Who Should Pay Child Support? (Split from Roe v Wade is on deck)

[Loren Pechtel]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

You want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

Oh, wait: you think all the choices should belong to men. And they can be. Happiness lies in their hands.

Note that what I proposed allows a woman to make the choice--only that she needs to do so before they have sex.

 

[Toni]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

You want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

Oh, wait: you think all the choices should belong to men. And they can be. Happiness lies in their hands.

Note that what I proposed allows a woman to make the choice--only that she needs to do so before they have sex.

How kind of you.

Note that my proposal also allows a man to make a choice. Before he has sex. So that the woman can also make decisions about his suitability as a sex partner not to mention his character.

 

[Metaphor]

Whoever thought condoms are 100% effective? Never have I posted such a thing.

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

Why? Don't try and tell me you would honour any such agreement. That you would not demand the State extract money from the father no matter what he said up front?

Why on earth would I care to have sex with such a selfish, shortsighted person who is unwilling to take responsibility for birth control or any progeny that might result from such failure? Why would i care to engage in intimate contact with someone who is unwilling to assume their fair share of responsibility?

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

You want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

Oh, wait: you think all the choices should belong to men. And they can be. Happiness lies in their hands.

Note that what I proposed allows a woman to make the choice--only that she needs to do so before they have sex.

How kind of you.

Note that my proposal also allows a man to make a choice. Before he has sex. So that the woman can also make decisions about his suitability as a sex partner not to mention his character.

Still waiting for an answer, Toni.

Do you intend to let a man out of any obligation provided the woman signed an agreement before sex saying as such?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

What the actual fuck, Loren?

I’m not capable of becoming pregnant! I’m not sleeping with someone in hopes of trapping him into making me pregnant at my age or at any age.

You fail to understand.

A couple agrees that if they have an oops that they will abort. You want that agreement to mean nothing, she gets to decide anew when it actually happens.

I really thought much better than of you than your contributions in this thread. You’re intelligent and educated. You’re married to a woman you seem to love. Yet you seem to hold women in general in such contempt that is rarely seen in the US outside of the GOP.

No. I expect women to receive equal treatment, I object to systems that are unfair in either direction. You always take the path that benefits the woman, right or wrong. That's opposite to but no better than the old approach of always favoring the man.

No--you mentioned only what the WOMAN had to do. You assume that the man doesn't want her to continue the pregnancy. Actually, a lot of men DO want her to continue the pregnancy, whether she wants to or not.

I DO take all positions that give a woman autonomy over her body. Men who do not want to become responsible for a pregnancy have plenty of choices to make: vasectomy, condoms, or abstinence. Or only having sex with someone who cannot get pregnant.

A lot of people feel differently about whether they welcome a pregnancy AFTER they become pregnant. Once something abstract like a potential pregnancy becomes concrete like a real pregnancy, the calculus changes for a lot of people. Male and female. The risks a woman takes by becoming pregnant, even if she has an abortion or a miscarriage, are substantially and materially much greater than those risks a man takes. Even if they were equal: it is still her body. She gets to choose.

... but, what about the guy?

 

[Jarhyn]

Fundamentally, you want the right to make an agreement and then go back on it if you change your mind.

What the actual fuck, Loren?

I’m not capable of becoming pregnant! I’m not sleeping with someone in hopes of trapping him into making me pregnant at my age or at any age.

You fail to understand.

A couple agrees that if they have an oops that they will abort. You want that agreement to mean nothing, she gets to decide anew when it actually happens.

I really thought much better than of you than your contributions in this thread. You’re intelligent and educated. You’re married to a woman you seem to love. Yet you seem to hold women in general in such contempt that is rarely seen in the US outside of the GOP.

No. I expect women to receive equal treatment, I object to systems that are unfair in either direction. You always take the path that benefits the woman, right or wrong. That's opposite to but no better than the old approach of always favoring the man.

No--you mentioned only what the WOMAN had to do. You assume that the man doesn't want her to continue the pregnancy. Actually, a lot of men DO want her to continue the pregnancy, whether she wants to or not.

I DO take all positions that give a woman autonomy over her body. Men who do not want to become responsible for a pregnancy have plenty of choices to make: vasectomy, condoms, or abstinence. Or only having sex with someone who cannot get pregnant.

A lot of people feel differently about whether they welcome a pregnancy AFTER they become pregnant. Once something abstract like a potential pregnancy becomes concrete like a real pregnancy, the calculus changes for a lot of people. Male and female. The risks a woman takes by becoming pregnant, even if she has an abortion or a miscarriage, are substantially and materially much greater than those risks a man takes. Even if they were equal: it is still her body. She gets to choose.

... but, what about the guy?

Let him be expected to pay sperms insurance. If he wants to risk letting them loose, he gets to pay into the shared risk pool for that.

Don't want to pay the shared risk pool? Give up having sperms.

Or be married, and on the hook for whatever children come into that.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

This is off topic. How many times does that need to be stated?

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

This is off topic. How many times does that need to be stated?

Was it stated even once? Who determined it was off topic?

If my request for Toni to clarify her statement was off topic, then so was her statement. Since the thread is about abortion and responsibility, it does not seem to me off topic in the slightest.

Toni has posted many times since she made this statement but curiously has not come back to clarify this. I have a certain belief about why she has refused to clarify it, but I will wait for her to clarify it (if she does).

 

[TomC]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

This is off topic. How many times does that need to be stated?

No it isn't.

Either parents who made a baby have a responsibility that results from the choice they made or they don't.

It's the blatant sexism of feminism.
"Women get to choose parenthood, after the fact, but men do not." that's so blatantly gender bigotry.

Tom

I didn't plan on letting feminists get me to come back to this conversation. Dang.

 

[Angry Floof]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

 

[Angry Floof]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement. Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

 

[Metaphor]

I wrote what I did: that the man should sign a document accepting or refusing to accept responsibilities for any unplanned conception prior to sex so that the woman would be able to make an informed decision.

And if a man has signed such a document, you agree that he should be absolved from any legal responsibility if the women becomes pregnant?

I'm still interested in your answer to this, Toni.

I'm still waiting.

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

After I submitted my post, I suspected that's what you might mean. So then why question her about her principles when you're just going to accuse her of not telling the truth about her principles?

I don't question her when she says something I expect her to say.

But when she says something I do not expect from her, because it conflicts with her views expressed in the past, I question it.

Toni has quite vocally supported the idea that non-biological fathers, after having discovered that they are not the biological parent of children they previously thought were their biological children, should be forced by the State to continue to pay child support. This seems in conflict to me to releasing from obligation a man who actually is the biological father.

And I don't see why she would not support that culture. That's a written agreement.

I have my reasons for suspecting she didn't actually mean what she wrote. And my suspicions that I was right to doubt her get stronger the more she continues to post whilst ignoring my own request for clarification.

Anyway, the point was that if a man refuses responsibility for a pregnancy resulting from his having sex with her, she will then be informed before she decides whether or not to have sex with him. If they're having unprotected sex, why go to the trouble of a contract when you know about birth control?

Maybe your mistrust of Toni's sticking to her principles has more to do with mistrusting her (or any woman's) ability to control themselves when choosing sex partners. I find that a lot of men have trouble believing that women don't think with their dicks.

Yes, your ridiculous, nasty assertion aside, all am I asking for is Toni's confirmation that she supports what she said she supports.

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

 

[prideandfall]

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

metaphor, if a 25 year old man agrees to sex with a woman, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and the child that may arise, do you support that YOU should have financial responsibility for that child if the woman is physically unable to provide?

this comes down to a core issue that people don't want to face:
in a society that has A. breeding, and B. class based resource hoarding, you are going to end up with scenarios wherein people breed who are unable to provide basic necessities to that child within the confines of the capitalist system in which they live.

at that point, you have two options:
1. provide some sort of assistance to the woman to aid in raising the spawn in an ostensibly modern society - ie, having things like stable housing, nutrition, and education.
2. don't do any of that, and fuck 'em and just breed a large caste of underfed ignorant serfs

or i guess you could also have state-run child rearing, but i'm pretty sure you'd shit not only your pants but the pants of everyone in a 5 mile radius the first time the government run child-raising institution broached the subject of the gays or whatever, so that's pretty much out.

that means we provide financial assistance to women with children... not for the women, not as a pay-out to them, but as a way to provide modern living for a member of the future generation of our species and try to help make sure it gets things like a basic education and a stable enough living environment it can grow up to be functional and not end up a drug-addled hobo.

so, for that to happen, we have 2 options:
1. the state pays the woman out of your taxes
2. the state compels the guy who fucked the baby into her to pay her

you people get so. fucking. uppity. about the idea of a system wherein a private citizen pays for an issue they either caused or were heavily involved in after the fact, without ever seeming to stop and think for one second what the alternative would be if that system weren't in place.

so which is it, metaphor?
do you want all child support to be paid for out of your taxes?
or do you want to just bulldoze every underfunded child into a slave-pit?

 

[Metaphor]

Toni, if a 25 year old woman agrees to sex with a man, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and child that may arise, do you support that he should never have a legal obligation toward that potential child?

metaphor, if a 25 year old man agrees to sex with a woman, and signs a document agreeing she will be solely responsible for the pregnancy and the child that may arise, do you support that YOU should have financial responsibility for that child if the woman is physically unable to provide?

This is not about what I believe.

It is about what Toni claimed. She claimed she would support a system where men could be released from parenthood obligation if the woman agreed, before sex, that she would take sole responsibility.

I suspect Toni does not actually support that, even though she wrote:

My position is that if a man is unwilling to support whatever choice his sex partner(s) make as a result of his orgasm, then he should be upfront about that, in writing, before engaging in any activity that might lead to his orgasm.

And no, I do not personally have financial responsibility for someone else's child.

this comes down to a core issue that people don't want to face:
in a society that has A. breeding, and B. class based resource hoarding, you are going to end up with scenarios wherein people breed who are unable to provide basic necessities to that child within the confines of the capitalist system in which they live.

at that point, you have two options:
1. provide some sort of assistance to the woman to aid in raising the spawn in an ostensibly modern society - ie, having things like stable housing, nutrition, and education.
2. don't do any of that, and fuck 'em and just breed a large caste of underfed ignorant serfs

or i guess you could also have state-run child rearing, but i'm pretty sure you'd shit not only your pants but the pants of everyone in a 5 mile radius the first time the government run child-raising institution broached the subject of the gays or whatever, so that's pretty much out.

I'm not sure how to process all of this brain riot, but my society already provides option #1.

that means we provide financial assistance to women with children... not for the women, not as a pay-out to them, but as a way to provide modern living for a member of the future generation of our species and try to help make sure it gets things like a basic education and a stable enough living environment it can grow up to be functional and not end up a drug-addled hobo.

so, for that to happen, we have 2 options:
1. the state pays the woman out of your taxes
2. the state compels the guy who fucked the baby into her to pay her

I am asking Toni why she appears to support an opt out for biological fathers in the case of number 2.

Toni, do you support State compulsion of income transference from a bio father to the mother, even in cases where he had an explicit agreement with the woman to not be responsible?

you people

lol

get so. fucking. uppity. about the idea of a system wherein a private citizen pays for an issue they either caused or were heavily involved in after the fact, without ever seeming to stop and think for one second what the alternative would be if that system weren't in place.

The alternative is already in place.

so which is it, metaphor?
do you want all child support to be paid for out of your taxes?
or do you want to just bulldoze every underfunded child into a slave-pit?

I have a third option: fuck your false dichotomies!

 

[prideandfall]

This is not about what I believe.

well considering that "this" is a post you replied to, and it was my post, and it was directed at you, it actually is about what you believe.

It is about what Toni claimed. She claimed she would support a system where men could be released from parenthood obligation if the woman agreed, before sex, that she would take sole responsibility.

I suspect Toni does not actually support that, even though she wrote:

i don't give two shits about what toni said or what she thinks, about anything. i didn't ask toni. i asked you.

And no, I do not personally have financial responsibility for someone else's child.

shame, because that would explain so many things about you if some coke-fueled bender in 90s resulted in you tripping dick-first into one of your fag hags and she's been after you to support a child who came out as gender non-binary.

I'm not sure how to process all of this brain riot, but my society already provides option #1.

yes, it does - largely by compelling men to pay child support.

I have a third option: fuck your false dichotomies!

so denial of reality then. gotcha.

 

[Metaphor]

This is not about what I believe.

well considering that "this" is a post you replied to, and it was my post, and it was directed at you, it actually is about what you believe.

It is about what Toni claimed. She claimed she would support a system where men could be released from parenthood obligation if the woman agreed, before sex, that she would take sole responsibility.

I suspect Toni does not actually support that, even though she wrote:

i don't give two shits about what toni said or what she thinks, about anything. i didn't ask toni. i asked you.

And no, I do not personally have financial responsibility for someone else's child.

shame, because that would explain so many things about you if some coke-fueled bender in 90s resulted in you tripping dick-first into one of your fag hags and she's been after you to support a child who came out as gender non-binary.

I've been drinking Diet Coke since the 1990s but I don't think it resulted in any benders.

Also, I don't know if you have your fantasy 'straight', as it were. If I had a biological child, it would be my child, not someone else's.

I'm not sure how to process all of this brain riot, but my society already provides option #1.

yes, it does - largely by compelling men to pay child support.

I have a third option: fuck your false dichotomies!

so denial of reality then. gotcha.

Non.

 

[Bomb#20]

Why should she respond? The answer is right there in her comment that you replied to with your doofus non sequitur question. If he accepted responsibility, then he should not be absolved from responsibility should she choose to have sex and subsequently get pregnant. If he refuses responsibility, she may choose to say no to sex at all. When she chooses whether to have sex with him or not, it will be an informed decision.

No, her answer is not right there.

Does Toni support a culture where a man can be off the hook legally if a woman signed a written agreement saying he would have no responsibility for a child?

Toni said she supported that culture but I do not believe her.

People's attitudes to that question tend to be complicated and nuanced, and can't necessarily be defended intelligibly. This is reflected in social policy. For example, under current law, a California court will honor such a contract or treat it as wastepaper, depending on whether after they sign the agreement the two parents make the baby with a turkey baster or do it the old-fashioned way.

 

[Jarhyn]

And so still, there seems to be no point here at which anyone has presented any intelligible argument against the idea that "pregnancy theoretic males" ought pay their responsibility forward to a shared risk pool rather than have any power at all to invoke a contract against responsibility.

At that point, their contract to have no responsibility for any child produced by sex is signed with their own vasectomies, or signed with the history of their insurance payments.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

And no, I do not personally have financial responsibility for someone else's child.

In Australia? You don't pay taxes?