-state.aspx
Look up the formulae and guidelines. Child support is capped in most states, unless there was an existing level of "accustomed living standard
I have. it is capped at evry high levels-there are people giving 55k a month in child support-eg Charlie Sheen. Brittany spears is about 17k a month. Halle berry is quite high. Certain new Yorkers pay much much more. Tx cap is a bit lower- but I don't know of a single state where it is capped at 2k as you claim.
All of those examples are exceptional cases where either the children have accustomed to a certain level of living standards or the divorcing couple drew up those numbers for their own reasons (most likely tax reasons). Most states cap at $2k/mo in the formulae and guidelines for non-custodial parents making up to $20k/mo; that covers 98-99% of income earners. Numbers above that are usually up to the judge, and only involve the top 1-2% of income earners, who usually have their own reasons for arriving at strange numbers (most likely tax reasons).
lostand confused
2016 Feb 4, 9:37pm
All of those examples are exceptional cases where either the children have accustomed to a certain level of living standards or the divorcing couple drew up those numbers for their own reasons (most likely tax reasons
Only alimony follows that trajectory. Child support is by formula in most states except a few.
Most states cap at $2k/mo in the formulae and guidelines for non-custodial parents making up to $20k/mo; that covers 98-99% of income earners.
Where is your link, since you keep claiming this 2k figure?? I would love to see that-if it were true.
Reality says
Numbers above that are usually up to the judge
Nope-it depends on the state. In many states, it is a very simple formular, the judge has some leeway, not too much. In other states the judge does have a lot of leeway. In CA, the law requires courts to adhere to state guidelines. Can you provide the link to the 2k limit?
The formulae and guidelines in most states only cover incomes up to about $20k/mo ($240k/yr, the bottom 98-99% of the popuation). For income earners above that level, the allocation of funds between child support vs. alimony is quite up to the couple, their lawyers and the judge signing off on the divorce decree.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 9:40pm
No. Unlike the state, a man can die or is disabled or makes so little money that his calculated child support amount is miniscule (like less than $50/wk). The amount is the smaller of (what the child needs, and what the man can pay) according to some state formulae. As you can see, that "right" is less about the natural right of the child but about precedence regarding whose resources gets commandeered before who else's.
So then you concede the "right" argument is b.s. and it's about involuntary servitude. The question is why should it be acceptable that a man, not wanting to be a parent, should be susceptible to having two decades of his income "commandeered" when women have an absolute opt out? That violates equal protection under the law as Patrick pointed out in the original thread.
Hell, if we want to be "fair" to everyone then all parents should pay taxes on their children instead of getting tax breaks. After all, children use a hell of a lot more public resources than adults including schools, parks, and medical care. So if it's about some ethical point that all parents should pay for their kids, then surely parents who choose to be parents should be paying this tax before a person forced into parenthood without his consent does.
If you are against people having to pay for other people's children through taxes, then why should single people pay for taxes that go to public schools?
The man can choose to vasectomy. Vasectomy usually involves less bleeding and less pain than almost all forms of abortion, and is most certainly safer to the life of the adult than almost all forms of abortion.
More relevant, a woman could be sterilized as well. It would be abhorrent to state that a women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term simply because she did not choose to be sterilized. Why would it be any less abhorrent to hold that position regarding men?
them.
The pipe dream of never experiencing poverty has little to do with the discussion, regardless how "poverty" is defined.
My statements are very relevant. Rights are enforced by the state. If financial support is a right, then it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that right is protected. The ONLY way to do this is for the state to flip the bill as men can and do die, get fired, or become disabled. Rights, by definition, are not contingent upon anything. That's kind of what makes them rights.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 9:44pm
Your degree requirement was self-serving and pointless.
What degree requirement? Methinks you are imagining things.
So then you concede the "right" argument is b.s. and it's about involuntary servitude.
Where were you making that argument when taxation was discussed? At least in this case, the man is the contributing factor to the child being conceived then born.
The question is why should it be acceptable that a man, not wanting to be a parent, should be susceptible to having two decades of his income "commandeered" when women have an absolute opt out? That violates equal protection under the law as Patrick pointed out in the original thread.
The man failed to take proactive action to prevent it: through vasectomy, which is a far less painful and far less dangerous operation than most forms of abortion, and involves far less bleeding. If a woman fails to take the active steps of an abortion, she too would be saddled with raising the child. If she is not willing to raise the child after giving birth to it, she can give it up for adoption, then the father has the first right of refusal. If the father gets the custody after birth, he too may be able to seek child support from the non-custodial mother.
Hell, if we want to be "fair" to everyone then all parents should pay taxes on their children instead of getting tax breaks. After all, children use a hell of a lot more public resources than adults including schools, parks, and medical care. So if it's about some ethical point that all parents should pay for their kids, then surely parents who choose to be parents should be paying this tax before a person forced into parenthood without his consent does.
Children grow up and become taxpayers. All childless people will eventually have to be supported by other people's children.
If you are against people having to pay for other people's children through taxes, then why should single people pay for taxes that go to public schools?
All childless people will have to be supported by other people's children when they get old. As for public schools, I'm for abolishing public schools.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 9:48pm
Like I said, make mandatory contraception a condition for receiving welfare.
1. Sterilization is not contraception.
2. Contraception is not 100% effective. It's close, but there are still occasional unwanted pregnancies that are easily taken care of using the morning after pill or a first-trimester abortion. However, both of these options are 100% the choice of the woman and 0% the choice of the man. Therefore, as the original post states, a just society must allow the man to choose not to become a parent by not forcing his participation, including financial, in the raising of a child he does not want to have. If a woman unilaterally decides to have a child, the man should not be a captive, involuntary servant for two decades. Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood. If it were, abortion would be illegal. And nothing you said addresses this point.
Your degree requirement was self-serving and pointless.
What degree requirement? Methinks you are imagining things.
You made bachelor's degree a requirement.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 9:52pm
Child does not have a right to 55k a month in tax free income. Whoever can support the child should get custody-no money needs to exchange hands. This whole problem will vanish. if there is no gold, there will be no gold diggers.
That does not address the case were a woman unintentionally become pregnant and wants to have the baby and the man does not. In the reverse situation, we rightfully say that it would be outrageous to force the woman into parenthood just because the man wanted to keep the baby. For the same reasons, it is equally outrageous to force the man into parenthood just because the woman wants to keep the baby.
The woman must have 100% control over the decision to have or abort the pregnancy, and for the exact same reasons, the man must have 100% control over the decision to commit to the raising of the child or to give up his parental rights and responsibilities. This is the only system that is just to both potential parents. All alternatives are simply ways of forcing one person's will onto another person and are therefore evil.
1. Sterilization is not contraception.
Sterilization is not necessary. Women can have long term implants, and men can have reversible vasectomy.
2. Contraception is not 100% effective.
Long term implants have far higher effective rates than most medical procedures.
a just society must allow the man to choose not to become a parent by not forcing his participation, including financial, in the raising of a child he does not want to have.
He can get vasctomy.
Consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
The action of depositing sperm inside a woman however is.
If it were, abortion would be illegal. And nothing you said addresses this point.
Once the sperm is deposited inside a woman, it is up to her what she does with the "gift," including seeking child support if any child results.
You don't have the right to dump radioactive/chemical/biological waste on someone else' land, and then disclaim all responsibility associated with the consequences.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 10:09pm
Sterilization is not necessary. Women can have long term implants, and men can have reversible vasectomy.
Why should a man's right to choose whether or not to consent be contingent upon accepting a vasectomy? That's like saying a woman's right not to be raped is contingent upon her not dressing slutty. It's not just wrong. It's offensive.
Consent, by definition, cannot be coerced.
Once the sperm is deposited inside a woman, it is up to her what she does with the "gift," including seeking child support if any child results.
And the logic that justifies that is?
You don't have the right to dump radioactive/chemical/biological waste on someone else' land, and then disclaim all responsibility associated with the consequences.
And if sperm were radioactive, chemical, or biological waste then your analogy might apply, but it is not. (Well, maybe your sperm.) Sex is not pollution.
Nor am I stating that the man should "disclaim all responsibility". It is reasonable that he pays for the abortion. It is not reasonable that he is forced into indentured servitude for twenty years because consent to have sex is not consent to be a parent. Not for a woman, and not for a man, and for the exact same reasons.
You keep asserting the principle that a man's consent to have sex gives up his right to choose not to be a parent even though a woman's consent to have sex does not give up her right to choose not to be a parent. However, you never provide any justification for this principle. Well, if you cannot justify this assertion, I am most certainly free to reject it.
I can justify my principle.
1. Roe V. Wade
2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
3. The indentured servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.
4. Equality of the genders.
Those are four damn good justifications for the principle that men should not be forced into parenthood any more than women are. What's the justification for forcing men into indentured servitude?
I would even add that indentured servitude rewards women for making bad mating and parenting decisions and thus compromises the selection of good, willing fathers thereby greatly hurting future generations to absolve irresponsible women of their mating mistakes. Perhaps you can justify it in the short run if you ignore the harm you do to civil rights, but in the long run you are doing far more harm than good.
Sterilization is not necessary. Women can have long term implants, and men can have reversible vasectomy.
Why should a man's right to choose whether or not to consent be contingent upon accepting a vasectomy? That's like saying a woman's right not to be raped is contingent upon her not dressing slutty. It's not just wrong. It's offensive.
Consent, by definition, cannot be coerced.
If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy. Vasectomy is a far less dangerous, far less painful and bleeds far less than most forms of abortion. If the man can not take care of vasectomy, why should the woman be forced into having an abortion to alleviate the man from his paternal responsibility?
If you want to draw an analogy between rape == child support, then dressing slutty == making a lot of money and flout it. Nobody is saying rich men ought to offer up their sperms to be sperm-jacked. However if a man deposits sperm inside a woman, then he is consenting to making and raising baby by default.
Once the sperm is deposited inside a woman, it is up to her what she does with the "gift," including seeking child support if any child results.
And the logic that justifies that is?
The woman's uterus and fallopial tubes are her own property, and does not have to comply with a man's wish to abort.
You don't have the right to dump radioactive/chemical/biological waste on someone else' land, and then disclaim all responsibility associated with the consequences.
And if sperm were radioactive, chemical, or biological waste then your analogy might apply, but it is not. (Well, maybe your sperm.) Sex is not pollution.
If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.
Nor am I stating that the man should "disclaim all responsibility". It is reasonable that he pays for the abortion. It is not reasonable that he is forced into indentured servitude for twenty years because consent to have sex is not consent to be a parent. Not for a woman, and not for a man, and for the exact same reasons.
It is not reasonable for the woman to bear the physical and emotional pain of an abortion if the man is not willing to go through vasectomy, which is far less painful, far less dangerous, far less stressful, and bleed far less than most forms of abortion. If the man is willing and able to pay the girl enough to have an abortion, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent. Sex can be had numerous ways without depositing live sperms inside a woman. If the man is so negligent that he has not taken any precautions to avoid depositing what to him is biological waste (his sperm, not wanting child, dumped inside a woman), then it is of course the right of the uterus owner herself to decide what to do with the "gift" thus deposited, including seeking child support if any child results.
I can justify my principle.
1. Roe V. Wade
2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
3. The indentured servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.
4. Equality of the genders.
No, you are arguing like a feminist SJW type trying to ignore the biological differences between a man and a woman.
Here is the bottom line: if you don't want the child, pay the woman enough to get her to abort, compensating her for the physical trama and emotional pain that the abortion will cause her, all of which are much more severe than what a vasectomy would be.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 4, 10:40pm
If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy.
So if a man and woman have consensual recreational fun, then neither is capable of controlling themselves. That's fucking retarded and no law should be based on such an asinine idea. If we followed the logical conclusion of your arbitrary judgement, then women should not have the right to an abortion. Perhaps you believe that, but if so, you fucking lost. Roe V. Wade is never, ever going to be overturned. Ever. Get over it. People are not obligated to endure punishment for having recreational sex. Period.
The woman's uterus and fallopial tubes are her own property, and does not have to comply with a man's wish to abort.
Correct. And a man's bank account and income are his property.
If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.
That is another asinine statement that no sane person would agree with.
Maybe your fucked up religious beliefs mandate that sex is only to be used for the purpose of reproduction, but that's not how our society works. And none of us are going to accept your sick puritan beliefs or your vile religious beliefs.
The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent.
No, it's not. Consent, by definition, is a conscious deliberate choice. Consent comes from will not from action.
Sex can be had numerous ways without depositing live sperms inside a woman.
Irrelevant.
If the man is so negligent that he has not taken any precautions to avoid depositing what to him is biological waste (his sperm, not wanting child, dumped inside a woman), then it is of course the right of the uterus owner herself to decide what to do with the "gift" thus deposited, including seeking child support if any child results.
Just because you say "of course" doesn't make it so. There is no logical connection between the woman deciding to go through with the pregnancy and her having a right to seek or to get financial payments from the man for the next twenty years. There is no reason to believe that these two completely different things are related, especially in the way you assert. In fact, your assertion defies common sense.
In contrast, I have given damn good reasons why you are wrong.
1. Roe V. Wade
2. The equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment
3. The indentured servitude clause of the 13th Amendment.
4. Equality of the genders.
I would even add that indentured servitude rewards women for making bad mating and parenting decisions and thus compromises the selection of good, willing fathers thereby greatly hurting future generations to absolve irresponsible women of their mating mistakes. Perhaps you can justify it in the short run if you ignore the harm you do to civil rights, but in the long run you are doing far more harm than good.
On the contrary:
1. The irresponsible men being allowed to shirk their responsibility would only lead to the women and children being more of a burden on taxpayers, i.e. productive members of the society, whose resources for raising their own better children would be stolen at the point of gun..
2. Young fertile women are attracted to assholes. If assholes are not made to pay, they'd be free to seduce and impregnate even more young fertile women, increasing their representation in the gene pool, at the expense of more responsible males forced by the government guns to pay taxes and support asshole spawns.
If the man is capable of controlling himself in such a way that he does not deposit sperm inside a woman, then vasectomy is not necessary for avoiding accidental pregnancy.
So if a man and woman have consensual recreational fun, then neither is capable of controlling themselves. That's fucking retarded and no law should be based on such an asinine idea. If we followed the logical conclusion of your arbitrary judgement, then women should not have the right to an abortion. Perhaps you believe that, but if so, you fucking lost. Roe V. Wade is never, ever going to be overturned. Ever. Get over it. People are not obligated to endure punishment for having recreational sex. Period.
The issue is not who deserves what. The Roe V. Wade case clearly established that what the unborn deserved (a life) did not count! The new born child needs resources to be raised; the mother and the father are the first ones responsible for it, before the rest of us ought to be drafted into feeding that spawn. So long as we do not let desperate women starve to death along with their spawn, the biological fathers need to be drafted into raising the children before the rest of the us get drafted into paying taxes to support their spawns. It is their private problem, first and foremost, if you really want to borrow a page from Roe V. Wade on "presumed privacy."
If the intention is not pregnancy, then the sperm deposit is biological waste and pollution.
That is another asinine statement that no sane person would agree with.
Maybe your fucked up religious beliefs mandate that sex is only to be used for the purpose of reproduction, but that's not how our society works. And none of us are going to accept your sick puritan beliefs or your vile religious beliefs.
I'm not religious. However, if the purpose is not reproduction, then the dangerously fertile sperm is of course biological waste. The practitioner ought to have taken care of disposal of the biological waste.
The action of depositing sperm inside a woman is consent to be a parent.
No, it's not. Consent, by definition, is a conscious deliberate choice. Consent comes from will not from action.
Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Feb 5, 6:29am
The guy is not paying because he had sex. He's paying because he got a girl pregnant. There are ways to have sex with minimal risk of getting a girl pregnant and hence minimal risk of any financial burden.
Minimizing risk does not eliminated it. If a woman giving birth to a child means the biological father must pay for that child's first 18 years or more given college, then that father must have every bit as much right and power under law to abort the pregnancy as the woman does as. In other words, if either the mother or the father wants to abort the pregancy and the other parent does not, the abortion must happen. Are you comfortable with that?
Nobody is entitled to zero risk of consequences from their actions. By shifting the financial burden from the men who knock women up to the rest of society, you are shifting the burden from those responsible (risk takers) to innocent bystanders. As far as the relative risks of men and women, women have a higher risk of getting an STD, a risk of death during an abortion, social risks, and the risk of actually taking care of a kid. Men have less control over the abortion decision, and have financial risk based on that decision. You can't legislate away every inequity. It's just not possible. If minimal risk is not good enough for you, start an insurance risk pool with like minded guys. Since the risk to guys is all financial, you have that option.
Nobody is entitled to zero risk of consequences from their actions. By shifting the financial burden from the men who knock women up to the rest of society, you are shifting the burden from those responsible (risk takers) to innocent bystanders.
That's a really good argument against the welfare state and leftist taxation schemes. The welfare queens and kings gaming the system and those with lesser skills of keeping permanent sufficient employment shift the burden to innocent bystanders. There's nothing wrong with supporting poorer people, you just have to make them work for it like it used to be. No ifs and buts, pick up a fucking broom and clean up the city, San Francisco alone could use drones of cleanup crews, being such an architectural beautiful city yet such a dirty shithole. Lastly, if an alpha-spawn becomes successful they are likely to be much more effective and protective for society because modern men cannot protect and correct their countries anymore when acting like feminized PC pussies. It is a very possibility that the increased urge for women to mate with (stable and unstable) alpha-fucks is nature's self-correcting program to restore some of the patriarchy so badly needed.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 8:03am
Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.
Lowering your taxes is not justification for practicing indentured servitude. If you want to make the case that tax payer dollars should not be used ever for the support of children, then fine, make that case. But that case has nothing to do with enslaving men and it does not address the point I have made a dozen times that consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent. Unless you address that point, this conversation can progress no further.
Fine, if you want to call it negligent baby-making, then the 2nd-degree baby-maker has to pay for his spawn, before we are forced to pitch in via taxes.
Lowering your taxes is not justification for practicing indentured servitude. If you want to make the case that tax payer dollars should not be used ever for the support of children, then fine, make that case. But that case has nothing to do with enslaving men and it does not address the point I have made a dozen times that consent to have sex is not consent to become a parent. Unless you address that point, this conversation can progress no further.
You have the option to drive, but if you run over someone, you are liable. Likewise, you have the option to have sex, but if you knock someone up, you are on the hook for supporting the offspring to the legal requirement (which actually is not much compared to your income if you make decent living), before other people are drafted into supporting your spawn. You are being a hypocritical pussy when you advocate taxation (indentured servitude if there ever is one) yet argue against being held responsible for your own spawn.
The average child support in this country is only around $430/mo, the median is less than $300/mo. What kind of losers are we really talking about that would "lose control over their life" due to that little payment? Indentured servitude? Holy shit, what then do you call $2000-5000/mo income tax? or $500/mo property tax? Perhaps men who can not set aside $300/mo should pre-emptively get vasectomy?
This reasoning only works in a patriarchy though which we currently clearly do not have. If the man is expected to pay he would have explicit control over who has the child (custody) and could also direct the woman's actions for the best of their family (no matter if they are married or not). If you are the provider, you are also the dictator.
Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married. Giving the women custody and paying them sufficient child support to raise the children while the men still being involved to provide fatherly guidance and love is highly advantageous to all involved: the women and children are taken care of, and the competent men can have more time to make more children with decent genetic stock.
Likewise, if the man wants his cum dumpster to abort, all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls. As for those men who can not afford either, of course they ought to be drafted into paying for their own spawn before any of the rest of us is drafted into paying.
1. & 2. If you don't like the driving analogy, then how about running and knocking over someone?
3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.
4. Child support formulae are not based on 100%, but based on both parents sharing the responsibility. That's why joint and equal physical custody in the same town usually would result in ZERO child support payment. However, for most couples, the men are much more productive in employment, so it makes sense for one party to contribute more time while the other contribute more money. On average $430/mo, median less than $300/mo, that is not nearly enough to raise a child, but simply the difference in terms of time and effort between the two parents.
all he needs to do is pay her enough to compensate for her physical and emotional pain. The threshold is not that high for most girls.
That's fine, but it would need to be codified (can be done with a couple of sentences), there's plenty of disagreement as well.
Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.
This is a personal anecdote though and a result of you two getting along which is always the best outcome. The reality of many battling ex-couples is very different where the woman is not that 'agreeable'. Again codifying this with simple words would go a long way.
3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.
How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 9:05am
You have the option to drive, but if you run over someone, you are liable. Likewise, you have the option to have sex, but if you knock someone up, you are on the hook for supporting the offspring to the legal requirement
Non Sequitur.
If you knock someone up, that person can take the morning after pill and end the pregnancy. If you run someone over there is no pill that will bring the person back to life. In order for your conclusion to logically follow the premise, a woman would have to have absolutely no choice but to bear the child and to raise him in order for there to be a moral, ethical, or legal duty for the man to support the child.
before other people are drafted into supporting your spawn.
This is an argument against anti-poverty programs, not an argument in favor of indentured servitude. If avoiding taxes is so fucking important that it warrants indentured servitude, then first the law should prevent any woman you is not married and financially secure from having a child. I doubt there are too many people who would support that.
You are being a hypocritical pussy when you advocate taxation (indentured servitude if there ever is one) yet argue against being held responsible for your own spawn.
Bullshit. Hypocrisy, by definition, requires a contradiction. There is no contradiction in my position. Just because you don't like my position doesn't make it hypocritical and you are a fool for making such a ridiculous argument.
Once more, you have failed to provide any counterargument to the central and most important issue of this thread, consent to sex is not consent to parenthood.
FNWGMOBDVZXDNW
2016 Feb 5, 9:08am
Men can easily do that when he voluntarily pays double or more of the legal requirement for child support, like I'm doing with my ex-wife. She is much more compliant than she ever was while still married.
I'm impressed that you have your current viewpoint with this past. It goes to show that not everybody that pays child support has to run around bitching about it like a crying baby would. I'm on board with most of your arguments on this thread.
3. "Trick" is silly talk. Women tricking men into support is no different from men tricking women into sex.
How so? Women don't enjoy sex and make a conscious decision? Again, this is an advocacy for a patriarchy were women are not up to par with men mentally. I am not saying that this isn't the case, there's lots of discussion about biological differences (feelings vs rationality), but you cannot have it both ways. If women demand (and already have gotten more than) equality, then there is no tricking into sex (by either side), only a conscious rational choice (knowing the risks well).
I think you touched on the real answer: feelings vs. rationality. If women were entirely rationally calculating her risk of death in the stone age regarding pregnancy, none of us would be here. One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it. Any men taking the risk of dumping live sperm inside her has to cope with the consequences before any of us are required to pitch in. Unless we pass laws for infanticide when the father refuses or is incapable of paying support, we have to make the father pay, so that he is not off to knock up even more young fertile women, which are limiting resources in terms of human reproduction. "Ooops, Sorry!" is not good enough! You break it, you keep it! You knock her up, you pay for the spawn! Simple enough.
One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.
Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)
One can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy, with the force of 300,000 years of evolution telling her to keep it.
Fine, then we cannot allow women to make important decisions while they are PMSing (which can be all the time these days) - maybe they should be restricted to the kitchen and living room during that period ;)
Perhaps more importantly, the founding fathers had it right in restricting voting right to adult males meeting property ownership requirement.
Dan8267
2016 Feb 5, 9:22am
ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy
Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.
ne can not expect a woman to make entirely rational decisions when her body is undergoing dramatic hormonal change from pregnancy
Nominated as the most misogynous statement ever made on PatNet. Also, this is proof that one can be both a misogynous and a misandrist.
Nope, just scientific fact; aka Red Pill Reality. You apparently never dealt with pregnant women up close and personal. Like I said before, you argue like a feminist SJW type living in a petri dish.
« First « Previous Comments 41 - 80 of 99 Next » Last » Search these comments
Women, and women alone, currently have the choice to abort a pregnancy or give a baby up for adoption. Men have zero choice in abortion or adoption, yet decades of legal obligation -- entirely at the discretion of the woman. The man has all the obligations and the woman has all the rights. This is obviously unfair.
The law should be made fair. Men should have at least as much control as women over whether or not to have and therefore support children. Namely:
1. If a woman does not tell a man she is pregnant with his child until it is too late to have an abortion, she has zero claim to child support.
2. If a woman does tell a man she is pregnant with his child while an abortion is still possible, and he requests an abortion, then she has a choice:
a: abort the child
b: refuse to abort the child, but give up all claim to child support
3. If both the woman and the man agree to have the child, then both are obligated to support it.
It's only basic fairness that both parties have equal rights and responsibilities. His body, his choice.
Edit -- Of course the assumption here is that the couple is not married. If they are married, he has already promised to support any children he has with her.
#redpill #feministhypocrisy