quote:
I bet you never expected Bloodsage to say:
As usual, you're confused by the terms you are debating.Raising and supporting a child are direct results of a pregnancy. The fact that there are extreme measures the woman may take--abortion or abandonment--has nothing to do with the fact that raising and supporting a child is a direct result of the pregnancy. It's quite easily demonstrable that children are, in fact, a direct result of pregnancy.
The child is ineveitable, is the requirement to personally raise the child? Nope. It's avoidable. It's an elected responsibility. No one forces the woman to shoulder it. She shoulders it of her own free will. Let me restate that, she decides, given the options laid out infront of her, that she wants to raise the child. She doesn't have to raise the child, but instead of not raising it, she says "hey, i want to raise this child." So she doesn't have to, but she wants to. She has every option not to, but decides that she would like that responsibility. In fact, even though she doesn't have to, she does it anyway. So it's avoidable, because she decides, even though she doesn't have to, that she wants to raise the child, dispite the fact that she doesn't have to, and that it's optional, and that she doesn't have to, because it's optional, and that there are many other options available to her that don't involve taking that responsibility on, options that are optional and that she can take because they are options that she can take which are optional.
Also, adoption is in no way an "Extreme measure," it happens every day, and in the vast majority of the cases, results in the child being in a much better situation than the biological parents could provide.
quote:
You've obviously confused "direct" with "inevitable." The child, the associated physical changes in the woman, and the responsibility to care for the child are all direct results of the pregnancy. The potential economic impact to one or both parents are indirect results.Since the child is, indeed, a direct result of a pregnancy, and since both parties played a part in creating said pregnancy and thus the direct result of the pregnancy, there is no possible claim that it's unfair to require the man to assume his share of the responsibility.
Since the woman brought upon herself the responsibility of personally raising the child, a responsibilty that optional, it is quite possible to claim it is unfair to require the man to assume his share of the responsibility, because he has nothing to do with it.
quote:
It all comes down to one basic fact that no one has disputed: there is no situation in which the man is ever forced to assume all of the responsibility. At the very worst case, he must share responsibility with the mother for what is a direct result of the pregnancy.
Please explain how that has anything to do with anything? Because the man can't be forced to assume 100%, he must be able to be forced to assume 50%? How does that logic work, considering the woman can not be forced to assume anything?
quote:
You simply keep whining that you don't like the fact that it's the woman who gets to choose whether to continue or abort the pregnancy.
No, I don't. But you keep reading that, because it's what you want to read.
quote:
Bent over the coffee table, Blindy. squealed:
I like how adoption becomes abandonment in your woefully twisted bed of lies.
That's exactly what it is: abandonment both of the child and of the responsibility to rear it by the parents.
What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the definition of parental responsibility based on two things: 1) a juvenile belief that one should only be held responsible for consequences one actively chooses and 2) the rather strange notion that, because certain rather extreme and rarely used options are open to the mother either to terminate a pregnancy or to abandon a child, that men should then have an "equal" right to choose not to take responsibility.
Unfortunately, you completely ignore both the vast difference between the two situations you claim are parallel, and the inevitable consequence of your proposed change to society, which is that the entire burden of rearing children will fall solely to women as men become totally devoid of responsibility for children.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I bet you never expected Bloodsage to say:
As usual, you're confused by the terms you are debating.
Raising and supporting a child are direct results of a pregnancy. The fact that there are extreme measures the woman may take--abortion or abandonment--has nothing to do with the fact that raising and supporting a child is a direct result of the pregnancy. It's quite easily demonstrable that children are, in fact, a direct result of pregnancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The child is ineveitable, is the requirement to personally raise the child? Nope. It's avoidable. That has nothing to do with the fact that the parents are responsible for the child's welfare. Responsibility and choice are not linked. They are different things. So, to address your last point first, here is where you keep whining that it is the woman's choice and not the man's. Too bad it has nothing to do with responsibility or consequence--the decision point where both accepted responsibility for any potential children is when they decided to have sex. It's an elected responsibility. No one forces the woman to shoulder it. She shoulders it of her own free will. Let me restate that, she decides, given the options laid out infront of her, that she wants to raise the child. She doesn't have to raise the child, but instead of not raising it, she says "hey, i want to raise this child." So she doesn't have to, but she wants to. She has every option not to, but decides that she would like that responsibility. In fact, even though she doesn't have to, she does it anyway. So it's avoidable, because she decides, even though she doesn't have to, that she wants to raise the child, dispite the fact that she doesn't have to, and that it's optional, and that she doesn't have to, because it's optional, and that there are many other options available to her that don't involve taking that responsibility on, options that are optional and that she can take because they are options that she can take which are optional. Wow, what an odd jumble of stupidity that means exactly nothing. Quit whining that it is the woman's choice to continue or abort the pregnancy. It has nothing to do with the discussion. The discussion is about two people who must take responsibility for the result of their actions--whether that result is chosen or not, or by whom is irrelevant--which is the child. Both people engaged in behavior which could result in a foreseeable consequence (a child), and at that point accepted the responsibility for any resultant child's welfare. All you're doing is whining that the woman has options to avoid that particular result while the man does not.
Also, adoption is in no way an "Extreme measure," it happens every day, and in the vast majority of the cases, results in the child being in a much better situation than the biological parents could provide. "Happens every day" and "common" are not the same thing. Abortion and adoption are extreme measures in that only a very small percentage of women choose them. Ergo, the vast majority of normal pregnancies result in children--so that is the consequence we should focus on rather than the statistical margin. One doesn't fundamentally change the status quo based on statistically insignificant events unless they are so unjust and compelling as to render that status quo unsupportable in good conscience. You've yet to point to any fundamental, routine injustice that merits removing all parental responsibility from fathers.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You've obviously confused "direct" with "inevitable." The child, the associated physical changes in the woman, and the responsibility to care for the child are all direct results of the pregnancy. The potential economic impact to one or both parents are indirect results.
Since the child is, indeed, a direct result of a pregnancy, and since both parties played a part in creating said pregnancy and thus the direct result of the pregnancy, there is no possible claim that it's unfair to require the man to assume his share of the responsibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Since the woman brought upon herself the responsibility of personally raising the child, a responsibilty that optional, it is quite possible to claim it is unfair to require the man to assume his share of the responsibility, because he has nothing to do with it. Again, you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of responsibility. Both parents accepted the responsibility of rearing the child when they decided to have sex. It is the sex act which determines responsibility for rearing the child, and you've not show any reason that should change. Be careful before you say it's because the woman can terminate the pregnancy or abandon the child--you've already said that's not an issue.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It all comes down to one basic fact that no one has disputed: there is no situation in which the man is ever forced to assume all of the responsibility. At the very worst case, he must share responsibility with the mother for what is a direct result of the pregnancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Please explain how that has anything to do with anything? Because the man can't be forced to assume 100%, he must be able to be forced to assume 50%? How does that logic work, considering the woman can not be forced to assume anything? So your solution is that the woman be forced to assume 100% or 0% by making it completely optional for the man to participate? That's even less just than your claim regarding the current situation. Regardless, you've not explained what makes the current situation unjust. Remember all those logical fallacies? "She gets to choose, so I should, too!" is one of them. So, if this is really your major whine, explain exactly why it's unfair that--at worst--a man be required to assume a share of rearing a child.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You simply keep whining that you don't like the fact that it's the woman who gets to choose whether to continue or abort the pregnancy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------No, I don't. But you keep reading that, because it's what you want to read. Pretty much every paragraph above has at its heart the notion that it's not fair that the woman can choose but the man can't. Hell, it's what you just got finished saying. Do you even read what you write?
So why don't you explain for us why it's not fair that the man be held equally responsible for a child resulting from a mutual decision to have sex, and why it's more fair to absolve the man from all responsibility, forcing women to choose between 100% responsibility and 0% through the expedients of abortion or adoption?
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage's momma would never want to hear them say:
That's exactly what it is: abandonment both of the child and of the responsibility to rear it by the parents.
And this is a bad thing? Like any reality tied person will tell you, adopted children are generally better off than they ever could have been with their biological parents.
quote:
What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the definition of parental responsibility based on two things: 1) a juvenile belief that one should only be held responsible for consequences one actively chooses
You mean that one should be held responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of others? I'm pretty sure that's what they call normal.
quote:
and 2) the rather strange notion that, because certain rather extreme and rarely used options are open to the mother either to terminate a pregnancy or to abandon a child, that men should then have an "equal" right to choose not to take responsibility.
It bothers you that because women have the right to not take responsibility, that men should have the right to not take responsibility? Why? Because you think that women are fundamentally moral, while men are not? Because while you think that abandonment for a woman is extreme and rarely used, while abandonment for a man is common place and often elected? Because you think that women always want their children while men always want to dump them?
quote:
Unfortunately, you completely ignore both the vast difference between the two situations you claim are parallel, and the inevitable consequence of your proposed change to society, which is that the entire burden of rearing children will fall solely to women as men become totally devoid of responsibility for children.
The only inequity between the situations lies in your own bias.
quote:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bloodsage's momma would never want to hear them say:
That's exactly what it is: abandonment both of the child and of the responsibility to rear it by the parents.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------And this is a bad thing? Like any reality tied person will tell you, adopted children are generally better off than they ever could have been with their biological parents. So. . .first it isn't abandonment. . .but now it is, but isn't a bad thing. Not even sure how you can make the second claim, given the amount of press various state "child welfare" programs have gotten lately for gross miscarriages of their duty to the children. Unless you can provide a statistic, you'll have to withdraw the claim in favor of the obvious evidence to the contrary.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you are proposing is a fundamental change in the definition of parental responsibility based on two things: 1) a juvenile belief that one should only be held responsible for consequences one actively chooses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------You mean that one should be held responsible for their own actions, and not the actions of others? I'm pretty sure that's what they call normal. Why is it that you can't understand responsibility? One is responsible for the consequences of one's actions, and many times the actions of others; responsibility is not anything that has to do with choosing. Both parents are responsible for the child because both parents are responsible for the pregnancy; that's the very definition of responsibility.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and 2) the rather strange notion that, because certain rather extreme and rarely used options are open to the mother either to terminate a pregnancy or to abandon a child, that men should then have an "equal" right to choose not to take responsibility.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It bothers you that because women have the right to not take responsibility, that men should have the right to not take responsibility? Why? Because you think that women are fundamentally moral, while men are not? Because while you think that abandonment for a woman is extreme and rarely used, while abandonment for a man is common place and often elected? Because you think that women always want their children while men always want to dump them? There you go with your bizarre notion about responsibility again. Funny how you earlier stated it wasn't about the choice, but now that's all it is. The responsibility of the parents derives from the sex act; the fact that the woman has the choice to terminate the pregnancy is irrelevant to the fact that, should a child be born, both parents are responsible for its welfare. It boils down to this: either neither parent ends up responsible for a child as a direct consequence of the decision to have sex, or neither does. The situation you propose is one in which only the mother actually has any responsibility at all. BTW--you forgot to explain how it's more fair that the mother has all of the responsibility and the father has none, than that both parents be responsible for their decision to have sex.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unfortunately, you completely ignore both the vast difference between the two situations you claim are parallel, and the inevitable consequence of your proposed change to society, which is that the entire burden of rearing children will fall solely to women as men become totally devoid of responsibility for children.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------The only inequity between the situations lies in your own bias. While that sounds high and mighty, it's not an argument. Well, it is an argument: argumentum ad hominum, a logical fallacy. So, in the absence of actual reasoning, my point must stand.
So all we're left with--again--is Blindy whining that it isn't fair that women have an extra decision point than men. Despite the fact that we've already seen the logical fallacy at the heart of that particular claim.
Hmmm.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-22-2006 at 02:42 PM.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Blindy. absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
You're hopeless. Women do not currently have any responsibility forced upon them. Zero. None at all. Explain how this would change that, and try to actually make sense this time, since basically this is the entire crux of your argument that this change would be unfair to women.
Way to whine instead of accept the challenge of explaining the gross inconsistencies in what you say.
First, no one has any responsibility "forced" on them. The man and the woman both chose to accept responsibility for the obvious and foreseeable potential consequences when they decided to have sex. When they have sex, both are then responsible for those consequences, whatever they may be.
Second, what you erroneously call a woman's lack of responsibility is simply the fact that she has more options in deciding how to discharge her responsibility for the consequences of the sex act. She can, in effect, choose what the consequence will be. That does not change the fact that both parties are still responsible for those consequences.
Third, you've already accepted that it's perfectly just that the woman choose the consequence. So don't try whining now.
Fourth, there is no situation in which the man is forced to accept sole responsibility. His worst outcome is shared responsibility with the mother for the result of their mutual decision to have sex. The fact that she chooses exactly what that result is is irrelevant.
Finally, your proposed "solution" takes a situation where the outcomes are either no responsibility (in the other sense of the word) for either party or equally shared responsibility for the consequence of their mutual decision. . .and turns it into a situation where the outcomes are either no responsibility for either party or 100% responsibility for the woman for the consequence of their mutual decision. You propose to change a situation from equality to inequality in the name of fairness. Odd, that.
So if you can wrap your mind around actual logic for a change, why don't you rise to the challenge and actually explain how your "solution" is more fair than the status quo.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
We all got dumber when Bloodsage said:
Way to whine instead of accept the challenge of explaining the gross inconsistencies in what you say.
The fact that i choose not to address your straw men and other attempts to sidetrack the debate to an argument over semantics is something I'm actually quite proud of.
quote:
First, no one has any responsibility "forced" on them. The man and the woman both chose to accept responsibility for the obvious and foreseeable potential consequences when they decided to have sex. When they have sex, both are then responsible for those consequences, whatever they may be.
Incorrect. The result of the sex is the pregnancy. The responsibility of raising the child is the result of a separate decision, a decision which only the woman can and should have the ability to make.
quote:
Second, what you erroneously call a woman's lack of responsibility is simply the fact that she has more options in deciding how to discharge her responsibility for the consequences of the sex act. She can, in effect, choose what the consequence will be. That does not change the fact that both parties are still responsible for those consequences.
Incorrect. Since she can, in reality, choose what the consequence will be, it separates the action of sex from the consequence of the cost of raising a child. Consicely, the consequence of raising a child is a result of the woman's decision to raise the child, not the couple's decision to have intercourse, regardless of the fact that there would be no child to decide about were it not for that first decision.
Just because I wrecked your car doesn't mean I have to pay to buy you whatever new car you decide to buy to replace it. I only have to cover the cost of what I did, which is to reimburse you the replacement cost of your wrecked car. This is true despite the fact that you wouldn't even be looking for a new car if I hadn't wrecked your old one. Is this not fair? Answer this question.
quote:
Third, you've already accepted that it's perfectly just that the woman choose the consequence. So don't try whining now.
I'm not, and painting my arguments as such is not winning you any logic points.
quote:
Fourth, there is no situation in which the man is forced to accept sole responsibility. His worst outcome is shared responsibility with the mother for the result of their mutual decision to have sex. The fact that she chooses exactly what that result is is irrelevant.
Actually it's not. It's the entire epicenter of why raising a child is not a direct consequence of intercourse.
quote:
Finally, your proposed "solution" takes a situation where the outcomes are either no responsibility (in the other sense of the word) for either party or equally shared responsibility for the consequence of their mutual decision. . .and turns it into a situation where the outcomes are either no responsibility for either party or 100% responsibility for the woman for the consequence of their mutual decision. You propose to change a situation from equality to inequality in the name of fairness. Odd, that.
This is incorrect. The solution would provide each partner with the decision to accept either 0% or 100% liability (assuming the woman chooses not to abort, a fundamental right she will not lose). In cases where both partners wish to accept the child, they are given an equal 50-50 split of the liability. This is equality, and can not be defined as anything else. Odd, that you continually speak of this as the woman being forced to take 100% of the liability for the child while the man gets to run off and fuck whores.
You keep bringing up that there are no circumstances where a man takes 100% liability and the woman takes none. You are wrong. In cases where a woman is mentally incompetent, the man can take 100% liability. When a child is put up for adoption, the biological father can attempt to adopt it, and is generally given preferential status throughout the adoption process. It is also currently possible for a mother to directly sign complete parenting rights over to the biological father. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-22-2006 at 04:19 PM.
quote:
Blindy. wrote this then went back to looking for porn:
Incorrect. The result of the sex is the pregnancy. The responsibility of raising the child is the result of a separate decision, a decision which only the woman can and should have the ability to make.
Except for the fact that the only reason sex exists is for reproduction. Unless you know of some other method for humans to naturally reproduce, that is.
quote:
Incorrect. Since she can, in reality, choose what the consequence will be, it separates the action of sex from the consequence of the cost of raising a child. Consicely, the consequence of raising a child is a result of the woman's decision to raise the child, not the couple's decision to have intercourse, regardless of the fact that there would be no child to decide about were it not for that first decision.Just because I wrecked your car doesn't mean I have to pay to buy you whatever new car you decide to buy to replace it. I only have to cover the cost of what I did, which is to reimburse you the replacement cost of your wrecked car. This is true despite the fact that you wouldn't even be looking for a new car if I hadn't wrecked your old one. Is this not fair? Answer this question.
But the child would never have had the possibility of being born had the two simply not had sex. Since it takes two to tango, if the woman decides to keep the child, then both are repsonsible. As has already been said, this isn't necessarily fair, as the woman does have the advantage of making that extra decision. However, this is certainly the most just solution possible.
And stop bringing up the car example. Are we going to start driving to work inside babies now? A car is completely different from a child. One is manmade, and the other is a human being. The analogy doesn't work.
quote:
The solution would provide each partner with the decision to accept either 0% or 100% liability (assuming the woman chooses not to abort, a fundamental right she will not lose). In cases where both partners wish to accept the child, they are given an equal 50-50 split of the liability. This is equality, and can not be defined as anything else. Odd, that you continually speak of this as the woman being forced to take 100% of the liability for the child while the man gets to run off and fuck whores.You keep bringing up that there are no circumstances where a man takes 100% liability and the woman takes none. You are wrong. In cases where a woman is mentally incompetent, the man can take 100% liability. When a child is put up for adoption, the biological father can attempt to adopt it, and is generally given preferential status throughout the adoption process. It is also currently possible for a mother to directly sign complete parenting rights over to the biological father.
Where your argument falls apart, is the assumption that people always want to do the right thing. Of course the man is going to want to take 0% responsibility in almost every case, responsibility sucks. However, whether or not he wanted a child, his actions helped start the process, and it would be a sad world in which no one was responsible for the consequences of their actions.
quote:
If Ruvyen was a glacier, they'd be a fast one:
Except for the fact that the only reason sex exists is for reproduction. Unless you know of some other method for humans to naturally reproduce, that is.
Absolutely irrelevant. Despite the fact that both the man and the woman take the same initial risk, the possible outcomes for either partner are in no way the same. Case in point- there are exactly zero situations in which a woman must support a child she did not want to have.
quote:
But the child would never have had the possibility of being born had the two simply not had sex. Since it takes two to tango, if the woman decides to keep the child, then both are responsible. As has already been said, this isn't necessarily fair, as the woman does have the advantage of making that extra decision. However, this is certainly the most just solution possible.And stop bringing up the car example. Are we going to start driving to work inside babies now? A car is completely different from a child. One is manmade, and the other is a human being. The analogy doesn't work.
It is a classic and easily understandable instance of liability law in action. I'm sorry if this is beyond your grasp. And there is absolutely nothing just about a woman having complete control over her future, while a man has none, despite the both of them making the exact same mistake.
quote:
Where your argument falls apart, is the assumption that people always want to do the right thing. Of course the man is going to want to take 0% responsibility in almost every case, responsibility sucks. However, whether or not he wanted a child, his actions helped start the process, and it would be a sad world in which no one was responsible for the consequences of their actions.
I see, so why is it that women are not made responsible for the consequences of their actions? Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-22-2006 at 05:57 PM.
quote:
Blindy. painfully thought these words up:
Absolutely irrelevant. Despite the fact that both the man and the woman take the same initial risk, the possible outcomes for either partner are in no way the same. Case in point- there are exactly zero situations in which a woman must support a child she did not want to have.
But the woman is still responsible for the outcome. If the woman wants to get an abortion, it's not like some magical abortion fairy comes down, and poof, it's done instantly and painlessly. Whatever the outcome, both parties end up taking repsonsibility for their actions. Who gets to choose the outcome doesn't matter at all.
And how are the potential outcomes not the same for either party? Either one ends up supporting the child, or one does not. Man or woman.
quote:
It is a classic and easily understandable instance of liability law in action. I'm sorry if this is beyond your grasp. And there is absolutely nothing just about a woman having complete control over her future, while a man has none, despite the both of them making the exact same mistake.
I get what you're saying, it's just that what you're saying has nothing to do with the discussion. You can't compare cars to people. Period. And, there is absolutely nothing just about a man being able to give up all responsibility for his mistakes.
If you want to have sex with as many women as possible, you have to accept the fact that at least one of them might have a kid. Don't like it, don't fuck. Is it really so hard to understand?
quote:
I see, so why is it that women are not made responsible for the consequences of their actions?
Except they are. And you're stupid. Why are you so stupid? Please stop being so stupid.
Ruvyen has just lost his privileges for posting in this thread. The next post here by him earns a ban.
quote:
Absolutely irrelevant. Despite the fact that both the man and the woman take the same initial risk, the possible outcomes for either partner are in no way the same. Case in point- there are exactly zero situations in which a woman must support a child she did not want to have.
Wrong on this one sir, woman can and do pay child support. I know I did for fifteen years. Most states allow a father too seek compensation from the mother in the case that the father takes custody of the child. It is not always granted, same as child support for men, especially if she is unable to meet that requirement.
So take for example, a woman puts a child up for adoption, the father objects and takes custody of the child. In most states he is well within his rights to seek compensation for the child from the woman. This is as it should be the road goes both ways.
quote:
The Hitchhikers Guide has this to say on Tyewa Dawnsister:
Wrong on this one sir, woman can and do pay child support. I know I did for fifteen years. Most states allow a father too seek compensation from the mother in the case that the father takes custody of the child. It is not always granted, same as child support for men, especially if she is unable to meet that requirement.So take for example, a woman puts a child up for adoption, the father objects and takes custody of the child. In most states he is well within his rights to seek compensation for the child from the woman. This is as it should be the road goes both ways.
Did you not decide to carry the baby to term?
quote:
ACES! Another post by Blindy.:
Did you not decide to carry the baby to term?
Of course I did, now I assume you will explain to me why the father should have no responsibility towards the child because I made that decision?
quote:
This one time, at band camp, Tyewa Dawnsister said:
Of course I did, now I assume you will explain to me why the father should have no responsibility towards the child because I made that decision?
So how exactly did the father take responsibility for your child? I'm not ignoring your question, I'm just wondering how this was done against your will. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-23-2006 at 07:53 AM.
quote:
A sleep deprived Blindy. stammered:
So how exactly did the father take responsibility for your child? I'm not ignoring your question, I'm just wondering how this was done against your will.
I was married, we had a child. Three years later we divorced, working with the court and our lawyers it was agreed that my husband would take custody of our daughter and that I would pay a court enforced amount each month until the child's 18th birthday. It was also agreed upon that I would cover the costs of any health insurance needed by my daughter until her 21st birthday.
Now there are things about this that I do not wish to really get into because quite frankly the details of my divorce are none of your business. I will say that I willingly gave up custody, I willingly agreed to pay child support, and I strongly believe that I did the right thing for my daughter.
I know where you are going to go with this, I had choices. Indeed I did have choices, and none of them would have absolved me of responsibility, none of them would have absolved my ex-husband of responsibility. We made the only choice that mattered when we decided to have a child, at that point there was no backing out of our responsibility for either of us.
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister must read alot of poetry:
I was married, we had a child. Three years later we divorced, working with the court and our lawyers it was agreed that my husband would take custody of our daughter and that I would pay a court enforced amount each month until the child's 18th birthday. It was also agreed upon that I would cover the costs of any health insurance needed by my daughter until her 21st birthday.Now there are things about this that I do not wish to really get into because quite frankly the details of my divorce are none of your business. I will say that I willingly gave up custody, I willingly agreed to pay child support, and I strongly believe that I did the right thing for my daughter.
I know where you are going to go with this, I had choices. Indeed I did have choices, and none of them would have absolved me of responsibility, none of them would have absolved my ex-husband of responsibility. We made the only choice that mattered when we decided to have a child, at that point there was no backing out of our responsibility for either of us.
Not an unusual arrangement, but not really what I was talking about. I didn't say that a woman can never pay child support. I said that a woman can never be made to support a child she did not want to have.
You wanted to have your child, you decided you wanted to raise it, and when you divorced, you decided to let the father take custody. It sounds like there was no point at which the events not in your control. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-23-2006 at 08:27 AM.
quote:
Blindy. had this to say about Tron:
Not an unusual arrangement, but not really what I was talking about. I didn't say that a woman can never pay child support. I said that a woman can never be made to support a child she did not want to have.
A woman who bears a child she does not want can indeed be made to support said child. In fact, child support laws are in place to ensure that she does.
Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that because a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the responsibility of the father never exists?
quote:
Tyewa Dawnsister likes to say stupid stuff like:
A woman who bears a child she does not want can indeed be made to support said child. In fact, child support laws are in place to ensure that she does.
Not so. To address your earlier argument, if the woman gives the child up for adoption, she is actually giving away all of her parenting rights and obligations. Even if the biological father adopts the child, she does not have to pay child support. At least, this is how it works in Ohio, it might be different in Texas, I don't know.
Can you give me one situation where a woman gives birth to a child she has no intention of raising, and is made to pay child support anyway? Her legal obligation to her child goes no further than getting the child to a police station or hospital and leaving it at the desk. Anything beyond that is a responsibility she places upon herself of her own free will.
Note: if a child is taken away from an unfit mother, that does not mean she had no intention of raising the child, it just means she was judged incapable of doing so.
quote:
Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that because a woman can terminate a pregnancy that the responsibility of the father never exists?
My argument hinges on the fact that women are never responsible for a child unless they choose to be, where men are made responsible for a child against their will all the freaking time. This is not equality, and this goes beyond abortion rights.
Humor me for a second, and imagine if there were differences in the laws about traffic fines. Specifically, they made it such that a man being pulled over for doing 75 in a 50 could get out of the ticket by simply asking to be let out, while a woman being pulled over for going 75 in a 50 would have no choice but to take the ticket if the police officer wrote her one.
Both people took the same risk, going 75 in a 50, and both people faced the same result, being pulled over.
This equates to the debate, since both people take the same risk, having sex, and both people face the same result, pregnancy.
However, while one person has the ability to get out of the consequence (the traffic ticket/supporting a child), the other has no such capability. The risk was the same, the result was the same, the consequences are different- one gets a ticket or gets lucky, the other gets a choice. I doubt very much if you would think this a fair and just traffic law, but going off of the arguments you and Bloodsage have presented, since the final end result is either no ticket or a ticket, it's perfectly fair.
What we're suggesting equates to giving both men and women the choice to be let out of the traffic fine. Yes, both the man and the woman should accept the traffic fine, because they did make the mistake of going 75 in a 50, and they did get pulled over, but we're not talking about the morality behind the situation, we're talking about gender equality here.
Abortion rights are tied to the fact that the woman carries the child, and thus can never be given to the man, and no one is suggesting that. However, once the child is born, the consequences should be equal, should they not? If the woman doesn't want the child and the man wants it, the man should get the child, and the woman should pay nothing. If the man doesn't want the child and the woman wants it, the woman should get the child, and the man should pay nothing. If both parents want the child, they should share the costs. It is perfect symmetry, and in every way equal. If the entire world is composed of deadbeat dads and irresponsible women, sure, it may end up resulting in every woman having an unsupported child on her hip, but it will not be against that woman's will that she is in that position, and that outcome relies on the assertation that abandonment is categorically easy for a man and categorically hard for a woman, something which I would like to see some facts reguarding before it becomes a part of this debate. Blindy. fucked around with this message on 03-23-2006 at 09:58 AM.
