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

[Bomb#20]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

An agreement about what the couple will do is irrelevant because the baby didn't sign it.

Once upon a time, Toni came to me with a business proposition...

Toni: Hey Bomb, with my ace saleswomanship and your ace chemistry skillset, we'd be a winning team. Let's open the fireworks factory of my dreams!
Me: Wait, what? You think just because high school pyromaniacs all grow up to be programmers and I'm a programmer, that I must want to blow stuff up?
Toni: Actually it was your screen name that made me think that. Whatever. Do it for the money.
Me. Hmm. Where would we put this factory?
Toni: I own a vacant lot here. [Shows me a map.]
Me: I don't know... That's right next door to Loren's house.
Toni: Don't worry about liability -- you'll practice safe chemistry. Besides, I'm the money woman; if anything goes wrong I'll take responsibility.
Me: You'll sign a contract indemnifying me against lawsuits?
Toni: Sure thing, here you go. [Pulls already signed contract out of purse.]
Me: [Signs contract. Gets paid. Makes fireworks. Accidentally blows up Loren's house.]
Loren: Hey Judge! Toni's factory blew up my house! Make her pay!
Judge: Toni, pay the man.
Toni: Sorry, Your Honor, that's a perfectly fair judgment and I would if I could, but I'm broke. [Shows judge photo of burned out fireworks factory.]
Judge: Sorry Loren, she's judgment proof.
Loren: Just a second, Judge. Can't I sue Bomb#20 too?
Judge: It's a free country.
Loren: Hey Judge! Bomb#20 blew up my house! Make him pay!
Judge: Well Bomb, what have you got to say for yourself?
Me: [Shows judge the indemnity contract.]
Judge: That contract's not worth the paper it's printed on.
Me: Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?​

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

 

[Jarhyn]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

Because you are vying for a world where people can duck out of responsibility for another human life existing.

If anyone want to avoid responsibility, they can either pay their insurance or get snipped.

That's how a man signs the contract to walk away.

A thing short of that is irresponsible action, especially since he can in many cases use confusion and ambiguity over fatherhood to claim "wasn't me".

So no. You want the contract, you sign it with your consent to accept the shared risk, or snip snip and no risk.

It most certainly can't be "done in the bedroom" like "ooh, contracts get me so WET" like NO PLS..

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

You mean other than the whole issue of signing off on a legal contract that can have who knows what in it, before sex?

 

[Toni]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

Any normal thinking person who had an ounce of feeling or common sense would see ‘why it shouldn’t be.’ You sure saw what was ‘wrong’ with my counter, which was a pretty close mirror of your proposal only not quite so male centric. No: I dared to write something g that focused on the woman’s protections—abs the child’s.

As difficult as some seem to have with the concept, it is no longer a world where women are unable to vote, hold jobs, retain control of their own property, and their own lives.

If men wish to have sex with women, they need to step up and act like adults. If they ejaculate inside or near a vagina, or even engage in penis/vagina sex, they surely know that some sperm are present in the drop of fluid at the top of the penis and so better suit up if you’re going in! Because if you make a baby, through negligence or failure of birth control, the woman gets to make the decisions about whether to carry the pregnancy or terminate it. Because it is HER BODY. If there is a baby born, you get to make decisions about how you will help this child to grow into adulthood. Some if your contribution will be financial. So will the mother’s.

If that’s too big a burden to consider, just masturbate..

 

[Rhea]

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Because half of the couple does not have any right ever, to force the other half of the couple to do something with her body.

He is, literally, a bystander to the pregnancy.

After the pregnancy is over, they are both parents, or both not parents.
But at no time, ever, does he have a right to her body.

And if he doesn’t know that before sex, he should not be having sex.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

What about the "I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon." part? Toss aside the moral ick your proposal puts forward, I don't see how it is logistically possible.

 

[TomC]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

And if abortion isn't legal?

 

[TomC]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

And if abortion isn't legal?

That's not what we're talking about here.

If that happens then things get a lot more equal. But I'm talking about the RvW status quo. "It's not a child until the mother decides it's a child."
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

And if abortion isn't legal?

That's not what we're talking about here.

If that happens then things get a lot more equal.

If the man is responsible only for an abortion if abortion is legal, why should he be responsible for anything if abortion isn't an option? Can't there still be agreements for limited liability for the male whether abortion is legal or not? The male isn't intending to get the woman pregnant in either case. What about the tricky woman lying about being on "the pill"? Is abortion illegality going to not provide men protection from such tricky women?

But I'm talking about the RvW status quo. "It's not a child until the mother decides it's a child."

It isn't a child until it is born.

 

[Toni]

If you don't want the responsibility to have already done the work for that, get snipped.

Do you think that women are as capable and responsible?

Or is this just politically correct gender bigotry. Women can't be expected to take responsibility for their own Choices. Men can.
Is that what you're saying? It sure sounds that way to me. Unapologetic gender bigotry.
Tom

What? Are you postulating that men have sex with women and do not consider that a pregnancy —and an actual child might result from their decision to have sex with a woman?

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

And you're still not addressing the issue of why he only gets the choice before sex, she gets it after. Why is an agreement about what the couple will do irrelevant?

Are you seriously suggesting men and women have lawyers present (or at least a notary) right before having sex?

I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon.

It becomes some level of mania when one considers the ridiculousness of the agreement. The liability for the male is financial. The liability for the woman is financial, physical, psychological, and with some issues... permanent (and I'm not talking about the child).

You pride yourself for always coming up with hypothetical solutions to real world problems, but this solution isn't a solution. It isn't remotely a solution, and the only way to deal with this honestly, and toss away the idea that magical notarized pieces of paper are going to solve all of man's problems. And let's be honest, this is only about the man. This argument is saying 'fuck the woman' and 'fuck the child' with a nice heaping size of masculine apathy.

I see nothing in this that constitutes a refutation of it. You hate it but you're not showing why it shouldn't be.

What about the "I think you've fallen in love with the ridiculous hypothetical of legal liability waiver agreements being worked on, modified, signed off on and notarized... prior to intercourse. I mean, porn movies are gonna get pretty boring soon." part? Toss aside the moral ick your proposal puts forward, I don't see how it is logistically possible.

It's been some years but I think that Loren was among those outraged when some college campuses were suggesting signing consent documents as to what each person consented to happen before sex. My apologies if I've gotten that wrong.

 

[TomC]

If the man is responsible only for an abortion if abortion is legal, why should he be responsible for anything if abortion isn't an option?

Good question.
Irrelevant to my point, but an interesting hypothetical question.

Back in the olden days, men weren't unless they were married. Women were a lot more careful about banging some dude who wasn't even marriage material.

Not that there was no irresponsible sex, but there was a lot less of it.

Can't there still be agreements for limited liability for the male whether abortion is legal or not? The male isn't intending to get the woman pregnant in either case. What about the tricky woman lying about being on "the pill"? Is abortion illegality going to not provide men protection from such tricky women?

Good questions.
Irrelevant to my point, but interesting hypothetical questions.

It isn't a child until it is born.

You've never met a happily pregnant couple, have you?
Tom

 

[Toni]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

And if abortion isn't legal?

That's not what we're talking about here.

If that happens then things get a lot more equal. But I'm talking about the RvW status quo. "It's not a child until the mother decides it's a child."
Tom

Which is not what Roe v Wade says.

 

[Toni]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

Because he impregnated the woman.

What? Isn't that fair? I say that any man who becomes pregnant, growing an embryo in his uterus and facing the prospect of going through labor and/or surgery should also get to decide whether or not he wants to continue the pregnancy under the same conditions laid out by Roe v Wade.

 

[Toni]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

And if abortion isn't legal?

That's not what we're talking about here.

If that happens then things get a lot more equal. But I'm talking about the RvW status quo. "It's not a child until the mother decides it's a child."
Tom

Like hell things get a lot more equal. Get back to me when men risk their lives to carry a fetus to term.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If the man is responsible only for an abortion if abortion is legal, why should he be responsible for anything if abortion isn't an option?

Good question.
Irrelevant to my point, but an interesting hypothetical question.

Back in the olden days, men weren't unless they were married. Women were a lot more careful about banging some dude who wasn't even marriage material.

Not that there was no irresponsible sex, but there was a lot less of it.

SURE. Know what was also available back then? Legal abortion.

Can't there still be agreements for limited liability for the male whether abortion is legal or not? The male isn't intending to get the woman pregnant in either case. What about the tricky woman lying about being on "the pill"? Is abortion illegality going to not provide men protection from such tricky women?

Good questions.
Irrelevant to my point, but interesting hypothetical questions.

So man gets woman pregnant, cuts a check, walks away. Male Utopia. I think it is interesting that your position on men being able to walk away from a pregnancy via a cheap check hinges on whether abortion is available.

It isn't a child until it is born.

You've never met a happily pregnant couple, have you?

Being happy doesn't make a fetus a child.

Guy: So how was the first week with the newborn?
Couple: Just like when she was pregnant.

 

[Jarhyn]

Women should get the final say about whether to carry a pregnancy to term.

That's not what we're talking about. Nobody is disagreeing with that statement.

The question is, "Why does her decision to grow a fetus into a child obligate the man to pay child support?" Why is he obligated to more than the cost of an abortion? He has no say in the decision.

So far, the best justification amounts to "If you can't take the heat then stay out of the kitchen." But it only applies to men. I see that as hypocritical gender discrimination.
Tom

The man's decision to contribute to the risk of new life existing and losing leverage past that point over whether obligates him to either: not take that risk with any reasonable ability to remove the mitigation; already be paying for the risk to the extent of shared pool responsibility.

That means either "pay forward for child support with the pool of all Pregnancy Theoretic Males" or get snipped.

Just taking the risk in the physical availability of "dodging out of payments for liability" is that responsibility.

All unmarried pregnancy theoretic Males (and maybe even the married ones) have a responsibility to pay for their share of engaging in that risk against the public. If a PTM wants to not have kids, they have a responsibility to make that happen.

You can't sell someone a bag of seeds, seeds you know are viable and may grow and say "I'm going to participate in this economic transaction because I want to, so I sell you these seeds, because we both like economic transactions so much" and then after having sold and given them the seeds say "but only if you never plant them".

No. If you want to enforce that someone not grow something with your seeds, the ones you sold them because you wanted it to be a "real sale", you have to enforce it before the fact: sell unviable seeds. If you want it to be a real "make thick in the warm" "sale", you are STILL liable for selling them and for the consequences of what others can and will do, or for that matter you are liable when your method of "delivery" is throwing those seeds onto/into the ground of their property recklessly, when such seeds are sold.

In this way you have as much responsibility as, say, an illegal arms dealer has for selling guns to criminals. More even.

No. Either you have already paid your responsibility, explicitly accept responsibility, or make sure there is no need for responsibility in the first place.

There is no available "avoid responsibility after doing it anyway". If you do that you are explicitly accepting responsibility of the form of "we're going to MAKE you take responsibility."

"Explicitly accept responsibility" is too easy to dodge, though, so that one is right out, too.

 

[TomC]

That is not what Roe v Wade says.

No.
It's what feticide rights supporters say.

If the female parent chooses not to carry the fetus, the fetus is not a child. It's a clump of cells. Otherwise, abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human being.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is not what Roe v Wade says.

No.
It's what feticide rights supporters say.

If the female parent chooses not to carry the fetus, the fetus is not a child. It's a clump of cells. Otherwise, abortion is the deliberate destruction of a human being.
Tom

You love charging up the language. "Feticide", "deliberate destruction", "human being".

Odd, how this derail from the right to abortion then kind of derails itself right back to abortion. Additionally, the way TomC et al. talk about abortion, it isn't the "deliberate destruction of a human being", it is "getting the man off the hook" and if the woman doesn't "get the man off the hook" SHE MUST PAY.