Alyssa Milano's Strike

Enid

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Posts
7,326
Media
10
Likes
17,472
Points
393
Age
53
Location
Arlington, Texas, US
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
Yes, it's her body... and she desires about an abortion.
But it still remains complicated because it includes two parties. No matter what. the reason are health issues and the moral question of "killing" an 8 month old baby ;)
And this creates a problem...
The husband doesn't want a child, the woman refuse to do an abortion.
Why should he care for the child?
Why?
It's the woman's body.. if they have full control over it, shouldn't they carry the full burden of protection?



If I own a car and refuse to lock it up, it's me who has to pay the costs if it gets stolen...




That's what I think makes it complicated.

If you argue a woman has full control of her body and abortion is legal, you can't argue men have to carry 50% of the consequences.
Sure, it's logical that you can't force a woman to do, or not to do an abortion, but it doesn't has to mean man have to accept it without "compensation".



Child support is for the child. If a man has heterosexual sex, even with protection, he has to recognize that contraception does fail in some cases. Therefore, he is just as responsible for that child as the mother is, if she chooses to carry that child to term.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But he never wanted the child... why should he care for it?
If the woman doesn't want the child she does an abortion and therefore doesn't has to care.

Currently man can get forced to care for something they never wanted.
Child support is for the child. If a man has heterosexual sex, even with protection, he has to recognize that contraception does fail in some cases. Therefore, he is just as responsible for that child as the mother is, if she chooses to carry that child to term.
No... these are two different cases.

Both, Male and female agree to have protected sex. Both know that there is the possibility to get pregnant even with protection.
But just like a base jump, you don't think about possible consequences. You expect that everything will work as expected.

Now the unexpected happens. This creates a situation BOTH haven't thought about. Now they will have to sort out if they want the child or not...


If you want full responsibility right from the start, they would have to discuss about a possible child, right after they agreed to have a sex.

If they ignore this possibility and start to discuss it only in case of pregnancy, they positions are no longer equal.
Woman desite, males have to accept.

Child support is for the child.
In this case you could argue the best for the child is to get born...
But in this case the only question is "what is best for the mother"


The father never shows up in any of these cases... he only shows up when it's about the consequences.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gj816

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,952
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
So since there is no exception for rape I assume the government will foot the bill for the care of the child until the age of 18? Why should a woman be expected to pay for the care of a child she never wanted to make and was forced to have?

In the minds of the turds who voted for this bill the woman deserved to be raped, wanted to be raped and could only get pregnant if she wanted to. We've been down this path before.
 
  • Like
Reactions: b.c.

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,952
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
while I agree, you may notice the discrepancy as, don't you?

It needs two to make a baby, but the desitions about it are with the mother only, the first 9 month.

In total it's more difficult than many want to make it look like.

If the father doesn't want the child he should be allowed to sign away all parental rights and responsibilities but only if he and the mother are not married and not a couple. (I knew a few guys who did this long ago when they got casual sex partners pregnant who decided to keep their babies. Legally the fathers could not have any contact with the child unless the mother allowed it.)
If you're a couple and you get your woman pregnant you're on the hook if she wants to keep the child. No court in the land is going to oversee the household budget to make sure a married father and mother pay equally to raise their children based on who wanted them and who didn't.[/QUOTE]
Why?
If the husband doesn't want a child, maybe even had a vasectomy, but they get pregnant and the mother keeps the child... what if they divorce, does he has to pay for this child as well?[/QUOTE]

You are in effect blaming the woman totally for the baby, not acknowleding that she could not get pregnant on her own. Men would be signing away parental rights hand over fist to get out of child support. The idea that they can father a child and walk away is idiocy in the extreme. If a woman does or does not want an abortion it should be her choice period. Her decision is hers alone and for whatever reason she wants. It should not have to be jusftified. Men need to take responsibity for their actions as well and be accountable for them financially as well. No, men can't have an abortion, maybe the vasectomy failed, maybe the condom broke, the pill did not work, but he still made the decision to have sex and this is the consequence of that action. A child has needs and did not have the choice to be born, that takes precedence over "fair" or anything else.
 
Joined
Apr 16, 2006
Posts
23,298
Media
0
Likes
11,424
Points
358

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,308
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
No the father doesn't have the right because it's not his body doing the gestating.

A court could force him to pay childcare. If it's not his choice that she become pregnant, why should he have to pay?
Just sayin'. I do think he should have to pay, but the question remains.
 

twoton

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 28, 2011
Posts
7,865
Media
1
Likes
8,308
Points
268
Location
Mid Atlantic
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The idea that they can father a child and walk away is idiocy in the extreme.

But it happens all the time. A woman has a baby, the father convinces her to leave his name out of it, and he walks away. With no father listed, he's off the hook, and she's entitled to more public assistance.

Of course, this is anecdotal, but: a friend of mine has a brother who has fathered 11 or 12 children with a few different women. My friend knows how "the system" works and explained it to me.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
And this creates a problem...
The husband doesn't want a child, the woman refuse to do an abortion.
Why should he care for the child?

A court could force him to pay childcare. If it's not his choice that she become pregnant, why should he have to pay?


Because he created that child in a social institution called marriage which was/is designed to make babies.

The catholic church still prohibits men and women from marrying if they are obviously infertile, impotent or otherwise incapable of having children, for example they won't marry paraplegic men and women. The whole point of marriage is to procreate. In their canon law and from the pulpit they preach that the word matrimony comes from the Latin mater or mother and thus the meaning of marriage is to create or bring into motherhood.

Why men don't understand this escapes me. Marriage is matrimony not patrimony.

Around the world most of our civil law comes from ancient religions. Many are completely out of date, violate individual liberty or both.

It's very simple. If a man doesn't want to pay for a child he should not have sex with a woman.

Abortion is even simpler. It's the woman's body and agency until the fetus is viable outside the uterus.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Because he created that child in a social institution called marriage which was/is designed to make babies.
so, no marriage for gays and heterosexuals who can't reproduce or don't want to?

I would argue, if two people agree that they want to marry they can and if they agree not to have kids they can have as well...
If one chance his mind, not matter what the reason is, the whole situation needs to be discussed again. If they still disagree, they should separate and no one should have to pay a price for it.
Same could for the question, children or not.


While I agree the marriage should be an exception of the question "does the father has to pay?" - he should have to...

But the question in combination with marriage expresses even better how difficult the question is.

The catholic church still prohibits men and women from marrying if they are obviously infertile, impotent or otherwise incapable of having children, for example they won't marry paraplegic men and women. The whole point of marriage is to procreate. In their canon law and from the pulpit they preach that the word matrimony comes from the Latin mater or mother and thus the meaning of marriage is to create or bring into motherhood.

The catholic church also argues that abortion is murder...

If you want to use the church as a role model, you won't have this question.
Marriage is for reproduction and abortion is illegal. Period, no questions.

All I say, that with freedom comes complexity and tjis question isn't as simply as many want to make it look like
Why men don't understand this escapes me. Marriage is matrimony not patrimony.
who cares... what about equality?

But maybe that's the reason why more and more men refuse to marry... while woman demand equality in public they are little dictators in the private ;)
Around the world most of our civil law comes from ancient religions. Many are completely out of date, violate individual liberty or both.

It's very simple. If a man doesn't want to pay for a child he should not have sex with a woman.
and if a woman doesn't want to have a child, she can fuck around and do abortions...

That's the picture of our society you want to raise? Back to the good old days, just reverse the roles...
Abortion is even simpler. It's the woman's body and agency until the fetus is viable outside the uterus.
Correct it is...
But then she has to carry all of the consequences.

It's her body and if she doesn't want to have a baby and doesn't want to have an abortion, she shouldn't have sex. If she still has, she shouldn't expect that any Male will pay for the child.

Sounds fair? I doubt so... but that's exactly the same argumentation you use.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
so, no marriage for gays and heterosexuals who can't reproduce or don't want to?

That's not what I meant and you know it. Don't be disingenuous. The catholic church doesn't accept abortion, birth control, gay union or homosexuality. Neither do many Muslim nations under Sharia. Not my fault they have their heads up the asses of their ancient religions.

If you want to use the church as a role model,

I don't in case you thought I did. I am pro-choice, pro-equal rights for women and pro-LGBT. The church isn't. I brought up the RCC to illustrate that many of our civil laws come from ancient religious law and tradition, marriage law included. Until those laws change we are stuck with them.

If it were up to me "marriage" would not exist in civil law because it's a religious institution which violates the separation of church and state. It should have been replaced with "civil union" in 1791 when our Bill of Rights was ratified. Alas state. governments still issue "marriage" licenses and the family law behind it remains steeped in ancient religious definitions of what marriage is: making or adopting children and raising them.

But maybe that's the reason why more and more men refuse to marry... while woman demand equality in public they are little dictators in the private

It's more women refusing marry, not men, perhaps because women are tired of men acting like little dictators. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enid

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
That's not what I meant and you know it. Don't be disingenuous. The catholic church doesn't accept abortion, birth control, gay union or homosexuality. Neither do many Muslim nations under Sharia. Not my fault they have their heads up the asses of their ancient religions.
well the argument "marriage was/is designed to make babies" implies that it's not for those who can't make babies...
I don't in case you thought I did. I am pro-choice, pro-equal rights for women and pro-LGBT. The church isn't. I brought up the RCC to illustrate that many of our civil laws come from ancient religious law and tradition, marriage law included. Until those laws change we are stuck with them.
you used the church to back your point...
That's why I think it's correct to point out what the church also believes.

But you are right, laws are man made and therefore can be changed.
While we freed ourselves from the church in every case, we shouldn't get back to the church to defend inequality.
If it were up to me "marriage" would not exist in civil law because it's a religious institution which violates the separation of church and state. It should have been replaced with "civil union" in 1791 when our Bill of Rights was ratified. Alas state. governments still issue "marriage" licenses and the family law behind it remains steeped in ancient religious definitions of what marriage is: making or adopting children and raising them.



It's more women refusing marry, not men, perhaps because women are tired of men acting like little dictators. ;)
You think so?
Not my problem, I prefer men anyway ;)
 

keenobserver

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2015
Posts
8,550
Media
0
Likes
13,952
Points
433
Location
east coast usa
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But it happens all the time. A woman has a baby, the father convinces her to leave his name out of it, and he walks away. With no father listed, he's off the hook, and she's entitled to more public assistance.

Of course, this is anecdotal, but: a friend of mine has a brother who has fathered 11 or 12 children with a few different women. My friend knows how "the system" works and explained it to me.

In my state, you name the daddy or you have a hard time getting any help. If a woman chooses not to take support or press for it, that is on her, but the state will make an effort to collect if the father is known. It is not a perfect system, but allowing fathers to legally renounce their responsibility for paternity is nuts. I have a relative who like your friend's brother fathered several children out of wedlock and abandoned. The state jailed him and seized his mechanics tools (value 50K) and garnished him like forever. He served over a year in prison for failure to pay child support.
 

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
well the argument "marriage was/is designed to make babies" implies that it's not for those who can't make babies...

Not my argument. That's the religious argument which which I do not agree. Our laws come from those religions.
 

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Not my argument. That's the religious argument which which I do not agree. Our laws come from those religions.
Never the less... you used it to justify why a husband has to pay for a child he never wanted.

But I get that you don't share the world view of the church and that you support personal freedom and equal rights.
So do I.

I think men should take their responsibility, even if they get an unwanted child... I just think that here lies a problem barely anyone talks about.
Abortion is such a hot topic that it gets marginalised to "it's my body, I desire about it" (and don't dare to question anything) - this makes it impossible to talk about other flaws this system contains.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twoton

halcyondays

Worshipped Member
Joined
Feb 22, 2014
Posts
6,440
Media
2
Likes
10,513
Points
208
Location
US
Sexuality
80% Straight, 20% Gay
Gender
Male
Never the less... you used it to justify why a husband has to pay for a child he never wanted.

Again not my justification. Religion's justification which lingers in civil law.

Again if a man doesn't want to pay for a child he should refrain from procreative sex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Enid

Perados

Superior Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2007
Posts
11,002
Media
9
Likes
2,505
Points
333
Location
Germany
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Again not my justification. Religion's justification which lingers in civil law.

Again if a man doesn't want to pay for a child he should refrain from procreative sex.
ItsI a bullshit arguement...
You could argue the other way and say it's the woman's body that's why they have to care for it.

This won't get us anywhere.
 

Enid

Worshipped Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Posts
7,326
Media
10
Likes
17,472
Points
393
Age
53
Location
Arlington, Texas, US
Sexuality
Unsure
Gender
Female
ItsI a bullshit arguement...
You could argue the other way and say it's the woman's body that's why they have to care for it.

This won't get us anywhere.


Jeez, are you thick, he wasn't arguing that point at all. Halcyondays merely brought it up as a salient point relevant to the discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MisterB