Douchebag tricks his girlfriend into taking abortion pills

[Serafina]

As i said, if he were concerned about men being forced to take responsibility for a child against their will, he'd advocate other actions other than "force that bitch to have an abortion". It's not like there aren't dozens of ways to link child support to custody in such a way that if you really don't want to be a father, you can get out of it.

[Terralthra]

And as I said, he hasn't actually advocated that. And no, Serafina, there really aren't. Did you miss the cite above of a legal case where a man was raped while unconscious and is still paying child support?

[Serafina]

Bad wording on my part - ways he could advocate to be implemented.
Which he doesn't, instead he just understands what the guy did, because after all the poor men are soo disadvantaged and really its unfair that the woman can chose to abort and maybe we should try to make that choice equal....

Sure, he may not actually think forced abortions should be a thing - but he sure at hell doesnt do a good job making that clear under all that unspecific mens right drivel.

[Crazedwraith]

I think it's pretty obvious that these are not the majority of child support cases, but it nonetheless remains that a man who was raped in his sleep by a woman, impregnating herself against his will, nonetheless was forced to pay child support. Is it the position of those saying "the system's fine" that if he didn't want to pay for a kid, he shouldn't have gone to sleep drunk?

Well done. You've found one case where they guy shouldn't be forced to play child support in exceptional circumstances.

Key phrase there: in exceptional circumstances

In no way proves the argument that a guy should be able to skip out on his child support because 'well i told her to have an abortion and she wouldn't do it'

Because again thats putting pressure on the woman to have an unwanted medical prodcedure just to make him happy. It's not literally forcing her to have it against her will but it is twisting her arm around her back to do it via fianicial pressure.

[Terralthra]

Well done, Crazedwraith, you've managed to repeat what I said in what you quoted. Congratulations. Have a cookie.

[Metahive]

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question I asked a page back.

"Is it OK for every other male [other than impoverished aspiring students] to pay child support despite there, you know, not being any difference in the alleged fundamental "unfairness" of the situation and the "lack of say by the male"?"

[Crazedwraith]

Well done, Crazedwraith, you've managed to repeat what I said in what you quoted. Congratulations. Have a cookie.

Oh fuck off. You admitted it wasn't true of all cases but then you defended it as a valid point and attempted to make pithy rhetorical questions to prove your point. Like this:

Is it the position of those saying "the system's fine" that if he didn't want to pay for a kid, he shouldn't have gone to sleep drunk?

And the answer is of course not you dumb shit. It's a matter of informed consent to the act that resulted in pregnancy.

Is it OK for every other male [other than impoverished aspiring students] to pay child support despite there, you know, not being any difference in the alleged fundamental "unfairness" of the situation and the "lack of say by the male"?"

There is no unfairness. Both parties consented to the sexual act. Both parties are therefore responsible for the wellbeing of the offsrping. That's fair.

The only "unfairness" is that the man is unable to dictate to a women her choices. And thats not unfairness that's just morality.

[Korto]

Considering he keeps harping on about how it's all so goddamned unfair that males would actually have to face the consequences of their actions I view this is as dishonesty and therefore disregard it.

Translation - I don't like him, therefore I'm going to apply the worst possible interpretation, even when it goes against available evidence

A woman that got pregnant cannot dodge the responsibility for what happened during sex, she has to deal with it in some way and take responsibility no matter what, whether through birth or abortion. Why should the male and the male alone get a get-out-of-jail free card?

Way to miss the point, which was that the woman had the choice of abortion, when the man did not. She has a "Get out of jail (not all that free) card. He does not.

Why keep blathering about the alleged unfairness of child-support when otherwise the mother would have to bear the whole brunt of it alone?

Because he suffers from black/white thinking. She decided to keep it. She can pay for it.

Also, this whole sidetrack is ass-backwards anyway. If the apologists were actually concerned about that they'd clamor for a system where the state bears the costs for secondary education

What. Where you're from doesn't?

instead of attempting to foist a deadbeat parent tax on the population or any such silliness.

Looking after kids is work, costs money, and benefits the nation as a whole. A stipend recognising that is not, prima facie, silly.

Also, he expresses all that understanding for the poor male that was "forced" to commit a crime, but has no word of sympathy for the mother that lost a wanted child

Perhaps because the feelings of the woman has absolutely no relevance in an examination of the motives of the man?

As i said, if he were concerned about men being forced to take responsibility for a child against their will, he'd advocate other actions other than "force that bitch to have an abortion". It's not like there aren't dozens of ways to link child support to custody in such a way that if you really don't want to be a father, you can get out of it.

Serafina, forgive me, but have you actually read the thread? The solution Jub was advocating, up until he finally walked away from it, was that if the woman wanted the child, but the man didn't, the man shouldn't have to pay child support. For example:

No shit Sherlock. I'm referring to their total lack of say after the fact. If the woman decides she's done she can take a morning after pill or have an abortion, but the man has utterly no say in things. I think it would be fair, if not ideal for obvious reasons, if the man could ask her to terminate the pregnancy and if the woman says no she can keep it but accept that she won't be getting child support. Child support would still be due in cases where the couple breaks up after the child is born.

[Terralthra]

Well done, Crazedwraith, you've managed to repeat what I said in what you quoted. Congratulations. Have a cookie.

Oh fuck off. You admitted it wasn't true of all cases but then you defended it as a valid point and attempted to make pithy rhetorical questions to prove your point. Like this:

Is it the position of those saying "the system's fine" that if he didn't want to pay for a kid, he shouldn't have gone to sleep drunk?

And the answer is of course not you dumb shit. It's a matter of informed consent to the act that resulted in pregnancy.

It's amazing how you make claims about what I did to "prove my point", when in fact, you don't even understand my point. My point is that the system as it is currently set up is not fair. If there's an unfair system, then maybe it's worth talking about ways to improve it, instead of attacking someone who brings it up (however ineptly) with fallacious arguments, assumptions of dishonesty, and utterly irrelevant attacks. One case does not have to be typical to demonstrate a system's unfairness. All it takes is one fucked up case where the law was clear but justice was obviously not served to show that the system needs to be improved.

A point which sailed so far over your head in your eagerness to earn dogpile points that it has entered orbit around and is now technically under your feet.

If the issue is "informed consent," then you've now opened up the system to further debate. Is a man whose sex partner sabotages birth control (say, pokes a hole in the condom) on the hook for child support? A man whose partner lies about having had a tubal ligation? Informed consent means an allegation of fraud is a valid affirmative defense.

Is a minor (generally held to be incapable of giving consent, at least when dealing with sex with an adult) responsible for child support?

I'm still waiting for an answer to my question I asked a page back.

"Is it OK for every other male [other than impoverished aspiring students] to pay child support despite there, you know, not being any difference in the alleged fundamental "unfairness" of the situation and the "lack of say by the male"?"

My answer is "that's complicated." For example, I don't think it's true that even an impoverished, aspiring student should be able to "get out of paying child support." I think the system would be better, as a whole, if the government fronted the child support payments for the immediate support, while acknowledging that forcing a 19 year-old male to drop out of college and get a minimum-wage job to pay child support payments on a poverty-level wage is probably not the greatest idea.

Allowing that same 19 year-old to finish college will probably result in higher child support payments in the long run, and will be better overall for society anyway, beyond the immediate issue of child support payments. All it takes is for the state to step in and pay the child support to the mother for three years while keeping a record of the amount paid and taxing the father's future income at a higher rate to account for the child support 'account' until it's been paid off. This is the kind of thing governments do all the time.

I think that the system which assigns child support payments should take into account more than a paternity test and "earning potential" when doing so. Informed consent of the sexual partner, for example, to appropriately deal with situations of rape, contraceptive fraud, etc. (this affects women as well as men; women should not be forced to cede visitation rights to a rapist father, nor pay child support if the man sabotaged birth control - which happens more often than women sabotaging it - and the woman chooses to carry the pregancy to term but cedes custody to the father).

I think that, on average, an intelligently designed system managed by the state should be able to take factors into account that allow children to be supported and fathers to assist in providing that support, without sweeping laws that don't allow discretion or amortization of costs over time. The current "it was your sperm, you could be making x dollars, therefore you owe x*magic formula dollars per week, regardless of any other circumstances" system is rather braindead, and owes its existence to patriarchal ideas about the man being the breadwinner and moral panic in the 70s/80s about "deadbeat welfare dads" and "welfare queens" (note that in almost every state, a mother MUST have pursued any available child support payments before she can successfully apply for welfare).

[Crazedwraith]

It's amazing how you make claims about what I did to "prove my point", when in fact, you don't even understand my point. My point is that the system as it is currently set up is not fair. If there's an unfair system, then maybe it's worth talking about ways to improve it, instead of attacking someone who brings it up (however ineptly) with fallacious arguments, assumptions of dishonesty, and utterly irrelevant attacks. One case does not have to be typical to demonstrate a system's unfairness. All it takes is one fucked up case where the law was clear but justice was obviously not served to show that the system needs to be improved.

Again. You're right. In the case you've outlined the system needs to be improved. If that's all you're saying. Well done.

No-one as far as I can tell has been arguing that the system is completely perfect. The argument has mainly about what Jub calls 'an unfairness in the system' that needs to be corrected; that men don't get a choice in what women do when they're pregnant and thus should totally be able to skip out on their responsibillities.

If the issue is "informed consent," then you've now opened up the system to further debate. Is a man whose sex partner sabotages birth control (say, pokes a hole in the condom) on the hook for child support? A man whose partner lies about having had a tubal ligation? Informed consent means an allegation of fraud is a valid affirmative defense.

Is a minor (generally held to be incapable of giving consent, at least when dealing with sex with an adult) responsible for child support?

That is an interesting set of questions. On the one hand, going by what I just said, then yes. A man whose partner has lied about birth control and then got pregnant should not be held accountable for child support.

There are two big problems though: The idea that child support is basically there for the child not the mother. Therefore the child shouldn't be punished by the mother's deception. It should be adequetely provided for by someone.

The second, of course, is how this gets established and proving it. Because a lot of this is going to devolve to a 'he said, she said' situation where its next to impossible to prove who's telling the truth and what to do and some people are going to end the short end of the shaft regardless.

It might be simpler the side step the whole issue and just drastically increase government provided child support to all children regardless of parental history.

[Broomstick]

Bullshit? You are saying that if a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant she gets to choose, and if a man has unprotected sex and gets a woman pregnant then TOUGH SHIT he has to take responsibility for his actions! If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have an abortion she can not be compelled by a man to carry the child. If she wants it and the man doesn't? Tough Shit. Should have worn a condom or been more careful about who you fuck. You don't seet the hypocrisy in that? You are applying the same logic that pro-lifers want to have applied to women who get pregnant.

It's not hypocrisy, it's biology.

Yes, they both should be responsible PRIOR to conception. Yes, if a pregnancy occurs the man could be on the hook for child support, that is his responsibility. Yes, if a pregnancy occurs the woman has to choose the pregnancy or not, not the man - it's her responsibility to make that decision, after which she, too, is responsible for caring for/supporting that human being. No, it's not fair but it's how biology dictates reality.

The "choice" has always ultimately been about whether or not a woman will choose to bring a child into this world. She often has weeks or even months to ponder all the ways it will impact her life before making the decision to keep it or not. The Man? Tough shit, he made his decision during the 15 minutes of sex, so he just has to "fucking deal with it".

Yes, that's reality. Which is why so many of us keep saying men need to THINK before that 15 minutes of sex. 15 minutes of pleasure can turn into 18 years of financial support for another human being. That's the world we live in. Too many men have the attitude that they're entitled to no-strings-attached sex. No, they aren't.

[Broomstick]

If the woman lied about such (an unusual circumstance, although I can see it happening with a groupie having sex with her idol, and so wanting to have his baby), she is guilty of rape.

Korto, I'm not entirely sure that you know the definition of "rape."

That's more a matter of fraud. There are some instances where that's already wound up in the courts, such as a person holding themselves out as single marrying someone and it later being discovered they were already married to someone else, or a woman fishing a used condom out of the trash and using it to impregnate herself which is clearly a case of non-consensual conception and one where I would say the man should be off the hook for child support although I don't recall how that case actually worked out in reality.

[TOSDOC]

Yes, that's reality. Which is why so many of us keep saying men need to THINK before that 15 minutes of sex. 15 minutes of pleasure can turn into 18 years of financial support for another human being. That's the world we live in. Too many men have the attitude that they're entitled to no-strings-attached sex. No, they aren't.

Just add "and women" to the end of each "men" here, and I would include it in every high school sex ed class.

Sex makes babies. That's what it's for. Let's teach that to our kids.

I keep reading over and over about inherent unfairness and how something needs to be done about it, and I can't help thinking it is far better to add to current education principles than to get legislation written or altered to keep things fair. I know there are reps from a lot of countries here on this board, and I'm not sure how it's done in others, but I would love to see this debate here let loose in high school classes in the US, see the kids faces as they talk about what we're talking about here, and I would certainly have remembered it into my adult years. This country really needs to break through the fucking sex taboos already and treat it with the maturity and responsibility it demands, and get young adults to know and understand not just the damned cross-sections but also these topics and laws and morals and ethics and options and responsibility before the pants hit the floor. Yes all I could think about from 13-up was getting into some girl's panties too. Yes, deciding on abstinence or not is tough. I know, I've been there done that got the damned T-shirt, and believe me, I know all about accidents and raising them, and consider myself damned lucky how it turned out. But I'd certainly have been looking at it differently back then, and saved myself some cold sweats in college, if someone with a pair leaned over my desk, looked me right in the face and asked me straight away if I would have a baby with the girl I wanted to bang. Because until Terralthra and Jub and whoever else actually change things to their liking, this is how things are right now, these are your options if and when a baby gets made, and these are the choices you will have and not have.

Think it's unfair? Get elected. Until then, watch where your dick lands when you trip.

[salm]

Bullshit? You are saying that if a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant she gets to choose, and if a man has unprotected sex and gets a woman pregnant then TOUGH SHIT he has to take responsibility for his actions! If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have an abortion she can not be compelled by a man to carry the child. If she wants it and the man doesn't? Tough Shit. Should have worn a condom or been more careful about who you fuck. You don't seet the hypocrisy in that? You are applying the same logic that pro-lifers want to have applied to women who get pregnant.

It's not hypocrisy, it's biology.

It has to with laws and morals not with biology. It would be trivial to think up a law that protects men from having to pay for children they produce. If this is a just law is, well, obviously up to debate.
Some people might want to have biological circumstances impact the morals and laws they make and live by but it doesn´t necessarily follow.

[Patroklos]

As i said, if he were concerned about men being forced to take responsibility for a child against their will, he'd advocate other actions other than "force that bitch to have an abortion". It's not like there aren't dozens of ways to link child support to custody in such a way that if you really don't want to be a father, you can get out of it.

Its pretty clear he is talking about opting out of financial support, or delaying the burden until later life with better earning potential with the state paying up front cost to delay the involontary impact on his life should the mother and father disagree in post conception decisions.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

The whole talk of responsibility reminded me of a conversation I had with a girl a few months ago regarding birth control (didn't help that English wasn't her first language and when she was reading the condom manual she didn't know what "anal" meant, but I digress...), and she joked that I didn't want the responsibility [of having a child]. I countered by saying that by using protection I was in fact being responsible, and that I'd much rather be responsible for not getting her pregnant than for getting her pregnant...

[Terralthra]

Yes, that's reality. Which is why so many of us keep saying men need to THINK before that 15 minutes of sex. 15 minutes of pleasure can turn into 18 years of financial support for another human being. That's the world we live in. Too many men have the attitude that they're entitled to no-strings-attached sex. No, they aren't.

Just add "and women" to the end of each "men" here, and I would include it in every high school sex ed class.

Sex makes babies. That's what it's for. Let's teach that to our kids.

I keep reading over and over about inherent unfairness and how something needs to be done about it, and I can't help thinking it is far better to add to current education principles than to get legislation written or altered to keep things fair. I know there are reps from a lot of countries here on this board, and I'm not sure how it's done in others, but I would love to see this debate here let loose in high school classes in the US, see the kids faces as they talk about what we're talking about here, and I would certainly have remembered it into my adult years. This country really needs to break through the fucking sex taboos already and treat it with the maturity and responsibility it demands, and get young adults to know and understand not just the damned cross-sections but also these topics and laws and morals and ethics and options and responsibility before the pants hit the floor. Yes all I could think about from 13-up was getting into some girl's panties too. Yes, deciding on abstinence or not is tough. I know, I've been there done that got the damned T-shirt, and believe me, I know all about accidents and raising them, and consider myself damned lucky how it turned out. But I'd certainly have been looking at it differently back then, and saved myself some cold sweats in college, if someone with a pair leaned over my desk, looked me right in the face and asked me straight away if I would have a baby with the girl I wanted to bang. Because until Terralthra and Jub and whoever else actually change things to their liking, this is how things are right now, these are your options if and when a baby gets made, and these are the choices you will have and not have.

Think it's unfair? Get elected. Until then, watch where your dick lands when you trip.

You know, I don't think I've ever said I think child support is a bad idea. However, "sex makes babies, that's what it's for, be abstinent if you don't want babies" has been tried, and it leads to higher STI rates and higher teen pregnancy rates, because turns out high school teens don't "scare straight".

That's more a matter of fraud. There are some instances where that's already wound up in the courts, such as a person holding themselves out as single marrying someone and it later being discovered they were already married to someone else, or a woman fishing a used condom out of the trash and using it to impregnate herself which is clearly a case of non-consensual conception and one where I would say the man should be off the hook for child support although I don't recall how that case actually worked out in reality.

Oh, he totally won.

Just kidding, of course he's paying child support.

[TheHammer]

Bullshit? You are saying that if a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant she gets to choose, and if a man has unprotected sex and gets a woman pregnant then TOUGH SHIT he has to take responsibility for his actions! If a woman becomes pregnant and chooses to have an abortion she can not be compelled by a man to carry the child. If she wants it and the man doesn't? Tough Shit. Should have worn a condom or been more careful about who you fuck. You don't seet the hypocrisy in that? You are applying the same logic that pro-lifers want to have applied to women who get pregnant.

It's not hypocrisy, it's biology.

Yes, they both should be responsible PRIOR to conception. Yes, if a pregnancy occurs the man could be on the hook for child support, that is his responsibility. Yes, if a pregnancy occurs the woman has to choose the pregnancy or not, not the man - it's her responsibility to make that decision, after which she, too, is responsible for caring for/supporting that human being. No, it's not fair but it's how biology dictates reality.

The "choice" has always ultimately been about whether or not a woman will choose to bring a child into this world. She often has weeks or even months to ponder all the ways it will impact her life before making the decision to keep it or not. The Man? Tough shit, he made his decision during the 15 minutes of sex, so he just has to "fucking deal with it".

Yes, that's reality. Which is why so many of us keep saying men need to THINK before that 15 minutes of sex. 15 minutes of pleasure can turn into 18 years of financial support for another human being. That's the world we live in. Too many men have the attitude that they're entitled to no-strings-attached sex. No, they aren't.

You sound more and more like a pro-lifer, or more accurately a pro-no-choicer. Everything you just said could be applied to women as a reason for denying abortion.

Don't want to carry the child? Too bad, that's what biology dictates.
If pregnancy occurs, she's on the hook for carrying that child to term. It's her responsibility.
Didn't want a child? Fucking deal with it. You should have thought of that before you had sex.
Too many women have the attitude that they can have no-strings-attached sex and if they get an unwanted pregnancy that they can have an abortion. No, they can't.

How's my Broomstick impersonation?

[ray245]

Don't want to carry the child? Too bad, that's what biology dictates.
If pregnancy occurs, she's on the hook for carrying that child to term. It's her responsibility.
Didn't want a child? Fucking deal with it. You should have thought of that before you had sex.
Too many women have the attitude that they can have no-strings-attached sex and if they get an unwanted pregnancy that they can have an abortion. No, they can't.

How's my Broomstick impersonation?

Those are actually valid arguments for not having unprotected sex. That's what you will tell a girl who wants to have unprotected sex, do not want to raise a child and at the same time object to abortion.

Just because you support woman having a choice in deciding what to do with their body and whether they want to carry their child to full term, does not mean you are supportive of them having unprotected sex.

[Broomstick]

You sound more and more like a pro-lifer, or more accurately a pro-no-choicer. Everything you just said could be applied to women as a reason for denying abortion.

Don't want to carry the child? Too bad, that's what biology dictates.
If pregnancy occurs, she's on the hook for carrying that child to term. It's her responsibility.
Didn't want a child? Fucking deal with it. You should have thought of that before you had sex.
Too many women have the attitude that they can have no-strings-attached sex and if they get an unwanted pregnancy that they can have an abortion. No, they can't.

How's my Broomstick impersonation?

Calling me a pro-lifer is not merely a distortion of my position but it's an out-and-out lie. Cease doing this immediately.

A bunch of guys are whining and pissing because they dont' get to control someone else's uterus. That's the key difference you are willfully ignoring - the man doesn't decide because the man is not the one who is pregnant. End of story.

I am in no way advocating abstinence, either. What I am saying is that if you're adult enough to fuck you're adult enough to deal with any unwanted consequences, yes, even if you used birth control and it failed you still have to deal with the conception. And if you're a man, sorry, you don't get to decided whether or not the pregnancy is aborted or carried to term, because it's not your body.

[Darth Lucifer]

I am reminded of this thread:

Men seeking freedom from financial obligations of pregnancy

[Alyrium Denryle]

Way to miss the point, which was that the woman had the choice of abortion, when the man did not. She has a "Get out of jail (not all that free) card. He does not.

...No. The fact that responsibility takes different forms does not at all mean that someone has a get out of jail free card. A woman has to take responsibility for her actions--one way or the other. Once that potential human being is an actual human being, both parties are responsible for raising it, because they BOTH made the choices that brought it into the world.

If I set up a machine that I knew was poorly designed and likely to explode and level a town in texas if messed with, and I put it in a place controlled by a firm that I knew has lax safety protocols and poor worker training thus increasing the liklihood that said machine would explode, I am just as liable for any resulting damages as the firm responsible for the operation of said machine. This is why, for example, BP, Transocean, and Halliburton are all liable for the Deepwater Horizon Spill.

Just because there is some intervening choice does not in any way reduce the liability of a responsible party further up the causal chain, so long as the consequences were likely and foreseeable by a reasonable person.

The same goes with the existence of children.

How's my Broomstick impersonation?

Pretty damn bad, shitlicker.

[Starglider]

Considering that women suffer the considerable pain and medical risk of childbirth, and substantially greater loss of earnings and career prospects, it seems extremely selfish to complain about only women having the option of abortion.

[Metahive]

I think that, on average, an intelligently designed system managed by the state should be able to take factors into account that allow children to be supported and fathers to assist in providing that support, without sweeping laws that don't allow discretion or amortization of costs over time. The current "it was your sperm, you could be making x dollars, therefore you owe x*magic formula dollars per week, regardless of any other circumstances" system is rather braindead, and owes its existence to patriarchal ideas about the man being the breadwinner and moral panic in the 70s/80s about "deadbeat welfare dads" and "welfare queens" (note that in almost every state, a mother MUST have pursued any available child support payments before she can successfully apply for welfare).

Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it, since it goes far beyond the "Men shouldn't have to contribute anything to their offspring besides their genetic material" that's being touted by certain other posters here.

[Jub]

I think that, on average, an intelligently designed system managed by the state should be able to take factors into account that allow children to be supported and fathers to assist in providing that support, without sweeping laws that don't allow discretion or amortization of costs over time. The current "it was your sperm, you could be making x dollars, therefore you owe x*magic formula dollars per week, regardless of any other circumstances" system is rather braindead, and owes its existence to patriarchal ideas about the man being the breadwinner and moral panic in the 70s/80s about "deadbeat welfare dads" and "welfare queens" (note that in almost every state, a mother MUST have pursued any available child support payments before she can successfully apply for welfare).

Thanks for the answer. I appreciate it, since it goes far beyond the "Men shouldn't have to contribute anything to their offspring besides their genetic material" that's being touted by certain other posters here.

Listen asshole, I said that at the beginning of the thread and revised my position as it was discussed. It's not my fault that certain other posters - see what I did there - haven't actually read my posts with any sort of objectivity.