Women that choose to have the baby if the man does not want to support it should not recieve child support. They are using their legal choice to have a baby without support from the father. If they can not support the baby without help from the father then they should choose to be responsible and abort the pregnancy. Forcing a man to support a child he does not want is very hypocritical considering women can abort a child that they do not want.
When a pregnancy ends in a live birth, the child becomes a person. In many societies, the welfare of a child is important and generally has precedence over the needs of the parents. Accordingly, many societies require both parents to support the child until it is an adult. Your attempt to conflate a woman's right to choose with the welfare of children is obvious, and silly.
Interesting, but you know who will end up paying, right? Even when the father is ordered to pay child support, he can work for cash under the table and we end up paying. She cannot have a baby without a man, so he has a choice.
Appealing to "many societies" is fallacy. The right to choose is conflated with child welfare because the two are connected. Your claim that the the decision to have a child is not linked to how that child will be supported is abject nonsense. Regardless, the fact remains that it is an anathema in justice to make one person responsible for the unilateral choice of another. The current situation is also a violation of the principle of Equal Justice under the law. The woman has the right to not be financially responsible for her choice but the man does not have the right to not be financially responsible for "her choice".
All states and provinces within the United States, Canada, Russia, China, all European nations, all South American nations, among others, have specific laws which require parents to support their biological children. Fact. It's the law of these "many societies". This has nothing whatsoever to do with fallacious reasoning. Your accusation that these facts are "fallacious" is curious, and quite wrong. More specifically, it is a category error. Look it up and learn something. Mere assertion. Perhaps you could provide some evidence to support this claim. Certainly, the actual choice to abort or carry to term if often connected to many things, including the welfare of the potential child. Is that what you meant? However, the fundamental right to choose in the abstract has nothing to do with the welfare of the potential child. I made no such claim. That is an opinion, not a fact. It is your opinion based on selected fact and not all relevant facts. Both chose to have sex which resulted in a pregnancy. More specifically, the male chose to inject his sperm into the female. Whose choice is "unilateral"? Reading comprehension is an acquired skill. Keep working at it.
What an egotistical ball of tripe. I never said that the facts were fallacious "Strawman fallacy - attributing something to me that I did not claim and then attacking it" .... and then you tell me to look up and learn .. what a joke. The fallacy is that your claim "many societies do this so it must be legitimate, right, or not in violation of the rule of law" This is a form of the appeal to authority fallacy. It is not an assertion that the right to choose is connected to another person being forced to be financially responsible for the consequences of that choice. It is a statement of fact. In every country above that you mention the woman can avoid financial responsibility for her choice. Your claim that the woman (parents) are legally required to be financially responsible for her choice to carry a pregnancy to term is false. It's called adoption. You did too make such a claim. You claimed that connecting the right to choose to obligation to financial support was silly. If this is not what you meant then explain what you meant by Consent to sex is not consent to a baby. You are now using a anti-abort argument. "the woman chose to have sex and so she has already made her choice" are you sure you want to cling to this argument ? It is not my "opinion" that one of the principles in the rule of law is that one person is not to be punished for the actions of another nor is it my "opinion" that Equal justice under the law is another principle. Get some material. All you have done is name call, spout fallacy, and falsely claim facts as being my opinion.
Sure thing, Sparky. Get a vasectomy. Tell all your male friends to do so too. That will solve your righteous indignation.
Having no material and no ability to respond to my comments you default to nonsense, name calling and accusing me of your righteous indignation. Humor
It's the child that is supported. That's why it's called child support. They didn't get pregnant on their own. The potential father knew, or ought to have known, there was a chance having sex with a woman can cause a pregnancy. Men don't have any post coital birth control choices. You should know that. Her body, her choice. Consent to sex is not consenting to remaining pregnant, rather.
How is it that you can not see the hypocrisy and gross perversion of logic and rational thinking in your post ? I have read many of your posts and this is completely atypical. 1) You claim consent to sex is not consent to carrying the pregnancy to term (not consent to having a child) Great ... we are both in agreement up to this point. Then you say this: Of course sex comes with the chance of pregnancy but, the same logic applies to the man as to the woman. Consent to the chance of pregnancy is not consent to carrying the pregnancy to term. You can not turn around and say (He should have known the women would carry the pregnancy to term) How the heck would he know that and why is it his responsibility in the first place since it is not his choice. If the woman intends on carrying any pregnancy to term she should be informing any of her potential sex partners of this intent. Regardless, it is abject nonsense to say "The man should have known the woman intended to have his baby" If you really want to cling to this position then what follows is : If the man can be made to be responsible for the consequences of "sex" = potential for pregnancy then it follows that the woman can be made responsible as well. She knew that accidental pregnancy might result and so has no right to terminate the process just as the man has no right to terminate the process because she knew the consequences. This in fact is exactly what anti aborts argue. If you think it is ok to make the man responsible for the consequences of the actions of another (a woman's choice to carry the pregnancy to term) then it follows that it is ok to make the woman responsible for the consequences of the actions of another (carrying a pregnancy to term regardless of who the impregnator was) When we start violating the most basic principles of law "one person is not to be made responsible for the consequences of the actions of another" we can end up in some very nasty places. If the woman has the "choice" of whether or not to continue the pregnancy then, the consequences of her actions (responsibility for supporting the child) lie solely with her. We are not still living in the dark ages where there was no effective contraception and no easy way to end a pregnancy, a time where essentially there was no "choice". This is where the logic behind the current law originated. The problem is that this logic no longer applies. If you want to claim that consent to sex implies consent to a child for a man, then the same applies to women. Its called equal justice under the law. If the man has no choice then the woman has no choice either. If the woman does have a choice then the man has a choice as well. The fact of the matter is even if the woman carries the pregnancy to term she still has a choice to avoid financial consequences of her actions. If the woman has the choice to avoid financial responsibility for her born child then the man should have the same choice. If the woman can give the child up for adoption then the man should have the same opportunity. If one of the two wants to keep the child then it is that persons financial responsibility. The proper thing to do if two people want to have a child is for them to sign letters of intent. That way the responsibility of both parties is set in stone and we do not turn the justice system upside down.
So says the projector I sure it is tough when your claims are proven false and your arguments get crushed. Is not the end of the world though. No need to descend in to psychological chaos. Look at it as an opportunity for growth.
Giftdone in front of a family law judge: "But judge, I didn't agree to have a baby if she got pregnant. I just wanted sex. Therefore, I should not have to pay child support." Giftdone testifying in front of the State Legislature: "We need a law that requires women to inform their sexual partner whether they will (i) choose abortion or (ii) choose to complete a pregnancy before they are allowed to have sex with any man. Men should not have to pay child support if that woman breaks her promise." Giftdone's holds up the following protest sign while standing on a street corner: "Unfair!!! I have to pay CHILD SUPPORT for a child I did not want!! Please help!! Donations accepted!!"
Abortion is sometimes used as a method of birth control. Men cannot choose this method of birth control. Not exactly. Men should know they have no birth control choices after sex. No woman can force a man to hang around and support her choice to continue with the pregnancy. Both parents, must however, help financially support their born children. People should do a lot of things they don't. I didn't say that. What I said was, that men should know they have no birth control choices after sex. She is. Totally responsible. The fact it's women that become pregnant means they have more choices than men when it comes to birth control They argue that women shouldn't have the right to choose what happens to their bodies. Pregnancy doesn't affect men's bodies. That doesn't make sense. She became pregnant through her own actions , as well as the actions of another. True...we've been through this before. A man has a child that needs supporting. His own actions helped create that child. He was not a helpless victim. Once a child is born, it has two parents who both must help financially support it , unless both agree to give it up for adoption. But a man cannot be given those choices. It's impossible. You might as well say as women have to risk their lives and physical well being to become a parent, then so should should men - and expect the law to do something about it. It's nonsense. Women have multiple birth control choices, men have only two at the moment. That's all there is to it. Not really. If the father does not agree to give up his child for adoption and raise hi or himself, then the mother has to help support her child. He has exactly the same choices after the child has been born. Both parents have to agree to give up their child for adoption whenever possible. It's a simple matter for the father to claim his born child. The fact many don't is because they've hooked it and can't be found. That is unfair to the child. And what about the child? Where does he or she come in? You're not being very fair to fathers. Most fathers love their children and want to help support them.
Great post addressing "Whiney Uterus Envying Men". I especially liked : """You might as well say as women have to risk their lives and physical well being to become a parent, then so should should men - and expect the law to do something about it.""" I hope these envious men start asking the scientists to give them the same physical risks and damage that women suffer....after all that's only FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! WAAAHHHH... Why aren't they whining for that? Why don't they ask for a Giant Estrogen surge and their immune system compromised by artificial means and all the other pain and damage women suffer with pregnancy so it can be wahhhhh FAIR!? Because they couldn't handle it....not with the whining they do WITHOUT it !!! LOL!
There are so many nonsensical comments in your post it is hard to know where to begin. What does the comment below have to do with 1) You claim consent to sex is not consent to carrying the pregnancy to term (not consent to having a child) What does the fact that abortion is used for birth control have to do with consent to carrying a pregnancy to term ? Then I say: "Of course sex comes with the chance of pregnancy but, the same logic applies to the man as to the woman. Consent to the chance of pregnancy is not consent to carrying the pregnancy to term" you then say: Men not being able to choose method of birth control has nothing to do with the issue of consent ! You are not making any sense. You are blurting out random thoughts that have nothing to do with the idea under discussion. The rest of your post is similar nonsense A couple of points: The man does not have he same choices as the woman prior to the child being born. The woman is not forced to be responsible for the financial consequences of the decision of another (the decision to carry a pregnancy to term). The man on the other hand is forced to be responsible for the financial consequences of the decision of another (the decision to carry a pregnancy to term. This is a violation of equality under the law and a violation of the principle that one person is not be made responsible for the actions of another. Since you are in favor of violation of these principles, then do not complain when anti aborts want to force a woman to responsible for the decision of another (that all pregnancies should be carried to term)
Not at all. The woman can abort. She has that right. Nobody is taking away her choice. She has 100% of the power. Explain how I am wrong.
If there is no child then there is no need for child support... Right. And it should be that if he does not want the child he should be able to opt out. Once she knows this she can make an informed decision and abort or not. That is nothing more than an Appeal to Tradition argument and that is a logical fallacy... you should know that. Agreed... Who said that it was?
Appeal to Pity Appeal to Popularity Appeal to Consequence Straw Man Red Herring... Gee... there are so many logical fallacies to choose from that I can't decide which I like best! LOL
Why should he be bound to her choice? IF she chooses birth knowing that he will not support the child then it is her choice. All you are arguing is an Appeal to Tradition. "Well, that is how it always is so that must be how it stays". That is illogical. - - - Updated - - - Actually if you had the ability to comprehend better you would see that the argument is for her to NOT have those issues because instead of pregnancy and birth she would abort. But you are too busy whining yourself to see that logic. LOL - - - Updated - - - Silliness is not a valid form of debate.
This isn't whining it's ridiculing whining little men: Quote Originally Posted by FoxHastings View Post Great post addressing "Whiney Uterus Envying Men". I especially liked : """You might as well say as women have to risk their lives and physical well being to become a parent, then so should should men - and expect the law to do something about it.""" I hope these envious men start asking the scientists to give them the same physical risks and damage that women suffer....after all that's only FAIRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!! WAAAHHHH... Why aren't they whining for that? Why don't they ask for a Giant Estrogen surge and their immune system compromised by artificial means and all the other pain and damage women suffer with pregnancy so it can be wahhhhh FAIR!? Because they couldn't handle it....not with the whining they do WITHOUT it !!! LOL!""""""""""" I have no idea what your comment ........ ""argument is for her to NOT have those issues because instead of pregnancy and birth she would abort. But you are too busy whining yourself to see that logic. LOL""" have to do with it.
