# Put an end to men having to pay for kids they don't want. Become an advocate today!



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

*Society when women get pregnant with kids they don't want:* "oh god, you shouldn't have had sex then." "What did you expect?" "You can't murder the fetus!" "Be a responsible woman and raise that kid!'

*Society when men get someone pregnant: *"He should get a say too!" "Oh no, poor guy has to spend money raising a kid without the emotional drainage. That's women's rights gone too far" "if he didn't want a kid, how can you force him to pay for child care? #mensrights"
* 
If you really are that serious about not forcing men to pay for kids: *advocate for abortion rights for women. Advocate for more affordable health care and better public schools so men pay less. Stop the double standard of forcing women to be responsible for everything.


----------



## jerica (Jun 11, 2021)

IMHO, The starting point is everything. If a woman or a man chose based on flirts and shallow stuff, then a lot of problems will come along the way. To me, compatibility was quite literally almost everything.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

In places where women can opt out of parent-hood, so should men.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I'm not an expert, and some of this could be wrong (I especially don't know much about the foster system, the adoption system etc.)

Neither men nor women can opt-out of parenthood once the child is born, unless they agree to give the child up for adoption or other circumstances that are usually penalties (like being deemed unfit and having the child taken by the state?)

But if a woman has a child and then goes off to live her life without the child, and the father cares for the child as a single father, then the woman will be legally bound to pay child support.

Because it's for the child who has certain rights, like to have their needs met by their parents until they are old enough to meet their own needs.

It seems unethical to force a woman to receive a medical procedure such as abortion--it would probably be far more traumatizing than forcing vasectomies on men, though that's sort of comparable. So I don't see how that could be a solution to men wanting to opt-out of parenting.

And I believe fathers have to consent to their biological baby being offered up to adoption in most cases (where he's a fit father). 

I presume, in the case of a mother who wanted to adopt out her baby, she would not be allowed to "opt-out of parenthood," if the father ended up gaining custody (Because he didn't consent to adoption and he was a fit parent) and then she would just have to pay child support.

Most laws regarding children are there for the children--not to benefit the mother or the father particularly. It is just that mothers tend to end up taking the bulk of responsibility for the children (both in relationships and as single-parents) and so it's more common to see fathers paying child support (that and that men tend to make more than women, and also being a single mother also affects a woman's earnings, because single mothers are discriminated against in the workforce and they also tend to have to make career and financial sacrifices for their children more often--especially if they are the sole provider...which makes them poorer on average than an absent father, and probably even than most single fathers.)


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

jerica said:


> IMHO, The starting point is everything. If a woman or a man chose based on flirts and shallow stuff, then a lot of problems will come along the way. To me, compatibility was quite literally almost everything.





WickerDeer said:


> I'm not an expert, and some of this could be wrong (I especially don't know much about the foster system, the adoption system etc.)
> 
> Neither men nor women can opt-out of parenthood once the child is born, unless they agree to give the child up for adoption or other circumstances that are usually penalties (like being deemed unfit and having the child taken by the state?)
> 
> ...


And often children want to stay where in flats or houses that are big enough (and has at least two bedrooms), and nobody has to starve or go to sleep hungry and cranky from lack of food, and be able to go on holiday together which in my country has become a big problem lately...red cross can no longer provide holiday options for poor families who cant pay gor it them selves and they have to sort out who are the poorest families, and there was an interview with a woman lately on wellfare who was so poor that she had to give up custody of the child for the childs' own safety. Who is that honest and dare to speak up about it ?! Not many, in fear of being misunderstood as greedy, lazy, egocentrical parents when its actually the opposit. Having seen a lot of adoption programs on tv, over several years, only once I can remember I have seen a parent giving away their child for other reasons then that the parents couldn't make it, usually because the families were starving or extremely mentally or physically ill and hoped that their child would get a better life, even if it had to be away from them. They hardly _ever_ wanted for it to happen like that (except from possibly once through out all those years of episodes)


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Electra said:


> and there was an interview with a woman lately on wellfare who was so poor that she had to give up custody of the child for his own safety.


That is so sad. In the US there are homeless children as well. I've often wondered how we can say that neglect is child abuse but we can allow ourselves as a country to neglect a homeless family's need for shelter. There are homeless shelters, but here it has gotten really bad and where I live there aren't enough spaces in the shelters. And the waiting list for public housing is often years long and only opens up once ever couple years (I mean, people can't even apply to get on the list for years too).


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

WickerDeer said:


> That is so sad. In the US there are homeless children as well. I've often wondered how we can say that neglect is child abuse but we can allow ourselves as a country to neglect a homeless family's need for shelter. There are homeless shelters, but here it has gotten really bad and where I live there aren't enough spaces in the shelters. And the waiting list for public housing is often years long and only opens up once ever couple years (I mean, people can't even apply to get on the list for years too).


😭💝


----------



## LeafStew (Oct 17, 2009)

Men should think before putting their dick somewhere.


----------



## 8080 (Oct 6, 2020)

Condoms are more appealing than alimony payments. To use them safely, you need self-control but not the fine motor skills of a watchmaker. The condoms of major manufacturers are 100% tested and better and more diverse than ever. Apart from the expiry date, the intended use – vaginal or anal sex? – and the optimal size should be given attention; for silicone condoms only water-based or silicone lubricants may be used.

healthy-sex/condom-size-chart#if-its-too-small-or-too-big
What Are the Safest Condoms and How to Use Them
These Are the 25 Best Condoms You Can Buy
How to use condoms and lubricant
3 Best Condoms For Anal Sex (Heavy Duty & Even Gay Sex)


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

Just have a baby. Then raise it. Its like all God needs you to do, he did the rest.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Purrfessor said:


> Just have a baby. Then raise it. Its like all God needs you to do, he did the rest.


No U have a baby


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> No U have a baby


Im too old for that sorry


----------



## secondpassing (Jan 13, 2018)

daleks_exterminate said:


> *Society when men get someone pregnant: *"He should get a say too!" "Oh no, poor guy has to spend money raising a kid without the emotional drainage. That's women's rights gone too far" "if he didn't want a kid, how can you force him to pay for child care? #mensrights"


If this was meant to be an accurate overview of what society would say, I would say I think it is not. For instance, supporting men's rights is not a popular stance.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

DOGSOUP said:


> No U have a baby












Man is stronger by far than woman, yet only woman can have a child.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> *Society when women get pregnant with kids they don't want:* "oh god, you shouldn't have had sex then." "What did you expect?" "You can't murder the fetus!" "Be a responsible woman and raise that kid!'
> 
> *Society when men get someone pregnant: *"He should get a say too!" "Oh no, poor guy has to spend money raising a kid without the emotional drainage. That's women's rights gone too far" "if he didn't want a kid, how can you force him to pay for child care? #mensrights"
> *
> If you really are that serious about not forcing men to pay for kids: *advocate for abortion rights for women. Advocate for more affordable health care and better public schools so men pay less. Stop the double standard of forcing women to be responsible for everything.


Maybe stop viewing sex as a recreational activity? For men and women. I don't want to have sex with someone I don't want to have a child with, what's the point*? It's incumbent upon me then to decide am I going to be an irresponsible cunt who has a child and then abandons it for someone else to take care of or am I going to make sure I do it in sufficient circumstances to be able to provide a happy and prosperous life for that child?

*And yes sex is fun and you might well ask why I'm so amped up half the time - it's because I try to control that force because *I hate my appetite being in control of me*
doing it properly and having fun is not mutually exclusive.

The whole thing you're presenting here is predicated on the idea people can't control themselves: The only reason you're having a kid you don't want is because you're having sex in spite of not wanting to have a kid - and I'm sorry, the purpose of sex is reproduction. 

God forbid people can learn to control themselves.

And if you can't?

Experience is the teacher of fools.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Six said:


> Man is stronger by far than woman, yet only woman can have a child.


Needs a man for it


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

DOGSOUP said:


> Needs a man for it


You know how so many Russian women are gorgeous and so many Russian men are weird-looking dead-eyed psychos?


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Six said:


> You know how so many Russian women are gorgeous and so many Russian men are weird-looking dead-eyed psychos?


I love all my Russians equally


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> No U have a baby


You have my babies.


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

I like to look upon sex as a holy act that is very private and it can create life, but people can still talk about it to some degree, imo, I just don't think people should go to extremes when it comes to it, for example living in celibacy, beat people up for sleeping around, calling others names such as slut or whore - or go the other way and be totally non judgemental about who they sleep with, that can cause stds and jealousy if they are involved in a relationship, and the chance for pregnancy can actually be quite high and abortion is a terrible thing to do, so why not be a bit modest about it? I don't sleep around or cheat in a relationship, and I never have, and I am very happy about that, because for example, many years ago, a friend of mine married a guy who slept around and got HIV before she became pregnant 🤦🏽‍♀️ can you imagen how horrible?? It is also more easy to hide HIV today then when I was younger. I am terrified of it my self, I just don't think the risk is worth it!


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

SgtPepper said:


> You have my babies.


I don't have enough money


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

DOGSOUP said:


> I don't have enough money


Its ok, a baby don't need money 🙃


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Six said:


> The whole thing you're presenting here is predicated on the idea people can't control themselves: The only reason you're having a kid you don't want is because you're having sex in spite of not wanting to have a kid - and I'm sorry, the purpose of sex is reproduction.


Yes? Where is the proof that people overall can/will "control themselves"? 

Countless data/studies from places with absence only education shows a significantly higher teen pregnancy rate, pregnancy centers that lie to people to keep them from having an abortion, more stds, more genuinely unsafe/harmful sexual practices out of ignorance that lead to medical intervention, etc.

Places that actually teach how reproduction works and how to practice it safely have a lower teen pregnancy rate, less stds, etc. 


Why would I ignore actual data because of an appeals to feelings or how things "should or should not" be? I don't really care what "should" happen. I'd rather address what actually happens.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Purrfessor said:


> Just have a baby. Then raise it. Its like all God needs you to do, he did the rest.


that's a very bad argument.
viagra is listed as necessary healthcare...I guess men with ED should just have limp dick and not raise it. God needs you to not have an erection, he did the rest? 
....The same argument could be used for not removing cancer. It's a bad argument. Don't get a new kidney, God gave you this one? Really doesn't work.

*Pregnancy is genuinely dangerous.* The motherhood mortality rate is still ridiculously high (in the USA, even worse. it's more than double that of most other high-income countries). Pregnancy complications are not as uncommon as people like to pretend. High blood pressure, gestational diabetes, preeclampsia, depression and a anxiety, pregnancy loss/miscarriage, infections, stillbirth, severe and persistent nausea and vomiting, and iron-deficiency anemia are all listed as common. 

-----
I did get pregnant from an accident (the first time I'd had unprotected sex with my husband too lol) and I did decide to keep/raise and do love said child. I really like being a mom. HOWEVER, if you think pregnancy didn't make me prochoice lol. If men were the ones getting pregnant, contraception would 100% be viewed as necessary health care everywhere, and abortion would be legal everywhere. There would be none of this "God's plan" arguments as they already do not pertain to men. 

I had a safe, uncomplicated, not at risk pregnancy. It was listed as normal and not problematic. I had severe depression and suicidal thoughts my entire pregnancy, had to take anxiety meds and see a therapist weekly in order to not off myself. That sounds severe to me, but it's common enough that it's not listed as abnormal. So, it's great I live in a country that actually has decent healthcare or I'd absolutely be dead. I also had "morning sickness" for the full 9 months, constantly and at one point in the middle LOST weight while pregnant. Again, normal enough that it wasn't a medical abnormality. My "uncomplicated" pregnancy lead to a delivery that was fine, until I hemorrhaged. I had to have the placenta removed surgically because it wouldn't come out, Oh when I say I hemorrhaged- I mean I lost two liters of blood. Do you know how much two liters of blood is? I needed two full blood transfusions, wasn't allowed to walk for three days, and again probably should be dead. This was all considered normal enough to not be abnormal. 

the "just have a baby" community cares nothing for the life of the mother, what happens to her, or if she lives. They care more about the person that could exist one day than the one that does.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

@WickerDeer I'm not actually advocating for forced abortions. 

I'm just pointing out that advocating for things like better education (actual biology/sex ed instead of 'just don't') is a massive factor that men's rights groups tend to over look which really doesn't make sense, as are women's health care issues making it difficult in places to even receive contraception (apparently IUDs are often not paid for by insurance, despite lasting longer and being more significantly effective) they're not cheap, but a $1500 IUD that lasts for five years is still cheaper than pills monthly so insurance doing this doesn't make sense. Abortion rights are threatened some places, despite the hard fact that places with legal abortion, and better sexual education have lower abortion rates.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

SgtPepper said:


> In places where women can opt out of parent-hood, so should men.


I don't hate this argument.

One thing though: male birth control. It really should exist and be more common. Or hell, if a dude knows he never wants kids, vasectomy (they're even 75% reversible in the first three years if he changes his mind) Why aren't dudes trying to get birth control if they don't want kids and could get someone pregnant?


----------



## Electra (Oct 24, 2014)

daleks_exterminate said:


> I don't hate this argument.
> 
> One thing though: male birth control. It really should exist and be more common. Or hell, if a dude knows he never wants kids, vasectomy (they're even 75% reversible in the first three years if he changes his mind) Why aren't dudes trying to get birth control if they don't want kids and could get someone pregnant?


I think it does exist, but I'm not sure except rubber, I meen


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Why aren't dudes trying to get birth control if they don't want kids and could get someone pregnant?


Because it's unnatural and they wouldn't be real men in the eyes of other men?

Male birth control pills are still in the works. It will be interesting to see how well they're received and whether it will bring any significant change, especially in mindsets.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

eeo said:


> Because it's unnatural and they wouldn't be real men in the eyes of other men?
> 
> Male birth control pills are still in the works. It will be interesting to see how well they're received and whether it will bring any significant change, especially in mindsets.


And it's "natural" for women to take them? So men care more about looking like men to other men than they do supporting children they do not want? Is it unmanly to be responsible for yourself? 

Hopefully that works out and men who want them get them.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

daleks_exterminate said:


> And it's "natural" for women to take them? So men care more about looking like men to other men than they do supporting children they do not want? Is it unmanly to be responsible for yourself?


I don't know, that's why I asked. I bet some men really do think that way. Or they're more than happy to let women take the pill without thinking about how it could affect women's health. It's been going on for so long, and women are going along with it, so that's how it's viewed as natural. It's likely that those men will never even consider the male pill, the same as they don't consider a condom. Hopefully there's more who think otherwise, or at least will be once the male pill becomes available. I wonder if they'll be as apprehensive about the hormone aspect of it as women are, actually. And how long will it be until it becomes "normal" for them. But the men who might use them are probably the ones who are more willing to freeze their sperm and get a vasectomy already.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Yes? Where is the proof that people overall can/will "control themselves"?
> 
> Countless data/studies from places with absence only education shows a significantly higher teen pregnancy rate, pregnancy centers that lie to people to keep them from having an abortion, more stds, more genuinely unsafe/harmful sexual practices out of ignorance that lead to medical intervention, etc.
> 
> ...


_Even before we go any further I co-sign whatever you think in terms of education and abortion and such - alright? Reality's reality and society is where it is, such bells aren't unrung._

However for me? On the ideals:

There is, for example, always going to be theft, rape and murder - surely that doesn't invalidate the ideal there should not be theft, rape and murder?

What's at stake is not the validity of ideals themselves as guides for pro-social behavior, what's at stake is merely - the _form of those ideals:_

*Is a world where you only have sex with the partner you're going to be with for the rest of your life and have children with a valid ideal?*

You may not agree.

Many people may prefer a different world:

A. Maybe you don't want kids.
B. Maybe you don't want monogamy.
C. Maybe you don't want to be stuck with someone for the rest of your life.

I say they should be allowed to figure that out - but I don't want to deal with the consequences.

If we can re-sort society so people with homogenous values can co-exist and be socially responsible exclusively only to people who share our ideals? GAME ON.

Sign me up for a subscription to the reality tv show where a society of people who didn't want to have kids figures out how they're going to fund their pensions.

Because I sure as fuck don't want my kids paying for their selfishness.

Edit: But I really don't think that's going to happen - like I'm sure a lot of conservatives would be more than up for partitioning society and just creating parallel, independent civilisations - progressives can create their utopias and conservatives can continue being backwards, knuckle-dragging savages.

However I kind of think progressives know they'd end up eating each other and the power would go out - which is why they'd never consent to do it - who would they suck resources off if they couldn't co-exist with conservatives whilst they berate them?


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

daleks_exterminate said:


> @WickerDeer I'm not actually advocating for forced abortions.
> 
> I'm just pointing out that advocating for things like better education (actual biology/sex ed instead of 'just don't') is a massive factor that men's rights groups tend to over look which really doesn't make sense, as are women's health care issues making it difficult in places to even receive contraception (apparently IUDs are often not paid for by insurance, despite lasting longer and being more significantly effective) they're not cheap, but a $1500 IUD that lasts for five years is still cheaper than pills monthly so insurance doing this doesn't make sense. Abortion rights are threatened some places, despite the hard fact that places with legal abortion, and better sexual education have lower abortion rates.


I know you're not.

I was just trying to imagine how "giving the man the choice to opt out" would play out--some men have seemed to actually advocate for this, which is pretty disturbing (but no one in this thread has!!!).

I often respond to these types of topics by just responding to ideas I've encountered before or can think of--not arguing with ideas people are presenting. lol it causes a lot of misunderstandings when I do that! But I am usually really just fighting with ideas and not people, and sometimes ideas no one has brought up (but I still have this compulsion to address).

I 100% agree with better education and health care. I think we see people being more responsible with reproduction when their quality of life goes up and when they become more educated...whereas people who lack these resources (like some really unfortunate and poor places) tend to have very high birth rates and very high death rates. Most people wouldn't live that way if they had the option and familiarity with choice.

Some weirdo (sorry Christians) fundamentalists don't agree with IUDs...even beyond the ones who don't agree with birth control. It's crazy. I think the main reason for this is because they are manipulated into wanting to plunge people into poverty, because poor people with little choice means that there are more slave labor (figuratively--but people who are willing to work the most desperate jobs just to survive for little pay).

They think they are trying to save babies, but all they are doing is playing into plunging women into poverty and making their children more vulnerable for exploitation. That's a bit conspiracy-ish but that's the reality of how it plays out. I've seen enough poor girls to know how they are treated in society. That's what happens when you try to strip people of reproductive control. You have a surplus of what powerful people consider cheap humans...disposable humans.

I feel very strongly that the solution is birth control, egalitarianism, and education--and raising the quality of life. Then, as people complain, the birth rates fall...then you give more incentives as a society for people to start families (like having more family friendly policies...changing culture to include mothers in activities (and YES babies and children too). That will make it easier for people to have families.

You don't threaten to take away their choices and try to force them into poverty where they will have higher birth rates and death rates like slaves.

Ok that was a rant again! And I know you never suggested any of what I'm arguing against. lol But yeah--it's so frustrating to me because we KNOW the solutions. We have the solution to help prevent war, to help prevent poverty and child abuse, and exploitation. But because of greed (being manipulated by the greed of business and war interests) and clinging to unexamined moral traditions, we end up perpetuating exploitation instead.

At least that is my theory.

IUDs are great--thank goodness for organizations like Planned Parenthood.

Most conservative solutions aren't real solutions--they focus WAY too much on individualism, which isn't realistic. People who have IQ above like 90% of the population still end up having unexpected pregnancies...and yet you're telling me we're going to somehow get everyone else to just do "abstinence only" and that's going to work?!
It's ridiculous. Solutions need to actually be realistic not pipe-dreams that depend on everyone having the same values, same intelligence, etc, given that the majority of the population isn't fucking Ghandi or Booker T Washington, or Mother Theresa or Jesus.

Otherwise it's just rubbing one's own ego--"oh I wouldn't have an unexpected pregnancy...so spit on anyone who does." That's not a solution--it's not realistic. What is realistic is providing birth control and working to raise the quality of life for the most vulnerable in your society (usually women and children count among those). So do what actually works--what works is to provide access to abortion, to birth control, to education--and to strive for egalitarianism...like in the Nordic countries.

Not to do what we do in the US--because, I'm sure it's just a coincidence that we're run by corporate interests here who have a serious interest in poverty...having masses of impoverished workers who are desperate.

Maybe it will change with automation or robots or whatever, but as it is--it's poor, desperate people who make up the cheapest labor...and also the easiest *soldiers* to get. And that's the real reason people are manipulated into being against birth control imo. 

_okay going to take off my tinfoil hat now_


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Six said:


> _Even before we go any further I co-sign whatever you think in terms of education and abortion and such - alright? Reality's reality and society is where it is, such bells aren't unrung._
> 
> However for me? On the ideals:
> 
> ...


How come you guys dont fund your own pensions.


----------



## Kelly Kapowski (Apr 26, 2018)

Six said:


> Man is stronger by far than woman, yet only woman can have a child.


Stronger by what standards? Physically? Emotionally? Grey territory. My husband is stronger than I both physically & emotionally in some areas, and weaker than I physically & emotionally in some areas.

Both are unique & have different strengths & weaknesses that are meant to compliment each other & work in unison.


----------



## eeo (Aug 25, 2020)

DOGSOUP said:


> How come you guys dont fund your own pensions.


Yeah, relying on kids to take care of you when you retire is a pretty shortsighted strategy. Kids can die or become incapacitated by different conditions, they can move away and never talk to you again, good luck with finding them and making them pay if they don't want to do that. You can be the best parent you can possibly be, but at the end of the day your kids will still be individuals who might not do everything as expected.

As a childless individual, I sure as fuck don't want to pay taxes to fund things for other people's children. But nobody's asking me, so hopefully nobody will ask them either. I plan to fund my own retirement, by the way. But who knows, maybe I will get to sponge off of them and be the selfish individual I'm thought to be by the society after all.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

@eeo if it's worth anything, I realllllllly don't get the hate child free people get. That shit also needs to change.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

I'd like to see all forms of birth control made free to everyone, including condoms and the morning after pill.


----------



## Kelly Kapowski (Apr 26, 2018)

I hope your little one brings you both so much joy. I’m sorry you went through all of that with your birth, it sounds horrible & had to be absolutely horrifying for your husband. Pregnancy & childbirth are *no joke.* Pregnancy complications _are _very common. The outcome that you’re still around for both your husband & child is wonderful, what happened to get there is terrifying.

I’m sorry it feels like your life is less valuable than the child’s to those that are pro-life. I’m not sure what the solution to this is, but obviously just being pro-life by itself is enough to make some (many) women feel like their lives are less valuable than a baby’s. I am pro-life. I don’t know _anyone_ that is pro-life that believes a mother should die if there are medical issues. I think it’s false to assume those that are pro-life automatically believe the mother’s life should be sacrificed. If a baby, in womb, is threatening a mother’s life, the baby should be terminated. This is generally what happens, no? There are no restrictions on this, nor are any pro-lifers trying to force this when there’s a medical emergency I don’t believe? I may be mistaken. I know there are extremists on all ends, so correct me if I’m wrong, please. 





daleks_exterminate said:


> If men were the ones getting pregnant, contraception would 100% be viewed as necessary health care everywhere, and abortion would be legal everywhere. There would be none of this "God's plan" arguments as they already do not pertain to men.
> 
> the "just have a baby" community cares nothing for the life of the mother, what happens to her, or if she lives. They care more about the person that could exist one day than the one that does.


These are not facts, this is speculation.

Birth control is covered by most insurances & cannot be legally denied. I’d imagine if they come up with contraceptives for men, the same would apply. I guess it depends on one’s definition of “contraception”. I’ve read that abortion is now being considered as contraception.

I’m also stating most of this based on policies in the United States. Much of this may not apply to you or your country, dependent on where you’re from.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

eeo said:


> Yeah, relying on kids to take care of you when you retire is a pretty shortsighted strategy. Kids can die or become incapacitated by different conditions, they can move away and never talk to you again, good luck with finding them and making them pay if they don't want to do that. You can be the best parent you can possibly be, but at the end of the day your kids will still be individuals who might not do everything as expected.
> 
> As a childless individual, I sure as fuck don't want to pay taxes to fund things for other people's children. But nobody's asking me, so hopefully nobody will ask them either. I plan to fund my own retirement, by the way. But who knows, maybe I will get to sponge off of them and be the selfish individual I'm thought to be by the society  after all.


My retirement plan is suicide as soon as I become incapable because frankly the sight of the kind of parasites the previous generation feels entitled to be? Sitting around collecting rentier profit 5 times what they've put into the system by leveraging wealth effects, asset inflation and trillions borrowed against the un or never born - it fills me with such contempt I would rather die than replicate that.

And I'm serious about it - in some Native American cultures when someone got too old to keep moving they just did the decent thing and lay down and die rather than compromise their family.

Civilisations died when people stop giving a shit about the future generations to come in them.

I mean your remarks in themselves - how do you think social security and pensions work exactly? Or any form of investment?

When you "put your money to work" what do you think happens?

It doesn't magically start generating value - someone else is working for it - less people working? Less your money "works" for you - *"if you don't make stuff - there is no stuff".*

Do you think the kind of scum who run pension funds stick around to deal with the consequences of their mismanagement of all the toxic assets that get dumped in those funds?

This has been an issue since the late 80s - that's around the time the decision was made to set up shop in China - they knew then

YOU KNEW THEN






YOU'D ALL BE DEAD IF IT WASN'T FOR MY DAVID!

sorry - they knew then the boomers' pension obligations were not serviceable.

Everything else has been a leveraging and hollowing out of the West by a mobile internationalist class who really don't give a damn about plebs selling out future generations of plebs because their kids will be sitting pretty in what is pretty much a global plutonomy anyhow.

The reason houses are so expensive is just part of this - just part of the hollowing out and wealth transfer to keep these selfish fucks in a lifestyle they have not earned.

It's a ponzi scheme which needs more suckers - but now it's all so leveraged it's literally consuming the lives of the unborn - it's too expensive for many people to even bother having children now.

If you save enough to take care of yourself? Good for you. But if you're holding it in any sort of financial asset?

If the younger generations (or indeed the people from foreign cultures you import who quite frankly turn around and decide - you know what? I don't fancy toiling as a serf to service the lifestyles of these old fucks) turn on you and prescribe a healthy round of lethal injections - I'm not going to blame them either.

What are you expecting those people to choose? Their kids? Or a bunch of selfish old bastards who thought they could consume their kids' futures?

The intergenerational contract broke down and the people around today are spending money they are not entitled to to support themselves with.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Six said:


> However I kind of think progressives know they'd end up eating each other and the power would go out - which is why they'd never consent to do it - who would they suck resources off if they couldn't co-exist with conservatives whilst they berate them?


Are you saying that the poor foreign labor that's exploited for profits--such as the south-of-the-border migrants that work the fields for below minimum wage and cram twenty people into a single rental unit to survive, are the "conservatives" and the republican landowners who import than all the while berating them so that they are afraid to ever report the labor violations going on, are the "progressives"? 

And so the Republicans who exploit the cheap labor all the while advocating letting them die in the desert with no water (having the border patrol destroy water stations that good samaritans make and arrest people who give medical attention or help to people who walked miles in the desert) are the "progressives"?

Or do they just magically become the creators of wealth because they're conservative, while the backbone of society's labor--the exploited foreign workers that exist due to the US sewing poverty and destabilizing so many regions for profit, are the ones who are somehow "suck resources" by being poor because they have given their entire lives to labor for nothing, all the while constantly being mistreated, berated, and insulted?

I'm not even going to bother making those run-on sentences more coherent. If you don't see this happening, I don't know why I should bother explaining it, and if you try to read it--serves you right...for suggesting that advocating for labor rights is the same thing as "sucking resources" off of those who so clearly only get those resources through the exploitation of the laborers that progressives try to advocate for.


----------

