Do you need an abortion? Did you bring a note?

[gmbteach]

Hell, even if a woman rapes him or steals his sperm he is still liable for child support. Do you find any of that fair?

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

 

[Derec]

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

 

[gmbteach]

Why?

He is referring to the US states that are trying to force a woman to have her employer's permission before she can get birth control.

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

 

[Derec]

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

 

[ksen]

I'm pretty sure masturbation is still free.

 

[gmbteach]

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

After I submitted that one, the thought went through my head - he would be in jail anyway because he would have to prove it was his kid and admit he raped her. So therefore visitation and custody could be a moot point.

 

[gmbteach]

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Here in Australia, some HRT's and birth controls were taken off the PBS and became private scripts. I currently pay $100 a month for my HRT as it is no longer subsidised. The birth control I used before my hysterectomy was also quite expensive. So it ain't free here. Not for either party.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm pretty sure masturbation is still free.

And is still a major option for a guy to get his rocks off without the possibility of producing a child.

Come to think of it, should a man want to further reduce the likelihood of a child being produced, he could always try the 'withdrawal' method as well - even though that is still nowhere near to being a reliable method of birth control.

Men can have more say in the birth control than they sometimes realise.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why?

He is referring to the US states that are trying to force a woman to have her employer's permission before she can get birth control.

Please provide a source for this. This is new to me.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

He is referring to the US states that are trying to force a woman to have her employer's permission before she can get birth control.

Please provide a source for this. This is new to me.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...lip_is_insulting_and_distorts_the_issue_.html

 

[gmbteach]

Please provide a source for this. This is new to me.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...lip_is_insulting_and_distorts_the_issue_.html

View attachment 1790

WTF? Where do they get off on dictating a person's right to access birth control? If they do that they are basically (IMO) dictating that the woman must remain celibate. Failing that, if the woman did fall pregnant, I believe this could hold up in court and allow her to sue her employer for the costs of raising any child conceived during this time because they are not allowed to access contraception.

 

[RavenSky]

it is equally difficult to get child support orders changed even if the man's income goes up or when he fails to share any of the child rearing responsibilities initially agreed on.

It is not "equally difficult" as the courts are biased against the fathers.

that is your opinion. My opinion is that it is not, and the extreme difficulty in getting child support increased in line with increases to Father's income is one example. Difficulty collecting child support is another.

The ideal would be for potential sex partners to simply have the conversation, and for both to abide by it later. The "piece of paper" is to protect the man from all the lying liar women you are so sure exist.

The problem is that many instances of sex do not involve any in-depth conversations. Which is why opt-out after conceptions is the much fairer option.

To the contrary. That's what makes the "piece of paper" even more important.

His choices post-conception absolutely do have HUGE affects on the woman (& a child if she goes through with the pregnancy). That is why he needs to make clear in advance what his position is - so she can make an informed choice before she (& she alone) has to face the consequences.

How do his choices have "huge" affects on the woman? She has him on the hook for the next 18 years no matter what he wants or decides.

SHE does not have him on the hook for anything. HIS child does. But my point is that whether it's an abortion, or a pregnancy, whether she keeps the child or not, her life, body and finances have been HUGELY affected, while the man is not affected at all* unless/except for child support.

* I am referring only to those men that want nothing to do with their children. Real men who love their children and remain in their children's lives are affected greatly (in a good way) by their child.

 

[RavenSky]

I see a lot of claims to the effect of 'but who will look out for the child if no one man is forced to pay child support?'

An easy and ethical answer is that IF the society wants to allow incapable mothers to carry to term and retain custody, then the society as a whole is responsible for footing that bill. Every child, regardless of whether the father is known, or unknown, whether the MOTHER is known or unknown, deserves to be taken care of. That isn't strictly the responsibility of the parents. That's for the good of all of is, and so all of us are responsible to chip in to that outcome.

So I support a strong stipend for all children, irrespective of parental situation. I support professional daycare services for every child, and want them to be easily accessible to everyone and paid for by the government. This is one of the reasons I pay taxes! I want to see my government pass laws mandating PTO for parents regardless of gender.

The idea that people should have to suffer and be poor for having kids is foolishness. I've already stated how women should not have to suffer to have kids or to not have kids, that the deciding factor should be what risks the mother wishes to take. That neither men nor women have an inherent right to have a child, and that there should be no expectation that a person be 'punished' with being a parent, man or woman. The fact that nature makes it worse for women doesn't justify depriving men.

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

 

[gmbteach]

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

Well that is fucked up. The government supports the right for a man to have a sustained erection, but not the woman's right to have contraception? Sorry - as I said - that is FUBAR!!

 

[Emily Lake]

Please provide a source for this. This is new to me.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...lip_is_insulting_and_distorts_the_issue_.html

View attachment 1790

Except that it's not real.

Before the Senate tabled the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives and other health care based on moral or religious objections, the cool kids on the Interwebs were all passing around an imagined “Employer Authorization for Contraception” to show just how scary the world would be if the Blunt Amendment passed.

 

[Emily Lake]

WTF? Where do they get off on dictating a person's right to access birth control? If they do that they are basically (IMO) dictating that the woman must remain celibate. Failing that, if the woman did fall pregnant, I believe this could hold up in court and allow her to sue her employer for the costs of raising any child conceived during this time because they are not allowed to access contraception.

It's not real. It was a publicity thing, it was supposed to show how horrible it is to allow employers the option to not cover birth control as part of their health insurance. It pretty severely misrepresents that issue as well.

But don't freak out too much, bring your heart rate back to normal {{gmbteach}} It isn't real, it's a bad joke is all.

 

[gmbteach]

WTF? Where do they get off on dictating a person's right to access birth control? If they do that they are basically (IMO) dictating that the woman must remain celibate. Failing that, if the woman did fall pregnant, I believe this could hold up in court and allow her to sue her employer for the costs of raising any child conceived during this time because they are not allowed to access contraception.

It's not real. It was a publicity thing, it was supposed to show how horrible it is to allow employers the option to not cover birth control as part of their health insurance. It pretty severely misrepresents that issue as well.

But don't freak out too much, bring your heart rate back to normal {{gmbteach}} It isn't real, it's a bad joke is all.

Heart rate normal. Thanks Emily. I am glad it isn't real. Sorry, but sometimes I think you guys in the states have some weird things going on... *shakes head...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...lip_is_insulting_and_distorts_the_issue_.html

View attachment 1790

Except that it's not real.

Before the Senate tabled the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to deny insurance coverage for contraceptives and other health care based on moral or religious objections, the cool kids on the Interwebs were all passing around an imagined “Employer Authorization for Contraception” to show just how scary the world would be if the Blunt Amendment passed.

I didn't say it was real. If you click the link, you see it is it is obviously a put up job. But the bill granting the employer the right to deny payment for insurance that covers contraception is very real.

 

[RavenSky]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_facto...lip_is_insulting_and_distorts_the_issue_.html

View attachment 1790

WTF? Where do they get off on dictating a person's right to access birth control? If they do that they are basically (IMO) dictating that the woman must remain celibate. Failing that, if the woman did fall pregnant, I believe this could hold up in court and allow her to sue her employer for the costs of raising any child conceived during this time because they are not allowed to access contraception.

That was actually from a political ad, and not an actual permission slip

Derec was correct that I was referring to the Hobby Lobby ruling wherein employers can now decide to eliminate birth control coverage from their health insurance policies, thereby effectively forbidding it to their female employees due to the costs.

 

[gmbteach]

WTF? Where do they get off on dictating a person's right to access birth control? If they do that they are basically (IMO) dictating that the woman must remain celibate. Failing that, if the woman did fall pregnant, I believe this could hold up in court and allow her to sue her employer for the costs of raising any child conceived during this time because they are not allowed to access contraception.

That was actually from a political ad, and not an actual permission slip

Derec was correct that I was referring to the Hobby Lobby ruling wherein employers can now decide to eliminate birth control coverage from their health insurance policies, thereby effectively forbidding it to their female employees due to the costs.

thanks guys..

 

[RavenSky]

I don't actually disagree with most of what you've said here. I wish I could imagine a society wherein such a plan would be possible.

- - - Updated - - -

By the same reasoning, can a man rape a woman and then sue her for custody of the kid?

In many states he can't even get visitation rights.

In most states he can

- - - Updated - - -

Are you for real? If so, this offends me on so many levels.

It's not her getting birth control that is the issue there but rather birth control being covered by employer's health insurance.

Btw, why is female birth control free under Obamacare but male birth control isn't?

Condoms are not by prescription. Female OTC contraception is not covered by insurance either.

Viagra for men is though.

Well that is fucked up. The government supports the right for a man to have a sustained erection, but not the woman's right to have contraception? Sorry - as I said - that is FUBAR!!

The current government actually fully supports a woman's right to access birth control via the Affordable Care Act. It is the right wing nut cases in both government and corporations that continue to try to control women via out reproductive systems.