The abortion thread pt. 2.

[Alan]

Or pretend he wants to have children later but has made it very clear he does not want a children at any point in this next decade and takes all preccautions necessary for it.

[AshleyO]

Yeah. So let's just make this plain and simple.

How do you account for the responsible male being obligated to support something he didn't want if say in the event the mother doesn't get an abortion or put the baby up for adoption?

Saya didn't exactly answer the question, she simply shifted it, which was frustrating because I'd really like her take on the situation when a person MUST pay because their perfect precautions failed.

[Saya]

Dude, for one, the "responsible male" is kind of a lame disclaimer. What, because men who don't use or have access to birth control and sleep around are more deserving of paying child support? Child support isn't a punishment for being irresponsible, its a right of the child.

So either fight for more birth control options for men, or fight for state child support. I don't see why letting kids go without is the answer.

[Versus]

What happened to growing a vagina? I'm really curious about this 'multiple orgasm' thing you tell me so much about. /troll

[Solumina]

You're still kind of avoiding the question. It isn't as if letting the kid go without is the only option, the child could be put up for adoption, but in this case the mother is making the choice to keep the child there are also government programs in place to assist the parent raising the child. Now neither of these options are perfect, after all unless you do an open adoption (which can mean that you are responsible for the child's care until they are adopted) then you have no idea if the child will be in a good home and you completely give up any parental rights, on the other side government programs only provide so much and frequently have restrictions on what the assistance can be used for (like WIC covering specific foods) so while the kid won't starve they aren't able to enjoy a lot of things that most kids take for granted.

Any way you look at things chances are that this situation is going to suck unless both parents agree on what should happen to the child.

[Versus]

I think she knows it's not fair to the man, but feels it's more unfair to the child. Having to decide if a man should pay child support, or if a child should be without child support, I'd be inclined to agree. Quality of life is important, and I think that the child would (and commonly does) benefit the most from a system that favors it.

It's also something to consider that this shouldn't exclusively be a concern for a man. If a woman who never wants to be a mother becomes pregnant and doesn't want/can't afford/whatever an abortion, but the father does want the child, it's the same situation.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Saya

Dude, for one, the "responsible male" is kind of a lame disclaimer. What, because men who don't use or have access to birth control and sleep around are more deserving of paying child support? Child support isn't a punishment for being irresponsible, its a right of the child.

So either fight for more birth control options for men, or fight for state child support. I don't see why letting kids go without is the answer.

That is true. I mean, from a Marxist perspective this would be a non-issue even.
But what they/we are trying to see is a scenario in which today the situation would be unfair to men.
And honestly, I think it would be, but I think I understand your point as does Versus. Such a scenario would be unfair no matter what, so the key is if it has to be unfair, it should be unfair to whom?

[Saya]

Originally Posted by Solumina

You're still kind of avoiding the question. It isn't as if letting the kid go without is the only option, the child could be put up for adoption, but in this case the mother is making the choice to keep the child there are also government programs in place to assist the parent raising the child. Now neither of these options are perfect, after all unless you do an open adoption (which can mean that you are responsible for the child's care until they are adopted) then you have no idea if the child will be in a good home and you completely give up any parental rights, on the other side government programs only provide so much and frequently have restrictions on what the assistance can be used for (like WIC covering specific foods) so while the kid won't starve they aren't able to enjoy a lot of things that most kids take for granted.

Any way you look at things chances are that this situation is going to suck unless both parents agree on what should happen to the child.

I'm not avoiding the question, I'm not indulging in a scenario where an innocent, responsible man is embezzled by a harlot. Its not a man vs a woman thing. A woman, assuming she has access to abortion and is willing to go through it, societal stigma be damned, prevents a child from happening. The fetus ceases to be. It is no more. It is an ex fetus. It never will grow up being unwanted, unloved and uncared for. A "financial abortion", however, just because a man didn't want this particular kid, doesn't mean the kid goes away or ceases to be.

If you were to make it legal that a man waive his parental duties and rights just because he doesn't want that kid, it leaves a lot of kids going without. For single custodial parents living in poverty, child support accounts for half their income (source: http://www.census.gov/prod/2009pubs/p60-237.pdf), but they're less likely to receive full support, particularly if they're under 30, of whom only 32% received all child support due.

That is true. I mean, from a Marxist perspective this would be a non-issue even.
But what they/we are trying to see is a scenario in which today the situation would be unfair to men.
And honestly, I think it would be, but I think I understand your point as does Versus. Such a scenario would be unfair no matter what, so the key is if it has to be unfair, it should be unfair to whom?

The custodial parent and child(ren), or the father? I'm inclined to invoke Spock in that its only logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and also note that women are more economically oppressed already. It is pretty unfair that the current system pits us against one another.

[AshleyO]

Originally Posted by Saya

Dude, for one, the "responsible male" is kind of a lame disclaimer. What, because men who don't use or have access to birth control and sleep around are more deserving of paying child support? Child support isn't a punishment for being irresponsible, its a right of the child.

Nah. I wasn't saying that. I'm glad you got to this though.

So either fight for more birth control options for men, or fight for state child support. I don't see why letting kids go without is the answer.

Yeah, that sounds more like it. Hell... had we spent that crazy amount of money domestically for the US instead of wars, we could have easily liquidated the child support need.

[Versus]

I can't imagine child support from the state succeeding in America in any significant fashion. I hate to be a cynic, but if we can't be okay with health care, I could just imagine the response to somebody suggesting child support as well.

I think it falls back on more accessible contraception.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by Saya

I'm inclined to invoke Spock in that its only logical that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and also note that women are more economically oppressed already. It is pretty unfair that the current system pits us against one another.

Pretty much this - as noted, there is no blanket solution that will resolve every case in the fairest possible manner, but in terms of policy-making, I'm inclined to suspect that fathers who refuse to pay for their children when payment is unambiguously due outnumber guys like Versus's buddy by a long stretch. It's a fucker for the do-right guys, but as economic oppression goes, I'd take it over the shit women as a group already have to deal with.

[ape descendant]

Totally forgot to post this earlier. I laughed till I cried.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-april-11-2012/bro-choice

[LaGs sKill]

I would encourage men to get a vasectomy as it is a simple procedure. The main reason men object is they feel a penis operation to stop ejaculation reduces their manhood (macho appeal). Men who want to have children later in life could freeze massive amounts of sperm and pay a few dollars a year for the storage. Sperm taken when a man is young is more viable and has less risk factors that aging in a polluted environment can cause to a man.

Adoption is not the answer. Few people adopt children and race, ethnicity and the health of the child are a few biases that leave a great portion of children without parents. Foster homes are for the great percentage a crime.

Something should be done to regulate who can and cannot have children. As Neo said "You need a license to keep a dog, or go fishing but anyone can have a child." Unfortunately, whatever system to regulate who can have children will be biased, at least it would in our American Democracy.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Cracker Von Patriarch

I would encourage men to get a vasectomy as it is a simple procedure. The main reason men object is they feel a penis operation to stop ejaculation reduces their manhood (macho appeal). Men who want to have children later in life could freeze massive amounts of sperm and pay a few dollars a year for the storage. Sperm taken when a man is young is more viable and has less risk factors that aging in a polluted environment can cause to a man.

Adoption is not the answer. Few people adopt children and race, ethnicity and the health of the child are a few biases that leave a great portion of children without parents. Foster homes are for the great percentage a crime.

Something should be done to regulate who can and cannot have children. As Neo said "You need a license to keep a dog, or go fishing but anyone can have a child." Unfortunately, whatever system to regulate who can have children will be biased, at least it would in our American Democracy.

Eugenics. Awesome. Get the fuck out.

[LaGs sKill]

Originally Posted by Versus

Eugenics. Awesome. Get the fuck out.

Now you've hurt my feelings.

[Versus]

Oh. My bad, bro. I should have respected your feelings when I responded to your racism.

[Alan]

You can call eugenics elitist and even fascist, but they're not inherently racist. Careful or you're gonna start looking like a caricature, Versus.

[Saya]

The face of eugneics in the states has been racist, though, with women of colour being sterilized against their will. Its even insinuated that non-white children won't get adopted so adoption isn't really an option.

[Alan]

Which has nothing to do with Lags' post as he even addressed the fact of bias and discrimination that not only eugenics COULD cause but also the current systems of adoption and foster care DO cause.
There's a lot of reasons to be against his idea of regulating births; why complain about the one thing he actually addressed as a problem?

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Alan

You can call eugenics elitist and even fascist, but they're not inherently racist. Careful or you're gonna start looking like a caricature, Versus.

How am I starting to look like a caricature? Do you think I'm looking for something that isn't there?

You saw that he made a preamble with an admittance that such a system would be racist and then slipped in circumstance that would somehow make it less wrong, right?

[Saya]

Because "eugnenics can fix the fact that no one wants a black kid! But if we employ eugenics it would be biased." Not racist or discriminatory, biased.

[Alan]

Because racism is included in bias but racism does not include all biases. It's very simple and you guys are looking for something that isn't there.

[Versus]

I don't understand how an idea of engineering people isn't inherently racist. It implies that there are aspects of people which are desirable or undesirable, regardless of class or any other socially constructed distinction. It's wrong in a lot of other ways; it lends itself to being sexualist, sexist, racist, ableist, weightist, mentalist... the list goes on.

Should I appologize for not including everything else? I feel like it was implicit and I don't think I zeroed in on racism specifically.

[AshleyO]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...v=iD97OVJ4PNw#!

Look at these scumbags!

If you're going to be pro-life, then mother FUCK, admit that you want to send women to prison for murder because of abortions.

Sweet sensual JESUS. Fuck's wrong with people?

Fuck this.

[Versus]

Originally Posted by Alan

There's a lot of reasons to be against his idea of regulating births; why complain about the one thing he actually addressed as a problem?

Why did I get mad about that one thing? Because it's the most relevant to me. If somebody would say that "Capatalism is the best way, unfortunately it's racist," I would still object to it's racism. I can recognize the other things wrong with it, I can't speak very well on the behalf of people who are oppressed in other ways.

And yes, he recognized it as a problem. Then he excused it.