# Should a potential father be able to waive his parental obligations?



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> If you know it can happen then it should be expected.
> 
> How is it a surprise when you know something can fail, and then it does fail? I don't get it.


Did you even read what I said? When did you find the word 'surprise' or any synonyms in my post?

To summarize for you, I said 'just because you had sex doesn't mean you want to/agree to have kids'.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> Did you even read what I said? When did you find the word 'surprise' or any synonyms in my post?
> 
> To summarize for you, I said 'just because you had sex doesn't mean you want to/agree to have kids'.


You said unexpected things do happen. Unexpected things pretty much are surprises by definition.

And right, it doesn't mean you want to have kids. Not wanting kids doesn't make you any less responsible when it happens and you know that it can happen before hand, _regardless_ of what you want or why.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

alphacat said:


> Did you even read what I said? When did you find the word 'surprise' or any synonyms in my post?
> 
> To summarize for you, I said 'just because you had sex doesn't mean you want to/agree to have kids'.


This is a true statement. Having sex does not indicate an agreement to have children, however a person who has consensual sex is knowingly choosing to do something that puts him/her at _risk_ for having children, so I would say that it is an agreement to take that risk, with full awareness of the potential consequences.

A person who has sex may not consent to getting HIV, either, but a person knows such a risk exists, and ends up suffering the consequences if his/her protection fails.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> You said unexpected things do happen. Unexpected things pretty much are surprises by definition.
> 
> And right, it doesn't mean you want to have kids. Not wanting kids doesn't make you any less responsible when it happens and you know that it can happen before hand, _regardless_ of what you want or why.


Right right, I do agree.

However, if that's the case, the law should say: NO ABORTION, both parents are OBLIGATED to support the child.

It makes no sense to say that 'if a man has sex and the woman gets pregnant, men are obligated to raise the kid' while saying 'women have the rights to abortion'. Again, it's contradictory, and makes no sense. It's either freedom for both, or freedom for none.


----------



## snail (Oct 13, 2008)

alphacat said:


> Right right, I do agree.
> 
> *However, if that's the case, the law should say: NO ABORTION, both parents are OBLIGATED to support the child.*
> 
> It makes no sense to say that 'if a man has sex and the woman gets pregnant, men are obligated to raise the kid' while saying 'women have the rights to abortion'. Again, it's contradictory, and makes no sense. It's either freedom for both, or freedom for none.


That is precisely what I believe the law should say.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> Right right, I do agree.
> 
> However, if that's the case, the law should say: NO ABORTION, both parents are OBLIGATED to support the child.
> 
> It makes no sense to say that 'if a man has sex and the woman gets pregnant, men are obligated to raise the kid' while saying 'women have the rights to abortion'. Again, it's contradictory, and makes no sense. It's either freedom for both, or freedom for none.


Why is this thread so hellbent on eliminating children? It's crazy.

It's all like "DAMMIT IF I HAVE TO SUFFER THEN SO DOES SHE!"

What the hell kind of backwards notion is that?

These are obligations because they are considered the right thing to do. One should be HAPPY to fulfill this obligation regardless of what the law says.

Women aborting their babies is an unfortunate freedom and as I said earlier, it is not one to be jealous of. 

Rather than wanting to do something better and more responsible, people want to be rid of the horrible inconvenience of children and prevent them from being born? What the hell IS that?


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

Khys said:


> that's an excellent point. children can't take care of themselves, and it's the responsibility of adult humans to care for small humans.


In the US, kids could be in state custody and will have their basic needs met (at least they're supposed to).


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> "DAMMIT IF I HAVE TO SUFFER THEN SO DOES SHE!"
> 
> What the hell kind of backwards notion is that?


It's called fairness and equality.


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> You said unexpected things do happen. Unexpected things pretty much are surprises by definition.
> 
> And right, it doesn't mean you want to have kids. Not wanting kids doesn't make you any less responsible when it happens and you know that it can happen before hand, _regardless_ of what you want or why.


That attitude is like refusing to ever cross the street simply because there's a non-zero probability of being hit by a drunk driver.

Using birth control is like looking both ways before you cross - if even taking common sense precautions fail them, they "deserve" it?

If you're going to live as if every move you make will cause a freak accident...you really can't. Just stay locked inside a nice, safe little box and do nothing but breathe until you die.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

dagnytaggart said:


> That attitude is like refusing to ever cross the street simply because there's a non-zero probability of being hit by a drunk driver.


No it isn't. When did I ever say that?



> Using birth control is like looking both ways before you cross - if even taking common sense precautions fail them, they "deserve" it?


When did I say anyone deserves anything?



> If you're going to live as if every move you make will cause a freak accident...you really can't. Just stay locked inside a nice, safe little box and do nothing but breathe until you die.


I never said anything about that.

All I am saying is that if you do it, you take the risk knowing, and can't pretend that it isn't your choice.

If you get hit by accident on a wet road on a foggy day and get paralyzed, then that's just the breaks. There's always that risk. But you don't then call for the person who hit you to be paralyzed with you so you can be equals.

Fuck it. You know I smoke right? Yeah I started again. But you know what? If I get cancer from it, it's my own fault. There is no "I wanted to smoke but I didn't want to get cancer" 

I do what I want and acknowledge the risks, and deal with them rather than trying to pretend they aren't my fault or that they can't happen.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> Why is this thread so hellbent on eliminating children? It's crazy.
> 
> It's all like "DAMMIT IF I HAVE TO SUFFER THEN SO DOES SHE!"
> 
> ...


The problem with this idea is that you're giving the woman the right to opt out of the consequences of having sex (since you have previously espoused the idea that having sex is tantamount to an agreement to have children), but you want to deny men the same rights. Either you support the idea that men and women have equal rights (that is, either no abortion, full parental obligation, or abortion + option to waive), or you're supporting a position that necessarily promotes inequality.

It's not as if you would support a system that ruled in favor of men abandoning their children, but denied women the right to their bodies, would you? Why is it acceptable when the situation is reversed?


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

sprinkles said:


> If you know it can happen then it should be expected.
> 
> How is it a surprise when you know something can fail, and then it does fail? I don't get it.





sprinkles said:


> No it isn't. When did I ever say that?


By saying that a result of an action shouldn't be a surprise, no matter how miniscule the probability, you're implying that the only way to expect to avoid a bad outcome is to...not do anything.




> When did I say anyone deserves anything?


"taking responsibility for actions" = accept blame




> i never said anything about that.


No, but that's the only 'logical' prescription based on the premise that we should treat freak occurrences as inevitable.



> All I am saying is that if you do it, you take the risk knowing, and can't pretend that it isn't your choice.


A pedestrian does not "choose" to get hit by a car unless they deliberately walked across a speeding highway.



> if you get hit by accident on a wet road on a foggy day and get paralyzed, then that's just the breaks. There's always that risk. But you don't then call for the person who hit you to be paralyzed with you so you can be equals.


No, but you can sue them to pay for your ensuing medical care. Similarly, if the woman can't delete her problem of impregnation and motherhood, the man should be required to pay for any damages he's responsible for.



> fuck it. You know I smoke right? Yeah I started again. But you know what? If I get cancer from it, it's my own fault. There is no "I wanted to smoke but I didn't want to get cancer"


Because unlike sterilisation/birth control or looking before you cross the street, there is no way to protect your lungs while you smoke.



> I do what I want and acknowledge the risks, and deal with them rather than trying to pretend they aren't my fault or that they can't happen.


And consequences can be dealt with in ways that you might be against - ie, abortion or adoption.

And the person getting hit by a drunk driver is not at fault if he did his damndest to carefully cross the street, which is assumed to be safe enough for latchkey 6-year-olds to do.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

dagnytaggart said:


> By saying that a result of an action shouldn't be a surprise, no matter how miniscule the probability, you're implying that the only way to expect to avoid a bad outcome is to...not do anything.


I wasn't implying that, but yeah, in this particular case I do think that the BEST way to avoid a bad outcome is to not do anything, IF you think that the outcome is that bad.



> "taking responsibility for actions" = accept blame


Blame implies wrongdoing which is not necessarily happening here.



> No, but that's the only 'logical' prescription based on the premise that we should treat freak occurrences as inevitable.


When did I say that?
But yeah, If you think the consequence is bad enough, then you probably _should_ treat it as inevitable.

At what specific point does 'risk' become acceptable, anyway? How much precaution do you have to take before you are absolved of responsibility? Oh, wait - why do we even have precautions to begin with??



> No, but you can sue them to pay for your ensuing medical care. Similarly, if the woman can't delete her problem of impregnation and motherhood, the man should be required to pay for any damages he's responsible for.


What damages is he responsible for?



> Because unlike sterilisation/birth control or looking before you cross the street, there is no way to protect your lungs while you smoke.


So, if I COULD protect my lungs, that would absolve me of responsibility if the protection failed?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> The problem with this idea is that you're giving the woman the right to opt out of the consequences of having sex (since you have previously espoused the idea that having sex is tantamount to an agreement to have children), but you want to deny men the same rights. Either you support the idea that men and women have equal rights (that is, either no abortion, full parental obligation, or abortion + option to waive), or you're supporting a position that necessarily promotes inequality.
> 
> It's not as if you would support a system that ruled in favor of men abandoning their children, but denied women the right to their bodies, would you? Why is it acceptable when the situation is reversed?


It's an unequal position to begin with since the woman carries the child and the man does not. I've already explained this.

A man is already way ahead on 'opting out' just by being male. His necessary physical involvement is done at conception.

Besides, the only reason I'm even remotely pro-choice is that it's better than babies in dumpsters.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> It's an unequal position to begin with since the woman carries the child and the man does not. I've already explained this.


The biological inequality is rendered moot, once abortion comes in to play. Isn't that the point of abortion; to make sure that the woman doesn't need to be forced to bear consequences that she is neither prepared for, nor has any ability to handle?



> A man is already way ahead on 'opting out' just by being male. His necessary physical involvement is done at conception.


This isn't about biological investment, because like I mentioned, the woman has the legal right to opt out of her biological investment, as well. This is about allowing both men and women to have the right to control their own resources in a reasonable manner. Like I said, you wouldn't support a system where men had this right, and women did not, so why do you think it's okay when the situation is reversed?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> The biological inequality is rendered moot, once abortion comes in to play. Isn't that the point of abortion; to make sure that the woman doesn't need to be forced to bear consequences that she is neither prepared for, nor has any ability to handle?
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't about biological investment, because like I mentioned, the woman has the legal right to opt out of her biological investment, as well. This is about allowing both men and women to have the right to control their own resources in a reasonable manner. Like I said, you wouldn't support a system where men had this right, and women did not, so why do you think it's okay when the situation is reversed?


The problem is that the man can ALWAYS opt out with ZERO physical investment. In fact any man who would want to do so probably _will_ do so the moment they are allowed to.

This could be forcing the woman to deal with inverse consequences. She might have wanted the baby but only in a relationship, and the man being able to skip out on it at a moments notice could ruin it and possibly lead to the abortion or adoption or what have you. This is the issue with this whole treating it like it is a problem to be avoided - it isn't. Opting out can unfairly wreck her plans, too.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

@Dark Romantic

Or put it this way.
The woman having the option to abort may not be equal, but the man being able to opt out is STILL not equal.

In both cases the woman is the one that ends up actually having to _do_ something with the baby. The man can just verbally say "no" but the woman still has to abort.

I'd say equality is just not possible in this way.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> The problem is that the man can ALWAYS opt out with ZERO physical investment. In fact any man who would want to do so probably _will_ do so the moment they are allowed to.


The woman can ALSO opt out, as part of her own right to make decisions about her body. If the second option were true, then there wouldn't be any cases of women deceiving men in order to get pregnant, and trap the man into a commitment, would there?



> This could be forcing the woman to deal with inverse consequences. She might have wanted the baby but only in a relationship, and the man being able to skip out on it at a moments notice could ruin it and possibly lead to the abortion or adoption or what have you. This is the issue with this whole treating it like it is a problem to be avoided - it isn't. Opting out can unfairly wreck her plans, too.


Fair enough point. However, this holds water only in the case that, a) the woman was upfront and honest about what she wanted, and b) that the woman did not, in fact, know that the man would want to opt out. The second condition is very unlikely to occur in a situation where a legal option to waive the obligation was, in fact, available. The man would gain nothing by telling the woman he wanted children, and then cutting out after the conception, and a man who WOULD do that, would have done so anyway, so the legal provision wouldn't make a difference in keeping him around. Therefore, if the woman says "I want to try for children", and the man says "no, I don't want kids, thanks", how can the woman still justify trying to force the man into making a commitment he never agreed to? If he says yes, and they have a child together, well, bully for them: that's exactly how things should work out.

The second option, where the woman says nothing, creates plans that necessarily involve a man who had no knowledge or say in this life-changing decision, and forces him to bow to her will, is cruel, and a violation of his right to personal freedom. It's nothing short of holding him hostage, and to blame him for the circumstances at that point is the same as telling a woman that she was "asking for it" by going alone into a room with a man who proceeds to rape her. If she needs to enslave and trap a man by deceiving him, and uses the life of her own child to manipulate him into following her selfish plans, this violation of his rights cannot be condoned by any sane, reasonable system that claims to defend justice and liberty.



sprinkles said:


> @Dark Romantic
> 
> Or put it this way.
> The woman having the option to abort may not be equal, but the man being able to opt out is STILL not equal.
> ...


Where biological equality fails, legality must pick up the slack, in order to provide a system that works out for both, provided they're acting in a sane, reasonable fashion.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

alphacat said:


> These two things need to align legally:
> 1. Abortion should be an unilateral decision for the mother. Child support is optional.
> or
> 2. Abortion should be a joint decision. Child support is mandatory.
> I really don't care which outcome is determined, but the law needs to be consistent. It makes zero sense to have the father's involvement based solely on what benefits the mother the most, ie, if the mother wants the child, the father has to pay, if the mother doesn't, the father has no say.


you took the words right out of my mouth
Edit: with the exception that I would prefer option 2, but option 1 is the most preferable alternative by far


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Dark Romantic said:


> The woman can ALSO opt out, as part of her own right to make decisions about her body. If the second option were true, then there wouldn't be any cases of women deceiving men in order to get pregnant, and trap the man into a commitment, would there?


You aren't getting it. She has to opt out via *medical procedure* or *adoption procedure.* The man has to do *no such thing.* It's at least not a physical requirement for him. Though it might be interesting if there was a male version of abortion, such as appearing in court, acknowledging that he conceived the child, and making it clear that he has no intention of fathering it. 

Do you get the difference now?





> Fair enough point. However, that implies that a) the woman was upfront and honest about what she wanted, and b) that the woman did not, in fact, know that the man would want to opt out. The second condition is very unlikely to occur in a situation where a legal option to waive the obligation was, in fact, available: the man would gain nothing by telling the woman he wanted children, and then cutting out after the conception; such a man would have done so, anyway, so the legal provision wouldn't make a difference in keeping him around. Therefore, if the woman says "I want to try for children", and the man says "no, I don't want kids, thanks", how can the woman still justify trying to force the man into making a commitment he never agreed to? If he says yes, and they have a child together, well, bully for them: that's exactly how things should work out.


If people were straightforward in their dealings, then child support probably would not have been invented. Those who are straightforward and honest about what they want should not end up in any scenarios that they want to opt out of.

And if people are just having casual sex and there's an 'accident' well... they should have had some kind of agreement before hand in case said 'accident' happens.



> The second option, where the woman says nothing, creates plans that necessarily involve a man who had no knowledge or say in this life-changing decision, and forces him to bow to her will, is cruel, and a violation of his right to personal freedom. It's nothing short of holding him hostage, and to blame him for the circumstances at that point is the same as telling a woman that she was "asking for it" by going alone into a room with a man who proceeds to rape her. If she needs to enslave and trap a man by deceiving him, and uses the life of her own child to manipulate him into following her selfish plans, this violation of his rights cannot be condoned by any sane, reasonable system that claims to defend justice and liberty.


Of course. Being protected from injustice is a far cry from opting out as if it's a pickle on your sandwich, though.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> The child's well being just doesn't count I guess.
> 
> I suppose if your two year old is too much to handle then you can just 'forget' them at the mall parking lot as well.


Oh, please. Don't paint me as a deadbeat. I'm simply a man who knows what he wants and doesn't want, and kids fall firmly into the latter category. If you can convince me from an objective standpoint that I am morally obligated to sacrifice my own livelihood to care for a child that I don't want, then I may change my tune. Until then, don't presume that I would be any worse a parent than you would.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

I believe the man should be able to opt out, at what timeframe is a little hard to discern... that, or the man should be able to become a father if he wanted to and the mother didn't. The law should be consistant, I'm with @alphacat on this one.

In the eyes of the current law, children are used as weapons by both parents, but more so with women against men. If the law was a little more equal (either way, men can be fathers without mothers say so, or the man can waive all financial obligations) I believe there would be a lot less parents abusing their children with the court system. I also got news for you people that are all gung-ho against men waiving rights but keeping current rights to a woman's body, *if the man truly wants out of it he will get out of it*. I've heard a lot of stories out there about how "That son of a bitch owes me 17 years in child support!" All the current law does is punish good honest men. It's a lot like a lock to a house, all it does is keep an honest man honest, funny how we burn the good ones aint it? It's like we as a human race are trying to bring our race back to the stoneage. 

Then there is the issue with how much a person has to pay in child support. I know a person in one of my college classes that had a kid and then had to quit his job. He has no qualms about paying child support, and he does so willingly and with a smile on his face. But the thing he doesn't like is the fact that his new job doesn't pay as well. Therefore he can't pay as much in child support. Court doesn't give a damn. He could very well go to jail for trying to buy food for himself if the woman chooses it, and from what I hear they don't have a very good relationship and are seperated. *Now then, what's better for the child? Those extra few dollars a month or a father that doesn't go to prison?* Well people, I'm going to tell you what the court would say "The child obviously will do better with a father of this disgusting caliber thrown in jail, he's a menace to society".

There was also a show on Dr. Phil once about this very subject. This male had a one night stand with somebody and was under the impression that she was on the pill, it was later revealed that she wasn't (she even admitted it). He was duped. But he went on oblivious to the fact for two whole years believing that he had only two children total (he had gotten married and had a family with somebody else in the mean time after this one night stand had occured). Then, out of the blue, he gets sued for two years of child support by this woman from the past. Court doesn't give a damn, he gets to pay for the child that he never even knew existed for two whole years. That's fair? seriously?:dry:

But I digress a little bit.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

geekofalltrades said:


> Oh, please. Don't paint me as a deadbeat. I'm simply a man who knows what he wants and doesn't want, and kids fall firmly into the latter category. If you can convince me from an objective standpoint that I am morally obligated to sacrifice my own livelihood to care for a child that I don't want, then I may change my tune. Until then, don't presume that I would be any worse a parent than you would.


I just got finished saying that the obligation is to ensure that the child is cared for until such a time that you can transfer that obligation.

If you can't acknowledge what this means, then I'm not painting you as a deadbeat, it's you who is doing that. If you don't want to be described as a deadbeat then don't be one.

There's a HUGE gap between being unfairly required to pay and flat out "me me it's all me and I don't wanna!"


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

@L_Lawliet

I wouldn't say "all it does is keep an honest man honest" as if that were meaningless. What this implies is that the honest man could become dishonest if it weren't for the lock. Does that sound like something that we want?

As for your points on the unfairness of the system itself, and the amount that is paid without regards to the situation, I agree with them. But don't take this to the other extreme of letting every man on the planet off without a hitch.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> I just got finished saying that the obligation is to ensure that the child is cared for until such a time that you can transfer that obligation.
> 
> If you can't acknowledge what this means, then I'm not painting you as a deadbeat, it's you who is doing that. If you don't want to be described as a deadbeat then don't be one.
> 
> There's a HUGE gap between being unfairly required to pay and flat out "me me it's all me and I don't wanna!"


I will fight tooth and nail to prevent a child from coming under my care, but if one does, don't you _dare_ suggest that I would treat it poorly.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

geekofalltrades said:


> I will fight tooth and nail to prevent a child from coming under my care, but if one does, don't you _dare_ suggest that I would treat it poorly.


I never suggested that you would. You never specified that you wouldn't, all you asserted is your refusal to be "saddled with taking care of a child". You never bothered to specify what exactly this entails, and with this type of language along with the current subject of waiving parental obligations, there were only a few interpretations that I could reasonably give to that.

You very easily could have specified that you don't _want_ a child but _if you ended up with one_ you'd see to its well being. The fact that you didn't do this leads me to wonder where your state of mind is.


----------



## geekofalltrades (Feb 8, 2012)

@sprinkles: Perhaps my state of mind is on:


The Thread said:


> Should a potential father be able to waive his parental obligations?
> ...in the case of an unwanted pregnancy?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

geekofalltrades said:


> @sprinkles: Perhaps my state of mind is on:


Obligations that you can waive when you want to are not obligations anymore.


----------



## MissNobody (Aug 23, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> This is why I have such disdain for those who get pregnant on purpose to entrap. A child is not a weapon. Using someone's compassion against them is underhanded.
> 
> If we had laws in place that would allow a parent to opt-out, children could not be used as weapons. And as it now stands, a father can still decide if he wants to be a part of the child's life or not. He is simply financially obligated either way. So, even now we allow parents to not be involved in their children's lives.
> 
> You might also say that removing this particular safety net may lead to less unwanted children born simply by increasing responsible behaviors. Without the net, someone may not think "I forgot my pill today, but it'll be fine" or "we don't need a condom just this once; he can pull out". More responsibility means less unwanted children, without even having to utilize abortion. That means less unhappy children. (On the average comparative outcome for unhappy children: youtube.com/watch?v=zk6gOeggViw )


Hmm I don't know...it's a tricky one. I'm starting to see the argument from the other side now, especially from reading yours and other people's comments. I'll have to sit on the fence for a bit


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> * Warning this is a ridiculous suggestion meant for a laugh and is not serious *
> 
> If a man gets a say in a woman's abortion, he should be automatically obligated to have a vasectomy at the woman's discretion.
> 
> Still not equal, but we're getting closer! >< -watches the pendulum swing-


 
I did say, if he wants rights over my womb, I need reciprocal rights over his balls. . .


----------



## twoofthree (Aug 6, 2011)

Women have more control of the reproductive process.
Some men see this as a problem.

The best solution we can come up with is to give him control over her actions?

If she becomes pregnant, and he can refuse financial support, then he's going to be essentially twisting her arm into having an abortion. I.e. assuming control over her actions.

That's nor righting any imbalances, it's tipping it too far in the other direction.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

Yeah, it's definitely best I keep my pants on until I find the impossible...


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Yeah, I still don't think any options I have seen here so far are acceptable compromises that should allow a father to waive his obligations.

It may not seem fair guys, but I'm starting to think that if you really, really, don't want to support children, you're probably sleeping with a girl you shouldn't be sleeping with. If you really don't want to *ever* have children, get a vasectomy and wear a condom. Even if the chance of prevention still isn't 100% it's damn near close and I would be shocked if you ever actually did impregnate a girl. If a girl does get pregnant, maybe you can sue your doctor and/or the condom company and use that money to pay for the kid (not a lawyer, so not sure if this is a viable option)?

Either way, an abortion can be a very traumatizing experience for a woman, and it's not really right to tell her to suck it up just because you can't suck it up yourself. I have always believed that a man should make sacrifices when he can for a woman because they already have a lot of unfair truths in life they have to deal with that we don't. Women deal with a lot of shit in life that a man will never have to experience, so I do not like the idea of adding this as another unfair thing they should have to deal with.

If you can negotiate a fair solution with a woman in a particular situation, that is fine, but making this a law would be a really bad idea that would be used as another tool to oppress an already besieged gender by men who have no intention of being fair about things.


----------



## L (Aug 12, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> @L_Lawliet
> 
> I wouldn't say "all it does is keep an honest man honest" as if that were meaningless. What this implies is that the honest man could become dishonest if it weren't for the lock. Does that sound like something that we want?
> 
> As for your points on the unfairness of the system itself, and the amount that is paid without regards to the situation, I agree with them. But don't take this to the other extreme of letting every man on the planet off without a hitch.


That's why I prefer the other option myself:happy: the father who has it in his mind that he will be the best damned father in the world no matter what. One problem though, the mother is going to get an abortion. The father pleads and pleads but the mother does it anyways. I'd rather this part change, my first post was supposed to hint at that. I was tired and after re-reading my post it wasn't there lol, my bad.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

twoofthree said:


> I did say, if he wants rights over my womb, I need reciprocal rights over his balls. . .


Let's not be absurd here.

I do see what you're trying to say here though, fairness, right?

What you fail to see is, the law currently gives women control of a man's wallet. Thus, in your example, the man should have an equal say about the woman's womb.

Unfortunately, the law currently gives the woman full control of her womb AND the man's wallet.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> Yeah, I still don't think any options I have seen here so far are acceptable compromises that should allow a father to waive his obligations.
> 
> It may not seem fair guys, but I'm starting to think that if you really, really, don't want to support children, you're probably sleeping with a girl you shouldn't be sleeping with. If you really don't want to *ever* have children, get a vasectomy and wear a condom. Even if the chance of prevention still isn't 100% it's damn near close and I would be shocked if you ever actually did impregnate a girl. If a girl does get pregnant, maybe you can sue your doctor and/or the condom company and use that money to pay for the kid (not a lawyer, so not sure if this is a viable option)?
> 
> ...


We should go to no sex before marriage or any other sort of contract. Takes the fun out of it, I know, but it seems everyone loves to party, but has a real issue paying the damn bill.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Runvardh said:


> We should go to no sex before marriage or any other sort of contract. Takes the fun out of it, I know, but it seems everyone loves to party, but has a real issue paying the damn bill.


I don't know if I'd take it as far as no sex before marriage or contract. My wife and I had sex plenty of times before we got married. I just think that people maybe should be a bit pickier about who they have sex with. Not like there is a lack of options out there.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Let's not be absurd here.
> 
> I do see what you're trying to say here though, fairness, right?
> 
> ...


She was just responding to my previously absurd comment. I'm pretty sure it was just sarcasm. 

But, control over money, and control over flesh should not overlap. That is illegal in various forms.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

twoofthree said:


> The best solution we can come up with is to give him control over her actions?
> 
> If she becomes pregnant, and he can refuse financial support, then he's going to be essentially twisting her arm into having an abortion. I.e. assuming control over her actions.


If you are unable to financially sustain the life of you and your child, it is nobodies fault but your own. No one is forcing anyone to abort their child, there will never be a law in North America forcing single mothers to abort their child. Stop playing the victim. 

Unlike your example, there are laws enforcing child support under threat of imprisonment. Approximately 50 thousand men in the US are in jail right now for failure to pay child support. Not always from neglect, but from their own financial inabilities. Some of these men are literally living out of their truck eating scrape food because the law forces them to pay for child support with money they don't have.


----------



## Runvardh (May 17, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> I don't know if I'd take it as far as no sex before marriage or contract. My wife and I had sex plenty of times before we got married. I just think that people maybe should be a bit pickier about who they have sex with. Not like there is a lack of options out there.


Yes, but it is apparent that there are those who are not picky, yet want to do what ever the hell they want. It doesn't have to be a long term contract, just one that stipulates what the encounter is for and what responsibilities each party has to the results. Want a one night stand? Have the paper in your back pocket. Don't like how the person's contract reads? You don't have to go to bed with them.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> A man's body does not bear money. This still has nothing to do with my point, so I don't really care to go into it.


Forcing a man to pay money means you force him to work, means you force him to commit his body. He may have to take up more hours, forgo vacation time, do less in his off time, retire later. Pick one or more of the above. Child support results in telling a man what to do with his body. Just because it is a step removed does not mean you should ignore it. 



> I never said he shouldn't have sex. I said he should choose his partners with greater care.


=Not having sex with those he otherwise would if the law was different. Same goes for the benefit of abortion for some women. 



> He should choose a partner that doesn't want to have children and understands that in the event the protection fails, he is not going to support the children and expects her to have an abortion, or deal with it herself. This is exactly what you told snail, I used your own logic to come to this conclusion.


And like snail said, she could always change her mind, and it's not fair that he'd hold her to her word because it was a tough decision. Currently it's not fair because the woman can change her mind, but I also suggested a contract in which they could make a legal prior agreement. 

I also told her that in the context of: 1) How SHE is not willing to get an abortion or adopt. 2) In defense of my opt-out suggestion. If she knows she is not willing to get an abortion or give up to adoption, she would need to be more careful. If she makes a poor decision, the law should not defend her feelings. The law is in place to defend rights. And remember, I consider one's finances a right. That last point is a big difference in what I'm saying to her vs you. 



> This is not true. Women have equal if not greater physical, monetary, and emotional obligation to children. Proof of this lies in all the mothers who still raise their children -without- child support in the case of the father running off and disappearing into obscurity.


I have as many friends raised by single fathers than single mothers. 

And remember, they could give up the obligation if they wish, so is it fair to count it against the man?



> Women are literally physically attached to the child until after birth. During this time, the father can easily escape.


Well, not if he values his job or family. 



Sequestrum said:


> I wasn't using it as an argument. I said "I believe" for a reason. I was indicating my personal belief.


You believe {blank} and that is a justification for why we shouldn't make things too hard on women. Everything I'm arguing for I believe in too.

Edit: Oh and @_twoofthree_ , 



> The best solution we can come up with is to give him control over her actions?
> 
> If she becomes pregnant, and he can refuse financial support, then he's going to be essentially twisting her arm into having an abortion. I.e. assuming control over her actions.


If you consider through the body vs body perception: When a potential mother tells a potential father "I'm not having an abortion or putting it up for adoption, I don't care what you think" She is assuming _some _tangible control over his actions.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

Manhattan said:


> And like snail said, she could always change her mind, and it's not fair that he'd hold her to her word because it was a tough decision. Currently it's not fair because the woman can change her mind, but I also suggested a contract in which they could make a legal prior agreement.
> 
> I also told her that in the context of: 1) How SHE is not willing to get an abortion or adopt. 2) In defense of my opt-out suggestion. If she knows she is not willing to get an abortion or give up to adoption, she would need to be more careful. If she makes a poor decision, the law should not defend her feelings. The law is in place to defend rights. And remember, I consider one's finances a right. That last point is a big difference in what I'm saying to her vs you.


If a woman changes her mind after the fact, then the man has some legal grounds to stand on. Verbal agreements aren't completely worthless. If she lies about it, there isn't really anything you or I could do to change that. At that point you just need to seriously bring to question her character in the way the courts can see.

This is why I said:


Sequestrum said:


> Should those mitigating factors fail, and the woman chooses to keep the child (a choice which she has an undisputed right to), should the man be responsible? Maybe.


In the case of a woman lying and/or disregarding a mutually prearranged agreement, I do not believe the man should be responsible. My point is that most men do not attempt to reach this agreement, and that is a fatal error which puts them on legal grounds which are nearly impossible to defend against.



Manhattan said:


> You believe {blank} and that is a justification for why we shouldn't make things too hard on women. Everything I'm arguing for I believe in too.


And that is fine. You have every right to believe what you like. I would be the very last person in the world to dispute that.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> *Sex has always implied a chance of reproduction, this is just fact.* However, mitigating factors such as condoms and others listed above do not entirely prevent the chance of children, condoms state this clearly, doctors explain this clearly as well. So if you have sex with someone, I can truthfully state that you are aware of the risk of having children, whether you use protection or not.
> 
> Now that you have an established implication of children. The only way to mitigate this implication is to explicitly state otherwise. If either party fails to explicitly state otherwise, children are implied and you have *neglected* to fully pursue your *choice* of whom you sleep with.
> 
> The woman has a single additional option because she has a right to her body. However, as many women have already stated, this is not an option to be jealous of, it is a painful, expensive, and sometimes socially shameful procedure. But guess what guys, you have a right to your body as well, it just doesn't apply to this situation since men do not get pregnant.


Not sure if you really understand what imply means....

Anyway, if you want to talk about agreements, if anything, sex without prior agreement to have a child should imply one does NOT want a child. You need to look at 1. what people actually use sex for nowadays and 2. why the two people were having sex in the first place.

I'm positive if you poll every person whenever they have sex, recreation would trump procreation by a landslide. In fact, even couples TALK about conceiving a child before they attempt to have one. Additionally, the use of contraceptive should prove the INTENT for not wanting a child. 

Sure, having sex at all means there's a chance of conceiving a child. However, simply saying that having sex implies you agree to raising a kid is jumping to conclusions and not supported by any statistics or facts.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Not sure if you really understand what imply means....


I understand precisely what it means. I think you need to re-examine what I said.



> Anyway, if you want to talk about agreements, if anything, sex without prior agreement to have a child should imply one does NOT want a child. You need to look at 1. what people actually use sex for nowadays and 2. why the two people were having sex in the first place.


Being that there is no 100% way to guarantee a child will not be produced by sex. It is IMPLIED that sex has a chance to produce offspring. I did not say that it was implied that this was your goal. 

1.) "what people actually use sex for nowadays"
People use sex for recreation. People use sex for reproduction. Why should I assume recreation? Why should I assume procreation? We don't know why you are having sex, and *that* is my point.

2.) "why the two people were having sex in the first place."
Refer to my answer above.



> I'm positive if you poll every person whenever they have sex, recreation would trump procreation by a landslide. In fact, even couples TALK about conceiving a child before they attempt to have one. Additionally, the use of contraceptive should prove the INTENT for not wanting a child.


That may be the case, but how do we know in your particular case that this is your goal if you have not stated it? You are leaving the matter open to interpretation and I am saying, that you should not do that.

Edit: Missed the bit about intent. The reason it does not prove intent is because contraceptives have multiple purposes. Just like sex.



> Sure, having sex at all means there's a chance of conceiving a child. However, simply saying that having sex implies you agree to raising a kid is jumping to conclusions and not supported by any statistics or facts.


I never said that. I said that sex implies a chance of procreation (and you apparently agree with this). By not discussing the purpose of sex at least once with the person you are having sex with, you are leaving yourself defenseless to the potential consequences of having sex. If you speak with a girl and tell her your intentions, she now has a chance to back out of sex. You're giving her a choice. That is what this is all about. If she has the choice to back out from sex with you, knowing that you plan to not assist with a child in the event that one is produced, then you find yourself in a lofty position should she choose to pursue your money for child support.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> Not sure if you really understand what imply means....
> 
> Anyway, if you want to talk about agreements, if anything, sex without prior agreement to have a child should imply one does NOT want a child. You need to look at 1. what people actually use sex for nowadays and 2. why the two people were having sex in the first place.
> 
> ...


None of this makes any sense.

You cannot imply someone's motivation for an act. One could very easily have sex without agreement for the goal of getting a child out of it. Sex without agreement only implies that sex is taking place.

It also does not imply that you agree to raise a child. It _clearly_ does not, and this thread proves that it does not. 

There's a vast difference between an implication to _agree_ to something and implicit _responsibility_ for the results of your actions.

Also on a side note: this trend of calling abortion and adoption 'opting out' or 'waiving obligations' is starting to sound like something from Aperture Science.

_Please note that we have added a consequence for failure. Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an "unsatisfactory" mark on your official testing record, followed by death. Good luck!_

There's such a thing as too clinically analytical.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> None of this makes any sense.
> 
> You cannot imply someone's motivation for an act. One could very easily have sex without agreement for the goal of getting a child out of it. Sex without agreement only implies that sex is taking place.
> 
> ...


Exactly, sex doesn't in itself 'imply' any intent other than sex. Hence is why I had a problem with @_Sequestrum_ throwing the word around, and saying that by having sex you agree to a child.



> Also on a side note: this trend of calling abortion and adoption 'opting out' or 'waiving obligations' is starting to sound like something from Aperture Science.
> 
> _Please note that we have added a consequence for failure. Any contact with the chamber floor will result in an "unsatisfactory" mark on your official testing record, followed by death. Good luck!_
> 
> There's such a thing as too clinically analytical.


Well, how about you comparing a fetus to a tape worm?

I'm an INTP, and am usually not fazed by these things, but even I was shocked and disgusted by your analogy.

*Edit: Apologies, I'm mixing people up. Regardless, what I'm illustrating is, even though terms like 'opting out' is used for one side, the other side is using stuff like comparing fetus to tape worm. I'm sorry that 'opting out' is a term that feels cold and clinical, but we're not discussing people's feelings, we're discussing what's fair.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> Exactly, sex doesn't in itself 'imply' any intent other than sex. Hence is why I had a problem with @Sequestrum throwing the word around, and saying that by having sex you agree to a child.


What I said goes for that too.



> Well, how about you comparing a fetus to a tape worm?
> 
> I'm an INTP, and am usually not phased by these things, but even I was shocked and disgusted by your analogy.


I remember that thread, and I'm not the one who did that. You are mistaken. All I did was clarify what a parasite is. Never did I say that a fetus is a parasite or a tape worm, or even comparable to one.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

alphacat said:


> Exactly, sex doesn't in itself 'imply' any intent other than sex. Hence is why I had a problem with @_Sequestrum_ throwing the word around, and saying that by having sex you agree to a child.


Just to clarify. I never said that. You interpreted it that way. For the third time, I said that sex implies the *CHANCE* of a child no matter what contraceptive is being used. Please stop misquoting me.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> *Edit: Apologies, I'm mixing people up. Regardless, what I'm illustrating is, even though terms like 'opting out' is used for one side, the other side is using stuff like comparing fetus to tape worm. I'm sorry that 'opting out' is a term that feels cold and clinical, but we're not discussing people's feelings, we're discussing what's fair.


The fact is that even analytically there's a connotation difference between opting out and abortion or adoption.

Also feelings do count, because without feeling, fairness is irrelevant.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> The fact is that even analytically there's a connotation difference between opting out and abortion or adoption.
> 
> Also feelings do count, because without feeling, fairness is irrelevant.


Uh... so, laws and legislation exist to protect feelings? If so, shouldn't we outlaw name calling, staring, and the whole concept of losing?

Law is supposed to protect its citizens, and to ensure freedom, justice, and fairness. The reason why name calling isn't illegal is because law first and foremost protect personal freedom, in this case, freedom of speech. What we're arguing here is freedom of choice, both of which trump feelings.

By the way, I'm not sure how it got into this discussion other than you believing the terms used are too 'clinical'. Seriously, how do the terms used such as 'waiving' and 'opting out' have to do with the actual issue at hand (?_?)?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

alphacat said:


> Uh... so, laws and legislation exist to protect feelings? If so, shouldn't we outlaw name calling, staring, and the whole concept of losing?


It exists to protect feelings that we deem as needing to be protected by law.



> Law is supposed to protect its citizens, and to ensure freedom, justice, and fairness. The reason why name calling isn't illegal is because law first and foremost protect personal freedom, in this case, freedom of speech. What we're arguing here is freedom of choice, both of which trump feelings.


What is freedom if you don't care about losing it? If you don't have a feeling for it? This doesn't trump feelings, it _results_ from feelings.



> By the way, I'm not sure how it got into this discussion other than you believing the terms used are too 'clinical'. Seriously, how do the terms used such as 'waiving' and 'opting out' have to do with the actual issue at hand (?_?)?


Because it doesn't necessarily bring to light certain nuanced ramifications. 

The problem is that it is based on removing parental obligation without regard to the specifics of the method, and potential consequences this might entail. If we only look at 'opting out' without the specifics of why and how, such that the only concern is removing obligation, then you could easily throw child murder into the mix for example.

In other words, the scope is way too wide, which is especially bad when people start forgetting exactly how wide it is.


----------



## Sequestrum (Sep 11, 2011)

For some reason, these comics make me think of this thread. Not sure why.

*WARNING* The following links contain references to sexually mature themes.

http://www.creativecriminals.com/images/mtvsex1.jpg
http://www.creativecriminals.com/images/mtvsex3.jpg
http://www.creativecriminals.com/images/mtvsex5.jpg


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

Sequestrum said:


> If a woman changes her mind after the fact, then the man has some legal grounds to stand on. Verbal agreements aren't completely worthless. If she lies about it, there isn't really anything you or I could do to change that. At that point you just need to seriously bring to question her character in the way the courts can see.


How's that case likely to go? Why should we have a system that relies on one party's word against another's? Why should we have a system that gives complete control to one party based on their gender? 



Sequestrum said:


> The reason it does not prove intent is because contraceptives have multiple purposes.


As far as I know, every contraception is designed to prevent at least pregnancy. If you are using any contraception for any purpose, it's implied that you are not going into sex for the purposes of having a baby. Still, I don't think it's that important.



> By not discussing the purpose of sex at least once with the person you are having sex with, you are leaving yourself defenseless to the potential consequences of having sex. If you speak with a girl and tell her your intentions, she now has a chance to back out of sex. You're giving her a choice.


Why is this burden on the man? Both parties should act responsibly. Since the woman has _all the choice,_ I don't see why giving her more of a choice is necessary. Since she has _all the choice _after the act, I don't see why she isn't burdened to give the man _all the information _before the act. 



Sequestrum said:


> For the third time, I said that sex implies the *CHANCE* of a child no matter what contraceptive is being used. Please stop misquoting me.


Great, this is pretty much settled. What does this mean to the topic at hand, though? Every time you drive a car, there's a chance you're going to get into an accident. Both parties are required to have their own insurance for their protection. Because seriously, how could you logically justify the legal system only protecting on one party, when either could be irresponsible? The woman could lie or forget her birth control, etc. The man could say he's wearing a condom when he's not. (In this case, it's far easier for the woman to tell if the man is being trustworthy...)



sprinkles said:


> The fact is that even analytically there's a connotation difference between opting out and abortion or adoption.
> 
> Also feelings do count, because without feeling, fairness is irrelevant.


Is potentially walking out on someone is easy? How about those social implications for a man that I mentioned at the end of this post: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...e-his-parental-obligations-7.html#post2270513 ? Though I can understand the implications, I still choose to use the words "opt-out", because they are convenient. Neither opt-out option is easy, but it's a choice that should be given to BOTH parties. 



sprinkles said:


> It exists to protect feelings that we deem as needing to be protected by law.


It exists to protect rights. Rights may stem from feelings, but we can't make laws on feelings. Surely you can see that. It's your responsibility to protect your feelings, but it's the law's responsibility to protect your rights. The law is failing men, and nobody cares because they're men. They can take it, right? If they complain, just tell them to "cowboy up" or that they "should have kept their dick in their pants". 



> The problem is that it is based on removing parental obligation without regard to the specifics of the method, and potential consequences this might entail. If we only look at 'opting out' without the specifics of why and how, such that the only concern is removing obligation, then you could easily throw child murder into the mix for example.


I'm pretty sure nobody thinks we're discussing child murder here.

What I personally said was the woman should notify the man that she's pregnant after a certain point, and the man should notify the woman of his decision before the point that the fetus could feel pain. Both sides should receive ample warning. And if both parties are being truly responsible, they should have figured this out before sex. If you're the casual sex type, you should not expect children to be in the equation, rather just able to enjoy yourself. If you can't accept the possibility of abortion, then protect your feelings, while the law covers your rights. 

@_alphacat_ has a point. You can, in some cases, imply there was no intention to have a child. I don't think we need to get into that, though. This isn't universal proof that could be used in all cases. We need prior agreements that encourage responsibility on the part of both parties.

Here's what's leaving a bad taste in my mouth about this thread: Almost everyone so far has acknowledged that the system is not fair. Yet, they may as well only be saying that to smooth things over, since they're not proposing anything else. And they damn sure don't want to accept a system that provides both sides a safety net. If you'll "reluctantly" accept a system that only protects women, do they really care about equal rights? If so, come up with something that's truly egalitarian. I already suggested something that protects both men and women. What would you suggest?


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> ........ Also feelings do count, because without feeling, fairness is irrelevant.


That one doesn't fly, feelings and fairness are not intrinsically connected. Feelings are a neurological phenomena largely dictated by context and preceding context with its influence on someones neural network. Philosophical fairness is a logical concept based on approximate equality of outcomes with necessary checks and balances. Fairness as a legal philosophy is not about feelings it is about protecting some rights and removing others to create a beneficial balance. It helps keep us from killing each other over nonsense. 

Feelings only have a legal standing to the concept of "emotional damage" or similar ideas which again are more about a physical phenomena than an emotional one. Law is by its very nature required to be unemotional, that is part of what it means by "justice is blind". It doesn't care who you are or how you feel, it only cares what you have done. 

This conversation started about a legality question, in that context feelings themselves really don't matter, only their potential consequences.


----------



## alphacat (Mar 17, 2011)

By the way, if we insist on talking about 'feelings', which I find absurd in a legal discussion. Let me tell you, there's NO scenario in this discussion more devastating than when a father wants the child and the mother goes ahead and aborts the child.

We can discuss when 'life' comes about all we want, but when a father wants to keep the child, believe me, it's the same feeling as having your baby killed and being powerless to stop it.

Again, our current system is broken because whenever the man and the woman's wish do not align, the man gets screwed. If the woman wants to keep the child, and the man doesn't, it's 18 years of paycheck. If the man wants to keep the child and the woman doesn't, his child gets murdered.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> The problem is that it is based on removing parental obligation without regard to the specifics of the method, and potential consequences this might entail. If we only look at 'opting out' without the specifics of why and how, such that the only concern is removing obligation, then you could easily throw child murder into the mix for example.
> 
> In other words, the scope is way too wide, which is especially bad when people start forgetting exactly how wide it is.


The specifics can be looked in to once people have agreed to the basic concept. We start by agreeing that the current system is unfair to men and something should be done about it. Then we reach a broad agreement on the best-looking potential solution (eg. a man being allowed to opt-out). Then finally we look at the specifics - time limits, unusual cases, potential problems. Your problems involve details that haven't even really been discussed yet (ie the exact specifics of what the law would entail).

If we can agree that men shouldn't be obligated to look after an unplanned, unwanted child, then we can start to debate the merits/problems of more specific systems to eradicate the bias in the law. Until then, there is no point in you throwing specifics like child murder in to the mix (in response to that, I imagine that most people would agree that we could get round it by having a cut-off point, as with abortion). People didn't just outright refuse to discuss abortion because no one had specifically stated that after-birth abortion would be illegal.


----------



## Cover3 (Feb 2, 2011)

Pillow said:


> The specifics can be looked in to once people have agreed to the basic concept. We start by agreeing that the current system is unfair to men and something should be done about it. Then we reach a broad agreement on the best-looking potential solution (eg. a man being allowed to opt-out). Then finally we look at the specifics - time limits, unusual cases, potential problems. Your problems involve details that haven't even really been discussed yet (ie the exact specifics of what the law would entail).
> 
> If we can agree that men shouldn't be obligated to look after an unplanned, unwanted child, then we can start to debate the merits/problems of more specific systems to eradicate the bias in the law. Until then, there is no point in you throwing specifics like child murder in to the mix (in response to that, I imagine that most people would agree that we could get round it by having a cut-off point, as with abortion). People didn't just outright refuse to discuss abortion because no one had specifically stated that after-birth abortion would be illegal.


Classic INTJ common sense 

I'd like to touch on what Pillow has just introduced, which is time limits, in the other thread about telling the father or not before aborting, may I ask the following to those who support the idea that it's esclusively a woman's buisness to decide what she does with the feotus:

Claim: The man has no right to the child, because the feotus is not a child _yet_, therefore it might as well be sperm(actual quote from other thread)

But if it is sperm, at that point in time(no legal implication), doesn't that prove the point that men should be able to waive their parental obligations(legally), provided it's done before birth?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> Is potentially walking out on someone is easy? How about those social implications for a man that I mentioned at the end of this post: http://personalitycafe.com/sex-rela...e-his-parental-obligations-7.html#post2270513 ? Though I can understand the implications, I still choose to use the words "opt-out", because they are convenient. Neither opt-out option is easy, but it's a choice that should be given to BOTH parties.


I'm not talking about whether something is easy or not. I'm talking about calling something what it is, which actually has nothing to do with the argument itself. Is that too much to ask?

Just because I find a terminology problem does not mean that I'm using that terminology problem to discredit your concept.



> It exists to protect rights. Rights may stem from feelings, but we can't make laws on feelings. Surely you can see that. It's your responsibility to protect your feelings, but it's the law's responsibility to protect your rights. The law is failing men, and nobody cares because they're men. They can take it, right? If they complain, just tell them to "cowboy up" or that they "should have kept their dick in their pants".


_You_ obviously care. I'll agree that the law is failing though.



> I'm pretty sure nobody thinks we're discussing child murder here.


"pretty sure" is not adequate for me in this case.



> What I personally said was the woman should notify the man that she's pregnant after a certain point, and the man should notify the woman of his decision before the point that the fetus could feel pain. Both sides should receive ample warning. And if both parties are being truly responsible, they should have figured this out before sex. If you're the casual sex type, you should not expect children to be in the equation, rather just able to enjoy yourself. If you can't accept the possibility of abortion, then protect your feelings, while the law covers your rights.


Can you explain to me what the basis is for covering rights?



> Here's what's leaving a bad taste in my mouth about this thread: Almost everyone so far has acknowledged that the system is not fair. Yet, they may as well only be saying that to smooth things over, since they're not proposing anything else. And they damn sure don't want to accept a system that provides both sides a safety net. If you'll "reluctantly" accept a system that only protects women, do they really care about equal rights? If so, come up with something that's truly egalitarian. I already suggested something that protects both men and women. What would you suggest?


You will probably find it absurd but I truly suggest handling things on more a case by case basis, and revamping the current laws.

I think that there are men out there who _should_ have to pay, and it shouldn't be completely repealed just because some cases abuse the law.

Basically I am not for complete elimination of child support. That is my stance, I know you aren't going to like it, but nothing that has been said has convinced me otherwise.



Mountainshepherd said:


> That one doesn't fly, feelings and fairness are not intrinsically connected. Feelings are a neurological phenomena largely dictated by context and preceding context with its influence on someones neural network. Philosophical fairness is a logical concept based on approximate equality of outcomes with necessary checks and balances. Fairness as a legal philosophy is not about feelings it is about protecting some rights and removing others to create a beneficial balance. It helps keep us from killing each other over nonsense.
> 
> Feelings only have a legal standing to the concept of "emotional damage" or similar ideas which again are more about a physical phenomena than an emotional one. Law is by its very nature required to be unemotional, that is part of what it means by "justice is blind". It doesn't care who you are or how you feel, it only cares what you have done.
> 
> This conversation started about a legality question, in that context feelings themselves really don't matter, only their potential consequences.


It does fly because without the neurological phenomena, the philosophical one would never have mattered. 

Don't try to pretend that emotion had nothing to do with law being created. We might try to _enforce_ it neutrally and uninfluenced by feelings, but the fact that it exists at all IS due to feeling. The neurological feeling is what causes the concept of 'legal fairness' to even matter to you.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Pillow said:


> If we can agree that men shouldn't be obligated to look after an unplanned, unwanted child,


We can't agree. That's part of the problem.


----------



## Sara Torailles (Dec 14, 2010)

Based on the time limit, I think it would be fair for the man to have to opt out within one month.

A woman would have two choices.

1. Don't have the doctor tell the man about the child, and raise it herself without child support from the father.

2. Have the doctor tell, and then send a letter or email to the man in which he can decide within one month, giving the woman around two months to decide to have an abortion, or to raise it herself.

I'm not really making this scheme for the sake of the man being a victim of the system or anything like that. This is mainly for the child's sake. If a man is required to pay child support no matter what, he may not do it and some woman may depend on him giving child support to help raise the child. I've heard of men who have not paid child support. At least, with this kind of system, the guy is honest about the child support from the get go, and not starving his child due to selfishness.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Torai said:


> Based on the time limit, I think it would be fair for the man to have to opt out within one month.
> 
> A woman would have two choices.
> 
> ...


This actually makes a bit of sense.


----------



## Nomen Nescio (Feb 13, 2012)

I'm no longer sure if we're arguing about this because we have strong convictions about the subject or if we just don't want to be wrong. In my head, the answer to this question seems obvious, yet 16 pages later we're still arguing over the same basic principles.

How terrible would it be if we actually had to reform the law and get into details?


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Nomen Nescio said:


> I'm no longer sure if we're arguing about this because we have strong convictions about the subject or if we just don't want to be wrong. In my head, the answer to this question seems obvious, yet 16 pages later we're still arguing over same basic principles.
> 
> How terrible would it be if we actually had to reform the law and get into details?


Actually what Torai just posted seems reasonable to me.

It allows both sides a way out, and puts a responsibility of disclosure on the woman, which I'd say is fair since she should be the first to know.

It doesn't let the woman delay to trap the man, and it doesn't leave the woman stuck if there is a reversal by the man.

I'd like to add to it that decisions are final after the deadline.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> It does fly because without the neurological phenomena, the philosophical one would never have mattered.
> 
> Don't try to pretend that emotion had nothing to do with law being created. We might try to _enforce_ it neutrally and uninfluenced by feelings, but the fact that it exists at all IS due to feeling. The neurological feeling is what causes the concept of 'legal fairness' to even matter to you.


Why law is created as a generality is completely different from the topic at hand, stick to the topic. We are talking about why laws are created specifically in nations of our sort, the motive behind our legal system, not the motive behind legal systems period. 

Emotion is a response to a physical event (on more layers than you might imagine), the laws are in reference to the physical effect and its consequences. There is consideration for emotional outcomes but as I stated earlier that requires a burden of damage, it requires they show a physical harm associated with the emotional harm.

You are correct though emotion is directly related to a lot of legal elements, and many laws do exist in reference to emotion, most of which are to stop or prevent emotion from being a variable. Emotion is sometimes a modifier on a law, manslaughter versus premeditated murder for example, but notice it doesn't change it from being murder it just acknowledges that emotions make people do (note again an action) stupid things.

A lot of the financial and legal contracts also have clauses regarding emotion, again requiring that they not be involved. For example a financial officer in a bank is not allowed to perform services for his own family and friends, because emotion will compromise him.

Emotion is generally legally positioned as a negative element. Something that has to be controlled for so as to dismiss it from the situation as it clouds the issues at hand. Law in many ways is meant to be a counter to emotions, not a compliment to them, but that isn't their solitary purpose by any means.

Emotion is not the reason for law, and given that legal scholars actually don't agree on the source of law you probably shouldn't be asserting what it is. I'm familiar with a few different theories on it and emotion is part of some of them, but its never causal. You can certainly assert your opinion but as it is your opinion it is has limited validity arguing about scholastic/legal variables.

Note that I'm not arguing this with any reference to the conversations you're having with the others, only in reference to your argument about feelings and law.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

@Mountainshepherd

I made only a side comment, which admittedly I probably should not have, and then it was challenged.

Don't put it all on me as if nobody else, including you, had anything to do with it.


----------



## Mountainshepherd (Feb 23, 2012)

sprinkles said:


> @Mountainshepherd
> 
> I made only a side comment, which admittedly I probably should not have, and then it was challenged.
> 
> Don't put it all on me as if nobody else, including you, had anything to do with it.



You made a false assertion and I called you on it. You insisted that my challenge was incorrect, so I replied to show that it was. 

What am I putting all on you? in what way am I turning you into a victim here? 

I joined the conversation to challenge that assertion, I take such arguments about law seriously because law is something I care about. I haven't contributed to the rest of the discussion and have no intention of doing so.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Mountainshepherd said:


> You made a false assertion and I called you on it. You insisted that my challenge was incorrect, so I replied to show that it was.
> 
> What am I putting all on you? in what way am I turning you into a victim here?
> 
> I joined the conversation to challenge that assertion, I take such arguments about law seriously because law is something I care about. Nowhere did I make any contribution to your other discussions or allude to them except to your comment.


This discussion does not belong in this thread and it was a mistake for me to even make the comment that I did in the first place.

I misread your post at first as saying that I'm driving the discussion off track and I was just saying that I'm not the only one doing that. Now I see that you were writing something different, but all the same, this discussion flat out does not belong here.

I've actually made many errors in this thread, this is not the only one, and I claim responsibility. I don't wish to continue in this vein, though.


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> I'm not talking about whether something is easy or not. I'm talking about calling something what it is, which actually has nothing to do with the argument itself. Is that too much to ask?


We have general words for the purpose of easing along the process of speaking about multiple phenomenon. When talking about contraceptives, you don't list everything under the sun, you just say "contraceptives". I'm lumping both the male and female choices under the words "opt-out" because it is what they are, whether the wording is clinical or not. 



> _You_ obviously care. I'll agree that the law is failing though.


Clearly. What's the point? I don't even feel like I've ever suffered from massive discrimination, but I can objectively recognize it. I recognize how we do not value the feelings of a man as much as the feelings of a woman. I'm even guilty of it myself at times. If a man started crying to me because somebody called them fat (something I've experienced with several women), I wouldn't be able to take him seriously. 

Different topic for a different thread. It's interesting though, that the feelings of the woman have been considered in this thread, ("nobody should be forced to go through an abortion", etc) but the feelings of men aren't defended. @_alphacat_ mentioned for example that when a man doesn't want a woman to abort his "child", to him it feels like murder. Pro-choice advocates don't care about this. (neither do I, as long as the man has the ability to opt-out) But you've seen multiple pro-choice advocates defend against the woman having to make hard choices in this very thread, haven't you? 



> "pretty sure" is not adequate for me in this case.


Okay, I'm 100% sure nobody thinks we're talking about child murder. I am also 100% sure this topic will not encourage child murder. Why are we even talking about this? 



> Can you explain to me what the basis is for covering rights?


To protect everyone's personal properties and freedoms from predatory forces. It's also because rights are the best way to prevent anarchy. Enforcing feelings is not plausible, even if feelings are the reasons rights violations bother us. We need a standard that is easy to deal with. 



> You will probably find it absurd but I truly suggest handling things on more a case by case basis, and revamping the current laws.
> 
> I think that there are men out there who _should_ have to pay, and it shouldn't be completely repealed just because some cases abuse the law.


We don't need to inject more subjectivity into the legal system. If anything, you should argue for more rules that adjust situations for the individuals ahead of time, as opposed to a case by case approach. 



> Basically I am not for complete elimination of child support.


Nor am I. I'm against the woman having complete say over whether the man pays or not. If a man chooses to support the woman by paying, I think that's great. And I also think more men will pay than some might think. Again, walking out on somebody is not an easy decision. 



sprinkles said:


> Actually what Torai just posted seems reasonable to me.
> 
> It allows both sides a way out, and puts a responsibility of disclosure on the woman, which I'd say is fair since she should be the first to know.
> 
> It doesn't let the woman delay to trap the man, and it doesn't leave the woman stuck if there is a reversal by the man.


Did you read my first post? I randomly assumed that the baby may feel pain at 3 months, and the woman should know she is pregnant by 2 months, so she should be required to notify the man within a certain amount of time along in the pregnancy, and the man needs to notify the woman within a month of being told. No reversals. (BTW, 20 weeks seems to be the earliest time in which experts believe a baby _MAY _be able to feel pain. That's on average 5 months.)

I also mentioned in a later post to another member that if a woman can't deal with an unplanned pregnancy, she should be able to sign a contract with a man. Seems reasonable to me.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

@Manhattan
I acknowledge the mistakes I made in this thread.

I get it. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add?


----------



## Manhattan (Jul 13, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> @_Manhattan_
> I acknowledge the mistakes I made in this thread.
> 
> I get it. Thank you. Anything else you'd like to add?


And I admire that. I do not want to beat a dead horse, either. The reason I'm still responding to you though is that you still are making points, some directly _towards _me. I don't understand your post. If I'm being too aggressive, I am sorry. I like you and have no reason to disproportionately focus on you. If anything, I am just confused.


----------



## sprinkles (Feb 7, 2010)

Manhattan said:


> And I admire that. I do not want to beat a dead horse, either. The reason I'm still responding to you though is that you still are making points, some directly _towards _me. I don't understand your post. If I'm being too aggressive, I am sorry. I like you and have no reason to disproportionately focus on you. If anything, I am just confused.


I retract those points. I've been taking this discussion from a perspective that is too personal. I wasn't being as objective as I'd believed at the time.

Pretty much everything I've said is regrettably full of bias.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

sprinkles said:


> We can't agree. That's part of the problem.


Disagreeing is fine, just don't confuse the issue by bringing in more advanced topics when we haven't even agreed the basics.


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

So far, I have seen the most passionate arguments in favor of a mans wallet potential. It's kinda sad that a Father has been reduced down to monetary worth.


----------



## Pillow (Apr 17, 2011)

killerB said:


> So far, I have seen the most passionate arguments in favor of a mans wallet potential. It's kinda sad that a Father has been reduced down to monetary worth.


That doesn't really add much to the discussion...


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

Pillow said:


> That doesn't really add much to the discussion...



Wasn't meant to. Just an observation.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Pillow said:


> That doesn't really add much to the discussion...


I think it does. he's pointing out the potential of father's being objectified the way women have in the past in a chicken-or-the-egg fashion.
that is a relevant point to this conversation


----------



## Playful Proxy (Feb 6, 2012)

If the man's consent is not required for an abortion, I certainly believe he should be allowed to opt out.


----------

