Quote from MastodonNo, you see, thats what I'm trying to argue: I wasn't net decking, I was playing my own build of affinity. But I already have moved on, I just wanted to make a point
Consider for example the proceedings that we call "games". I mean board-games, card-games, ball-games, Olympic games, and so on. What is common to them all?—Don't say: "There must be something common, or they would not be called 'games' "—but look and see whether there is anything common to all.—For if you look at them you will not see something that is common to all, but similarities, relationships, and a whole series of them at that. To repeat: don't think, but look!—Look for example at board-games, with their multifarious relationships. Now pass to card-games; here you find many correspondences with the first group, but many common features drop out, and others appear. When we pass next to ball- games, much that is common is retained, but much is lost.—Are they all 'amusing'? Compare chess with noughts and crosses. Or is there always winning and losing, or competition between players? Think of patience. In ball games there is winning and losing; but when a child throws his ball at the wall and catches it again, this feature has disappeared. Look at the parts played by skill and luck; and at the difference between skill in chess and skill in tennis. Think now of games like ring-a-ring-a-roses; here is the element of amusement, but how many other characteristic features have disappeared! And we can go through the many, many other groups of games in the same way; can see how similarities crop up and disappear. And the result of this examination is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes similarities of detail.
I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities than "family resemblances"; for the various resemblances between members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait, temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.— And I shall say: 'games' form a family.
Quote from FaheyUSMCwould you ever consider these people who defended themselves at fault for doing so?
Quote from Captain_MorganA man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
Quote from draftguy2Nothing is Forcing the mother to give away the child, we are only saying the father should have the right to choose to not take part in that child's life in any manor. Should she than CHOOSE to take on the burdon herself that is HER choice. The hardship she choose to bear, Just like it was the male's chose to choose to not have anything to do with it. She has no more right too force the male from his funds then he does force her to abandon it. I am pretty sure we have child services run by the government where you can do just that give the child up.
Also on a side note, WHo are these women who think that abortion is murder BUT pre marital sex is AOK? I was under the impression that Pro Lifers tend to be the religious crowd which if they were following their faith (in most cases) wouldn't be having sex before marriage.
Quote from Blinking Spirit
Let's take abortion off the table right now. It may be legal, but it's still murder in the eyes of many women, and it's absurd to hold a woman responsible for her "deliberate choice" not to commit murder.
Quote from Blinking SpiritYou can take precautions to avoid the unwanted consequences of your actions, and these precautions can be 99+% effective, but if the consequences occur anyway then you remain responsible for them. If you drive carefully and defensively, but a deer jumps out in front of you and smashes up your car through no fault of your own, then you still have to pay to fix the damage. It's not even so much a matter of responsibility in the ethical sense as the simple fact that the damage is there, it's still going to be there no matter how much you say "not my fault!", and nobody else has any reason to pay for it (unless they're an insurance company and have agreed to do so beforehand).
Same deal with a baby. The baby may be unplanned, the result of failed contraception. Doesn't matter. It's here now, and it's not going to go anywhere. And it needs to eat. There are exactly two people in the world whose voluntary actions are responsible for this state of affairs, and if one person can't meet the baby's needs, the other has to make up the shortfall, because who else will?
Certain aspects of child support as it is implemented in the real world may be unfair, burdensome, or just plain inefficient - but the principle behind it is sound.
Quote from BurningPaladinThe dads income is only part of the formula, the needs of the child are also part of the rubric.
Even at a low rate of 25% that's still devastating to someone, especially someone with a low income.
And yes my opinion is always in the minority on these forums, they arent exactly filled with a balanced number viewpoints.
And what would they be hit with:
Quote from BurningPaladin@ermir You must really live in fairy tale land. Fathers can have their paychecks stripped to the point of getting 65$ left to survive off of. And you can get incarcerated for not paying child support.
Im sorry but in the real world child support payments can ruin you financially or get you in put in jail. The women doesnt bear a harsher burden then a man who is hit with child support.
As far as the issue at topic, I believe the father should have to be notified before an abortion can take place, and he should have to consent to the abortion and if the abortion happens with out this, he should be able to sue the women.
Quote from algebraYou can call it the mother's and the father's irresponsibility if you want. Either way which is better for society
1.) Parents that must be responsible for their children.
2.) Parents that can be responsible for their children
If you agree with number one then you would have a hard time arguing that men can get out of child support by saying "I don't want too," in the whiniest voice possible.
If you believe in number two then you believe in placing a burden on the state to take of children that the state had no part in creating. What gives us the right to burden the taxpayers.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
Quote from algebraBecause you are not forcing the man to give up his body.
It is my belief that forcing a woman to give birth is worse than forcing a man to pay child support.
So your real question is why do we as society all the government to force males to pay child support for a child they did not want.
I beleive it is to unburden the state. If fathers could shirk the responsibility of their actions you would definitely see a rise in orphans, abortions, and government assistance. It would create a huge increase in the welfare state.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
Quote from Timothy, MimeslayerBecause the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
Quote from Timothy, MimeslayerI think the man should most definitely have to pay child support. A man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex.
Quote from beast89
If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?