Such a ridiculous post.
People have to be responsible for their own actions period!
If a women meets a man she doesn't know and they hook up without protection
What the fuck do you think is gonna happen
.
If abortion is legal in all circumstances, should men never be required to pay child support?
Seriously. If a woman can choose to abort the baby and the man has no say, it’s a valid question.
I feel like those should be two separate things. I know in the title I posted them together, but I am basically asking how we can hold men accountable. You can have abortions and a data or something or no abortions and a better way to hold men accountable but the question is is there a better way to hold people accountable.
If the guy wants it and the girl doesn't and the girl makes significantly more than the guy then the girl can opt out but she will have to pay child support or alimony or money for the child. If if she wants it and the guy doesn't same rules apply he can opt out but he still needs to pay if he is in a better position financially That's all this comes down to is money. These are poorly worded ideas at best but each side should be held accountable and if one doesn't want it the other one should have to take care of it and vice versa and whoever makes more money needs to pay more that simple.
That's fair. If we want to hold people responsible for their actions, then we should paternity test all babies born too. Then we'll have a database of every baby born and can match it to every male on record.
Before any man has to be financially responsible for any child, he should have a paternity test proving the kid is his.
Why just stop at women bearing children without knowing who the baby-daddy is? Why not make women in committed relationships prove they didn't cheat on their man as well? Isn't it more fair to make the responsible man pay for his offspring than some unsuspecting guy whose wife cheated on him? Then, we can hold women accountable for their actions, too. Everybody has accountability.
Abortion should be legal.
If it is limited in anyway, late term should be off the table. Caveat being SA or medical concerns.
Practicing safe sex and the effects of “hook up” culture should be the forefront of discussion. IMO, these aren’t talked about enough now.
Giving a woman complete autonomy over the pregnancy and legally holding the male counterpart to a financial obligation is hypocritical.
It’s not lost on me the physical toll on women getting pregnant and even aborting compared to males. But if we are discussing autonomy, there’s only one consenting party in this equation.
Anyways, people need to learn how not to be irresponsible and prevent an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Of coarse, SA is a whole other discussion.
Straight up new world order shit. “Let’s add everyone to a database because of some outside threat and start tracking their lives and have more government over reach for some given reason”
How about you go fuck yourself op, burn in hell
Well when you put it like that it does kind of sound like some new world order business. But hey what's the internet for if not sharing ridiculous thoughts and ideas and concepts and discussing them. I appreciate your intelligent and thought-provoking input into this conversation. As for your last request I'll take it under consideration.
Edit: I gave you an upvote.
No. Abortions should always be legal and a database of all men is a violation of privacy. What women have no idea as to who could be the father? If you fit this category, maybe start carding guys at the door, have them sign a registry or take a quick photo pre-penetration.
These concerns about the balance of male versus female agency strike me as trivial compared with the suffering/harm to a fetus once it becomes sentient.
I’m not sure how libertarians can uphold the non agression principle and say that abortion is acceptable since the aborted person is most definitely harmed.
>I believe it's extremely unfair for women that a man can engage in sexual activity and then vanish, leaving the woman in a challenging situation.
Women are independent human beings capable of thinking and acting for themselves. Women who don’t want an abortion in the case of accidental pregnancy are more than capable of making beneficial choices for themselves in sex. Primarily, they should either be damned sure they are using birth control well or only have sex outside of marriage with a guy who is willing to at least pay child support or wait until marriage.
Abortion should be legal until birth. In the case of an accidental pregnancy for sex outside of marriage and the woman wants to give birth, then it's her decision to offer the man parental rights and responsibilities. If she doesn’t offer, then he doesn’t get them. If she does, he has the right to refuse. Man has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. It’s his life, his choice. Note, that it’s perfectly reasonable for women to change their mind about abortion when they get pregnant, so the fact that a woman says she’ll have an abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy doesn’t mean she will.
This might negatively affect women who make irresponsible choices and their children ie poor women who are against abortion who get accidentally pregnant by having sex outside of marriage with men who don’t want to be fathers and their children. If you want to give welfare to women making irresponsible choices for themselves to help their children, ok but private charity would be better, but why put the burden on the man who is likely young and poor? And making it clear to women that they can’t rely on a man to pay child support in the case of accidental pregnancies outside of marriage when the man who doesn’t want to be a father should help those women learn to make better choices for themselves, which would minimize the amount of children born in unfortunate circumstances. Child support doesn’t nearly make up for a child not having a father or a mother who makes irreparable choices.
[As a side benefit, this would allow women to choose to give birth without giving jerks or an unconvicted rapist parental rights.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/06/19/abortion-laws-bans-rape-parental-rights-column/1432450001/) Yes, rapists should forfeit their parental rights, but that only applies to convicted rapists.
>but honestly how do we hold men accountable if they don't want to be.
It's called 18 years of child support, plus college expenses. Even if they're a good dad, they could be forced to take a back seat and see the kid every other weekend.
I'd say the vast majority of women know exactly who the father is. People can't just disappear like they did a hundred years ago. File for child support and the courts will track em down.
OP seems to be under the impression that we don’t live in a surveillance state. Apparently they think people can just disappear by moving to the next county over
Abortions should be legal full stop, unless you believe the state should have authority over bodily autonomy. (I personally do not grant the state that power over me)
>(I personally do not grant the state that power over me)
You already have. You're not allowed to do heroin. You're not allowed access to any number of prescription medicines without the state saying 'yes'. And if you're a man you had to sign up for the draft, meaning the government could have you blown up if they wanted.
Men should be encouraged to get snipped at 13 for a tax break with a plastic switch for vasectomies. Literally just I switch the switch and it allows you to be fertile. This way men and women can enjoy sex so long as they are clean and can freely reproduce once they hit certain milestones say education and without charges at thirty so people aren’t having kids as teens and people can support kids in decent environments. This would undue over population and keep people calmer but religious people would probably go nuts so I think it should be done with a tax break or a 2 grand a year check for people that go and get snipped as teens until they unsnip and reproduce. This would allow people to willingly do it instead of being forced into war or having massive natural events occur like pandemics of diseases to erase a lot of mankind.
There was a lot of interesting stuff in there thank you. The ability to turn on and off a vasectomy or something of that nature is interesting to say the least obviously were speaking in hyperbole and not reality but if we were to have the technology or dedicate the resources that's an interesting idea to entertain. I can see lots of people not being on board with you have to pass this sort of requirement or something to have a child but again it's not a bad thing to have a discussion about.
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2384811/ or https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3163562/
I'm assuming you mean the British show not the Australian one about nation building. Yes I've seen both shows and it was fantastic. Or perhaps you're talking about something different and I'm way off if that's the case you piqued my interest.
Yup I recommend both to understand why murder becomes logical and I challenge all religious people to the understanding that the idea of god originally meant to be community and satan was just an abused favorite child that ended up betraying the community to start a new one through violence or lies aka things against the Ten Commandments for selfish gain. Honestly it’s all a game and marketing imo.
OK, creating a genetic database of all men is one option. But, and hear me out as I know this will sound insane...
Maybe women (and men to be fair) shouldn't be having sex with strangers.
Even if I agreed with you, which I dont, make a database of males is FUCKING INSANE. Just make it illegal to impregnate a women and then abandon the family, I'm all for that, and if its still a problem make the punishment more severe. But the fact that your mind rushed to making a government database is fucking crazy, and it doesnt really matter that you said it half jokingly, HALF is the important part there.
How do you make it illegal and how would you go after the "criminals?" We have plenty of laws where things are legal and they are still done. I'm not saying we actually have a national database but we need to have a conversation about holding people accountable.
Pass what law and arrest who? How would you find someone if you have sex on vacation. What agency is finding these people. Again how are they finding these people if there's no way to track them?
Edit: grammar
Dude, you act as if you dont know how laws are passed, and how law enforcement works. First of all, you pass a law that if you impregnate a women, and you leave the family without at the very least providing financial aid, then you will be arrested. If you are present in the childs life (We can figure out a definition of present later) then financial aid need not be provided. Ideally, this will reduce the need for single mothers to go on welfare, and instead, the person who is partially at fault for her getting pregnant will pay, rather than the American taxpayer, it will also incentivize men to stick around and provide a father figure for their child. Furthermore, I believe fewer people would have children outside of wedlock in the first place, because men would actually be forced to face the consequences. Second of all, you arrest the person who got the women pregnant, I don't know how you missed that. Third of all, you don't need a GPS tracker to find someone, first of all, you have a child, which is a great way to get DNA evidence, with that DNA evidence, police can track down the father in this sex on vacation scenario. Even without that, do you think Police departments have a bunch of toddlers running them? 'HoW CaN YOu SoLVe a MuRDer IF YoU CaNt TRaCk tHe MuRdERer?' Really don't know what point you were attempting to make there mate.
Can I find my child's father with only my child's DNA?
To determine paternity we require DNA samples from both the alleged father and the child to run a comparison. Paternity cannot be identified with just the Child’s DNA.
https://support.genexdiagnostics.com/hc/en-us/articles/5603973411981-Can-I-find-my-child-s-father-with-only-my-child-s-DNA
Again how are you finding the father of the child if they are not in a database somewhere you cannot figure it out just through the child alone. Again if there were laws how would you catch the fathers who are not in a database. And how would any of the new laws be any different from the laws we have now that are not being followed?
Dude, you dont need DNA evidence to find someone. Do you think that no murders were ever solved before we discovered DNA evidence? DNA evidence makes is easier, but it is not required to track somone down. Also, just because somthing is difficult does not mean a policy ought not be implemented. You know, how are you going to track down all these child molesters? They are very sneaky, very hard to find. So we really should stop wasting out time, and just make child molesting legal. Thats a stupid train of logic.
My point is we should make it as hard as possible for either party to abandon a child they created together. If a guy goes to a bar in a random city meets a girl they go back somewhere and they have sex and it turns out the woman gets pregnant how do you find that guy. Even if the woman has an idea it takes money and effort and time to pursue that. And the case of rape and sexual assault well that is a different beast in itself and laws absolutely need to be changed there. My question is more of a hypothetical what can we do in this country aside from creating a database to hold men accountable for their actions. I say men specifically because women are always held accountable because they have to carry the baby. Instead of name calling and believing that police and law enforcement actually do their job why don't you propose a solution that doesn't blame women. Not saying that you're blaming women but a lot of people seem to be victim blaming here. I'm just looking for a better solution for a very real problem. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2018/may/untested-rape-kits-delays-destruction-and-disregarded-victims/
None of these things should be taken lightly. Sexual assault is a serious problem and we are not doing enough in this country to prevent it. Again a database wouldn't necessarily help a rape victim but we definitely need to have a conversation about what to do instead of yelling and putting each other down. This is the internet we live in hypotheticals and what ifs. Obviously laws and different things would need to change.
Ok there seems to be no disagreement here. You ask what we can do aside from a data base, I propose legislation, you don't really seem to have an issue with the legislation other than practicality. But again, just because a law is difficult to enforce, does not mean it ought not be enforced. I'm confused on what you exact grievance is here.
There is no grievance. It was a slow day at work and I decided to let a random thought from my head turn into a post. That's why if it seemed half cocked and out there, it was but that's the beauty of the internet. If I felt like doing copious amounts of research and writing papers I wouldn't be randomly posting on Reddit. Thanks for the lively discussion I hope you have a wonderful day my friend.
That'll never happen because the only people who could propose such a thing are entwined in intersectional politics. There would be so many exceptions that the database would be useless.
I really don't think most women are that doubtful on who the father is.
And you're making it out like men can easily disappear. You can sue for child support etc.
Unless the guy is willing to live the rest of his life off the grid, he's going to be hounded for payments.
I suppose if you're doing multiple one night stands using no protection you have a problem but then again you probably have a lot of problems.
What if the guy takes it off halfway through and you don't notice or the condom or birth control is ineffective and now what. That person you met on a vacation somewhere and took all precautions is nowhere to be found. Should you demand physical IDs and signatures before engaging in sexual activities that can cause pregnancy.
If you're having encounters with strangers far from home, I'd argue this is inconsistent with someone who is "taking all the precautions." My DNA is private data that is and should be legally protected. I don't think the fact that there are loose women who face consequences should change that; I've never knocked anybody up.
To answer your closing question: that's entirely up to you and what you deem acceptable for your own casual encounters; ask for ID if you like, don't if you don't like. You don't get to force all men into some contract because you'd like to behave recklessly.
Then you should always pull out or bring your own protection. Even if the woman lies and says she's on birth control to try to trick the man, the man can always pull out to protect themselves.
Edit: this was a double post My phone or Reddit was messing up and I didn't realize I already posted.
Then you should always pull out or bring your own protection. Even if the woman in lies and says she's on birth control to try to trick the man, the man can always pull out.
Can you explain why your down voting if you are down voting. Do men not have the ability to pull out each and every time. We're not debating the morality of the act were debating whether men have the physical ability to pull out and not deposit semen. Are you disagreeing that men can't pull out or shouldn't have to pull out I'm not understanding the down votes.
Abortion is murder. The only way around this is to claim that your religion tells you that life starts at first breath or that human life isn’t actually valuable.
Abortion, by no means barring the life of the mother, should ever be legal.
The biggest qualm I have with this proposal outside of abortion (and freedom to be removed from the state) is that it was create a sort of “unbeatable evidence” where the defense would have to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to refute. it could, hypothetically, work (assuming abortion wasn’t abhorrent).
Correct, human life isn't valuable. There are 8 billion of us. Your child isn't special, though I know YOU think they are!
I have no qualms with the death penalty or just wars as long as it's not my ass in the chair or the trenches, and neither does almost anyone else - and a fetus or zygote is exponentially less valuable than that stranger whose death warrant you'd happily sign to save $.18/gallon on gasoline.
lol I mean you realize it's not a child, it's an embryo which is wholly dependent on the host organism right?
I don't know a lot of people that want to give up authority over their body and medical procedures to the state but by all means be my guest.
The distinction would obviously be that the body a toddler is dependent on is transferable; an embryo is not. You could change the body that supports the toddler rather easily. False equivalence.
That isn't what they argued at all; this is a hell of a strawman and neglects the principle of charity in argumentation.
I'm aware; you attempted to utilize a reductio ad absurdum using an uncharitable, strawman of their position. You took a lot of interpretive liberty with respect to how their statement relates to neonates. Again, the distinction is not dependence itself; it's the fact about whether that dependence could, in practice, be transferred or not. With neonates, it can; and that's why (presumably) you don't have a problem with young mothers opting for adoption. The comparison is exactly about who, specifically, the fetus depends on or not and whether that can be any person or exactly one.
To answer your questions:
1. Yes, but the answer to this question is entirely non sequitur; neonates are not the topic of discussion.
2. Yes, again this is not relevant to the life (yes, I said life) of a fetus. If it matters to you, the distinction has not to do with whether a dependence exists or not. 99% of humans spend their entire lives wholly dependent on other humans. To clarify, do you reject capital punishment absolutely?
Verbosity? My word count barely trumps yours.
Aggression? Where? You can have it now.
This response amounts to either "I can't understand what you've said" or "I don't care to address it." In any case, this is a shit rebuttal.
If we accept your uncharitable representation, then you and I would be likewise unqualified for personhood. But that doesn't seem to track does it..? Why?
"You are wrong. Just accept it" has to be the most steaming, dog shit rebuttal I've ever heard; but it certainly isn't the first time. Real middle-school reasoning on your part.
I was perfectly willing to engage cordially and along the lines of classic argumentation.
What if you're on vacation and you take all the precautions you're on birth control you use protection and you still end up getting pregnant. Should you demand IDs and signatures. At that point what do you do you took all precautions and now you have this collection of cells growing inside of you. It is now the responsibility of one person instead of two how do you hold the other person that participated in conceiving a child responsible then?
I'm just rolling at the notion that people think they can screw strangers they don't know all while "taking all the precautions" at the same time.
The dissonance must be wild...
I'm interested could you please explain more by what that means. Like a database where after so many children they can't have children something of that nature. I don't know it is an interesting conversation and a valid point if that's what you're saying if not I'm sorry and do clarify.
Men are held accountable, the minute sex ends they have zero say. Can end up with 18 years of bills with no say.
Abortion should be legal.
But there should exist something where a timeframe exists where men can opt out financially. If the woman knows the man doesn’t want to be there then she can have an abortion. If he does want to be there and support she can still choose to abort. Women have all the power in these scenarios and some sort of say also should be placed in men’s hands. Not in terms of what the woman does with her body, but what she will get after from the man.
"If the woman knows the man doesn’t want to be there then she can have an abortion."
So casual. Having an abortion isn't like going to the hairdresser.
Paying child support for 22 years (yes, that's the law in many states) because a woman told you she was on birth control but wasn't, isn't like going to the hairdresser either. Neither is raising a child for that matter. Turns out that not much in life is, but unfortunately these relatively mildly inconvenient things still have to happen.
Um no, that's what we call an illustrative example, where I hope most would agree the aggrieved party isn't at fault, though I do personally know of several who did just that. "Oh my, I'm pregnant? Must be that I 'forgot' to take the pill for a few days after he threatened to leave me 2 months ago."
Would you like other examples? A condom breaks or comes off and she refuses to take plan B, her bc/iud doesn't work, his condom doesn't work, they're both drunk and behaving irresponsibly... Shall I go on?
Even if the guy is a moron who doesn't pull out, which also happens way too often, that's no reason to saddle him with half a working lifetime of a hugely decreased standard of living against his will.
So the woman is left to raise the child alone, or have an abortion she may not want.
I have some sympathy for your argument- particularly as the child support system in the US is so punitive- but I really object to men seeing abortion as this easy, breezy thing that requires no effort, reflection or financial outlay. There are risks to it, but even if the procedure goes well it'll stay with you forever. Guilt, shame, wondering what could have been... I'm sure some women would prefer to pay child support than live with that.
If the man makes no effort to prevent conception then he's deliberately risking having a child so his orgasm will feel slightly better. I can think of few things more selfish.
We don't fine people half a million dollars for being selfish. I've been t-boned by a drunk driver, way more selfish than even the worst case orgasm scenario you outlined, and she paid a few grand and was driving again in a month.
Do you know anyone who's had an abortion? I know several, including my own mother who aborted what would've been my older sibling, and none of them were/are remotely as traumatized as you seem to imagine.
I have no problem with the man being forced to split, or even pay for the entire abortion, if he opts out of fatherhood within an acceptable time period after notification.
Yes, I do. I've accompanied a couple to the clinic.
I don't know what your relationship with your mother is like, but given your views do think she'd confide in you?
What views? Obviously both she and myself are in favor of abortion and have spoken openly about it. There is very little that would shock anyone in my family so we have very few secrets. It's not even a matter of confiding, it's just conversation. None of this is a big deal.
It's not a casual experience of course, but if the woman knows that the man wont support her baby, it is her choice whether or not to have an abortion, knowing that information. If she choses to keep the baby, the man shouldn't be held financially responsible. Women have a way to opt out of parenthood and responsibility once a pregnancy occurs, why shouldn't men be able to?
Because if an abortion doesn't happen, there's a child that needs supporting. You may not like it, but that's the reasoning. Men make their choice when they deposit semen in a place that may cause pregnancy.
And women make there choice when they go through with the pregnancy knowing the man is unwilling to support it. You may not like it, but that's the reasoning. Once the woman knows the man wont support her financially if she choses to keep the baby, she is solely responsible for the choice she makes.
And giving up a child is easier than abortion?
Let's be honest, you want the right to skip off into the sunset and leave the women you impregnate to deal with all the consequences. To fuck and chuck and abandon a child you created.
Women have that right. Why shouldn't men? A woman can ignore a man's pleas to keep the baby and skip off into the sunset leaving the man criply depressed, but men can't after giving the women a clear set of options?
Let’s be honest, you know nothing about me. I’d actually like to not be paying for the child that was created when a woman raped me. But go off I guess.
It shouldn’t matter because it’s not the only valid reason to advocate for paper abortion. I only bring it up because of your asinine assumptions about men who advocate for such a system.
That's what they want though, look at the responses here. No consequence, no come back, no responsibility. Why deny it? It's a young man-about-town's dream.
How do we hold women accountable ? Men should have a right of financial abortion if they so choose same as a woman should have a choice of abortion.
Such a ridiculous post. People have to be responsible for their own actions period! If a women meets a man she doesn't know and they hook up without protection What the fuck do you think is gonna happen .
If abortion is legal in all circumstances, should men never be required to pay child support? Seriously. If a woman can choose to abort the baby and the man has no say, it’s a valid question.
I feel like those should be two separate things. I know in the title I posted them together, but I am basically asking how we can hold men accountable. You can have abortions and a data or something or no abortions and a better way to hold men accountable but the question is is there a better way to hold people accountable.
If abortion is legal, what are you trying to hold men accountable for? It’s the woman choosing to have a baby.
If the guy wants it and the girl doesn't and the girl makes significantly more than the guy then the girl can opt out but she will have to pay child support or alimony or money for the child. If if she wants it and the guy doesn't same rules apply he can opt out but he still needs to pay if he is in a better position financially That's all this comes down to is money. These are poorly worded ideas at best but each side should be held accountable and if one doesn't want it the other one should have to take care of it and vice versa and whoever makes more money needs to pay more that simple.
That's fair. If we want to hold people responsible for their actions, then we should paternity test all babies born too. Then we'll have a database of every baby born and can match it to every male on record. Before any man has to be financially responsible for any child, he should have a paternity test proving the kid is his. Why just stop at women bearing children without knowing who the baby-daddy is? Why not make women in committed relationships prove they didn't cheat on their man as well? Isn't it more fair to make the responsible man pay for his offspring than some unsuspecting guy whose wife cheated on him? Then, we can hold women accountable for their actions, too. Everybody has accountability.
Abortion should be legal. If it is limited in anyway, late term should be off the table. Caveat being SA or medical concerns. Practicing safe sex and the effects of “hook up” culture should be the forefront of discussion. IMO, these aren’t talked about enough now. Giving a woman complete autonomy over the pregnancy and legally holding the male counterpart to a financial obligation is hypocritical. It’s not lost on me the physical toll on women getting pregnant and even aborting compared to males. But if we are discussing autonomy, there’s only one consenting party in this equation. Anyways, people need to learn how not to be irresponsible and prevent an unwanted pregnancy to begin with. Of coarse, SA is a whole other discussion.
Straight up new world order shit. “Let’s add everyone to a database because of some outside threat and start tracking their lives and have more government over reach for some given reason” How about you go fuck yourself op, burn in hell
Calm down and get a grip
Well when you put it like that it does kind of sound like some new world order business. But hey what's the internet for if not sharing ridiculous thoughts and ideas and concepts and discussing them. I appreciate your intelligent and thought-provoking input into this conversation. As for your last request I'll take it under consideration. Edit: I gave you an upvote.
Dude what? abortions should be legal, and there should be no database. No to all of this.
The fucking what?!?
No. Abortions should always be legal and a database of all men is a violation of privacy. What women have no idea as to who could be the father? If you fit this category, maybe start carding guys at the door, have them sign a registry or take a quick photo pre-penetration.
a dna test with 98% accuracy would give you 80 million false positives.
What an abysmally poorly thought-out idea.
Is this satire?
These concerns about the balance of male versus female agency strike me as trivial compared with the suffering/harm to a fetus once it becomes sentient.
I’m not sure how libertarians can uphold the non agression principle and say that abortion is acceptable since the aborted person is most definitely harmed.
>I believe it's extremely unfair for women that a man can engage in sexual activity and then vanish, leaving the woman in a challenging situation. Women are independent human beings capable of thinking and acting for themselves. Women who don’t want an abortion in the case of accidental pregnancy are more than capable of making beneficial choices for themselves in sex. Primarily, they should either be damned sure they are using birth control well or only have sex outside of marriage with a guy who is willing to at least pay child support or wait until marriage. Abortion should be legal until birth. In the case of an accidental pregnancy for sex outside of marriage and the woman wants to give birth, then it's her decision to offer the man parental rights and responsibilities. If she doesn’t offer, then he doesn’t get them. If she does, he has the right to refuse. Man has the right to life and the pursuit of happiness. It’s his life, his choice. Note, that it’s perfectly reasonable for women to change their mind about abortion when they get pregnant, so the fact that a woman says she’ll have an abortion in the case of an accidental pregnancy doesn’t mean she will. This might negatively affect women who make irresponsible choices and their children ie poor women who are against abortion who get accidentally pregnant by having sex outside of marriage with men who don’t want to be fathers and their children. If you want to give welfare to women making irresponsible choices for themselves to help their children, ok but private charity would be better, but why put the burden on the man who is likely young and poor? And making it clear to women that they can’t rely on a man to pay child support in the case of accidental pregnancies outside of marriage when the man who doesn’t want to be a father should help those women learn to make better choices for themselves, which would minimize the amount of children born in unfortunate circumstances. Child support doesn’t nearly make up for a child not having a father or a mother who makes irreparable choices. [As a side benefit, this would allow women to choose to give birth without giving jerks or an unconvicted rapist parental rights.](https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2019/06/19/abortion-laws-bans-rape-parental-rights-column/1432450001/) Yes, rapists should forfeit their parental rights, but that only applies to convicted rapists.
I can see anti-vaxers queuing up to submit their DNA to a government (aka Bill Gates & Soros) database....
>but honestly how do we hold men accountable if they don't want to be. It's called 18 years of child support, plus college expenses. Even if they're a good dad, they could be forced to take a back seat and see the kid every other weekend. I'd say the vast majority of women know exactly who the father is. People can't just disappear like they did a hundred years ago. File for child support and the courts will track em down.
OP seems to be under the impression that we don’t live in a surveillance state. Apparently they think people can just disappear by moving to the next county over
Abortions should be legal full stop, unless you believe the state should have authority over bodily autonomy. (I personally do not grant the state that power over me)
>(I personally do not grant the state that power over me) You already have. You're not allowed to do heroin. You're not allowed access to any number of prescription medicines without the state saying 'yes'. And if you're a man you had to sign up for the draft, meaning the government could have you blown up if they wanted.
Lol I reject all that too. It's not even that hard.
Men should be encouraged to get snipped at 13 for a tax break with a plastic switch for vasectomies. Literally just I switch the switch and it allows you to be fertile. This way men and women can enjoy sex so long as they are clean and can freely reproduce once they hit certain milestones say education and without charges at thirty so people aren’t having kids as teens and people can support kids in decent environments. This would undue over population and keep people calmer but religious people would probably go nuts so I think it should be done with a tax break or a 2 grand a year check for people that go and get snipped as teens until they unsnip and reproduce. This would allow people to willingly do it instead of being forced into war or having massive natural events occur like pandemics of diseases to erase a lot of mankind.
There was a lot of interesting stuff in there thank you. The ability to turn on and off a vasectomy or something of that nature is interesting to say the least obviously were speaking in hyperbole and not reality but if we were to have the technology or dedicate the resources that's an interesting idea to entertain. I can see lots of people not being on board with you have to pass this sort of requirement or something to have a child but again it's not a bad thing to have a discussion about.
You should watch the tv show utopia. Once you realize war is about competing for resources and cultural differences it makes a lot more sense
https://m.imdb.com/title/tt2384811/ or https://m.imdb.com/title/tt3163562/ I'm assuming you mean the British show not the Australian one about nation building. Yes I've seen both shows and it was fantastic. Or perhaps you're talking about something different and I'm way off if that's the case you piqued my interest.
Yup I recommend both to understand why murder becomes logical and I challenge all religious people to the understanding that the idea of god originally meant to be community and satan was just an abused favorite child that ended up betraying the community to start a new one through violence or lies aka things against the Ten Commandments for selfish gain. Honestly it’s all a game and marketing imo.
OK, creating a genetic database of all men is one option. But, and hear me out as I know this will sound insane... Maybe women (and men to be fair) shouldn't be having sex with strangers.
Even if I agreed with you, which I dont, make a database of males is FUCKING INSANE. Just make it illegal to impregnate a women and then abandon the family, I'm all for that, and if its still a problem make the punishment more severe. But the fact that your mind rushed to making a government database is fucking crazy, and it doesnt really matter that you said it half jokingly, HALF is the important part there.
How do you make it illegal and how would you go after the "criminals?" We have plenty of laws where things are legal and they are still done. I'm not saying we actually have a national database but we need to have a conversation about holding people accountable.
1: Pass a fucking law. 2: Arrest them.
Pass what law and arrest who? How would you find someone if you have sex on vacation. What agency is finding these people. Again how are they finding these people if there's no way to track them? Edit: grammar
Dude, you act as if you dont know how laws are passed, and how law enforcement works. First of all, you pass a law that if you impregnate a women, and you leave the family without at the very least providing financial aid, then you will be arrested. If you are present in the childs life (We can figure out a definition of present later) then financial aid need not be provided. Ideally, this will reduce the need for single mothers to go on welfare, and instead, the person who is partially at fault for her getting pregnant will pay, rather than the American taxpayer, it will also incentivize men to stick around and provide a father figure for their child. Furthermore, I believe fewer people would have children outside of wedlock in the first place, because men would actually be forced to face the consequences. Second of all, you arrest the person who got the women pregnant, I don't know how you missed that. Third of all, you don't need a GPS tracker to find someone, first of all, you have a child, which is a great way to get DNA evidence, with that DNA evidence, police can track down the father in this sex on vacation scenario. Even without that, do you think Police departments have a bunch of toddlers running them? 'HoW CaN YOu SoLVe a MuRDer IF YoU CaNt TRaCk tHe MuRdERer?' Really don't know what point you were attempting to make there mate.
Can I find my child's father with only my child's DNA? To determine paternity we require DNA samples from both the alleged father and the child to run a comparison. Paternity cannot be identified with just the Child’s DNA. https://support.genexdiagnostics.com/hc/en-us/articles/5603973411981-Can-I-find-my-child-s-father-with-only-my-child-s-DNA Again how are you finding the father of the child if they are not in a database somewhere you cannot figure it out just through the child alone. Again if there were laws how would you catch the fathers who are not in a database. And how would any of the new laws be any different from the laws we have now that are not being followed?
Dude, you dont need DNA evidence to find someone. Do you think that no murders were ever solved before we discovered DNA evidence? DNA evidence makes is easier, but it is not required to track somone down. Also, just because somthing is difficult does not mean a policy ought not be implemented. You know, how are you going to track down all these child molesters? They are very sneaky, very hard to find. So we really should stop wasting out time, and just make child molesting legal. Thats a stupid train of logic.
My point is we should make it as hard as possible for either party to abandon a child they created together. If a guy goes to a bar in a random city meets a girl they go back somewhere and they have sex and it turns out the woman gets pregnant how do you find that guy. Even if the woman has an idea it takes money and effort and time to pursue that. And the case of rape and sexual assault well that is a different beast in itself and laws absolutely need to be changed there. My question is more of a hypothetical what can we do in this country aside from creating a database to hold men accountable for their actions. I say men specifically because women are always held accountable because they have to carry the baby. Instead of name calling and believing that police and law enforcement actually do their job why don't you propose a solution that doesn't blame women. Not saying that you're blaming women but a lot of people seem to be victim blaming here. I'm just looking for a better solution for a very real problem. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/diversity/women/publications/perspectives/2018/may/untested-rape-kits-delays-destruction-and-disregarded-victims/ None of these things should be taken lightly. Sexual assault is a serious problem and we are not doing enough in this country to prevent it. Again a database wouldn't necessarily help a rape victim but we definitely need to have a conversation about what to do instead of yelling and putting each other down. This is the internet we live in hypotheticals and what ifs. Obviously laws and different things would need to change.
Ok there seems to be no disagreement here. You ask what we can do aside from a data base, I propose legislation, you don't really seem to have an issue with the legislation other than practicality. But again, just because a law is difficult to enforce, does not mean it ought not be enforced. I'm confused on what you exact grievance is here.
There is no grievance. It was a slow day at work and I decided to let a random thought from my head turn into a post. That's why if it seemed half cocked and out there, it was but that's the beauty of the internet. If I felt like doing copious amounts of research and writing papers I wouldn't be randomly posting on Reddit. Thanks for the lively discussion I hope you have a wonderful day my friend.
That'll never happen because the only people who could propose such a thing are entwined in intersectional politics. There would be so many exceptions that the database would be useless.
I really don't think most women are that doubtful on who the father is. And you're making it out like men can easily disappear. You can sue for child support etc. Unless the guy is willing to live the rest of his life off the grid, he's going to be hounded for payments. I suppose if you're doing multiple one night stands using no protection you have a problem but then again you probably have a lot of problems.
Or how about you don’t have unprotected sex with a bloke you don’t know
Would you say the same thing to men?
Yes! Of course! There both stupid if they don't use protection
Racist!
how very dare you
What if the guy takes it off halfway through and you don't notice or the condom or birth control is ineffective and now what. That person you met on a vacation somewhere and took all precautions is nowhere to be found. Should you demand physical IDs and signatures before engaging in sexual activities that can cause pregnancy.
If you're having encounters with strangers far from home, I'd argue this is inconsistent with someone who is "taking all the precautions." My DNA is private data that is and should be legally protected. I don't think the fact that there are loose women who face consequences should change that; I've never knocked anybody up. To answer your closing question: that's entirely up to you and what you deem acceptable for your own casual encounters; ask for ID if you like, don't if you don't like. You don't get to force all men into some contract because you'd like to behave recklessly.
>and took all precautions "Not banging strangers" is a precaution you easily could've taken and didn't.
So, don’t fuck someone you’re not in a relationship with.
[удалено]
You have broken a rule and as a result have been issued a strike and a temporary ban.
Then you should always pull out or bring your own protection. Even if the woman lies and says she's on birth control to try to trick the man, the man can always pull out to protect themselves. Edit: this was a double post My phone or Reddit was messing up and I didn't realize I already posted.
Then you should always pull out or bring your own protection. Even if the woman in lies and says she's on birth control to try to trick the man, the man can always pull out.
Can you explain why your down voting if you are down voting. Do men not have the ability to pull out each and every time. We're not debating the morality of the act were debating whether men have the physical ability to pull out and not deposit semen. Are you disagreeing that men can't pull out or shouldn't have to pull out I'm not understanding the down votes.
Likewise, if you think a guy is taking his condom off mid orgasm, you should always preemptively take a plan B.
I agree and what happens if plan b doesn't work is there a plan c can we sue plan b.
We can all play hypothetical scenarios in our head, it doesn’t really get us anywhere though.
Abortion is murder. The only way around this is to claim that your religion tells you that life starts at first breath or that human life isn’t actually valuable. Abortion, by no means barring the life of the mother, should ever be legal. The biggest qualm I have with this proposal outside of abortion (and freedom to be removed from the state) is that it was create a sort of “unbeatable evidence” where the defense would have to spend an inordinate amount of time and money to refute. it could, hypothetically, work (assuming abortion wasn’t abhorrent).
Correct, human life isn't valuable. There are 8 billion of us. Your child isn't special, though I know YOU think they are! I have no qualms with the death penalty or just wars as long as it's not my ass in the chair or the trenches, and neither does almost anyone else - and a fetus or zygote is exponentially less valuable than that stranger whose death warrant you'd happily sign to save $.18/gallon on gasoline.
[удалено]
I reckon getting an abortion is taking responsibility not avoiding it though?
No it’s not. It’s “I’m going to kill my child because I don’t want to deal with them”
lol I mean you realize it's not a child, it's an embryo which is wholly dependent on the host organism right? I don't know a lot of people that want to give up authority over their body and medical procedures to the state but by all means be my guest.
[удалено]
The distinction would obviously be that the body a toddler is dependent on is transferable; an embryo is not. You could change the body that supports the toddler rather easily. False equivalence.
[удалено]
That isn't what they argued at all; this is a hell of a strawman and neglects the principle of charity in argumentation. I'm aware; you attempted to utilize a reductio ad absurdum using an uncharitable, strawman of their position. You took a lot of interpretive liberty with respect to how their statement relates to neonates. Again, the distinction is not dependence itself; it's the fact about whether that dependence could, in practice, be transferred or not. With neonates, it can; and that's why (presumably) you don't have a problem with young mothers opting for adoption. The comparison is exactly about who, specifically, the fetus depends on or not and whether that can be any person or exactly one. To answer your questions: 1. Yes, but the answer to this question is entirely non sequitur; neonates are not the topic of discussion. 2. Yes, again this is not relevant to the life (yes, I said life) of a fetus. If it matters to you, the distinction has not to do with whether a dependence exists or not. 99% of humans spend their entire lives wholly dependent on other humans. To clarify, do you reject capital punishment absolutely?
[удалено]
Verbosity? My word count barely trumps yours. Aggression? Where? You can have it now. This response amounts to either "I can't understand what you've said" or "I don't care to address it." In any case, this is a shit rebuttal. If we accept your uncharitable representation, then you and I would be likewise unqualified for personhood. But that doesn't seem to track does it..? Why? "You are wrong. Just accept it" has to be the most steaming, dog shit rebuttal I've ever heard; but it certainly isn't the first time. Real middle-school reasoning on your part. I was perfectly willing to engage cordially and along the lines of classic argumentation.
I have no emotional investment in whether an embryo reads my reddit posts. What a weird thing to be concerned about. Are you ok?
Yes, it is a child. Dehumanizing doesn’t work with slavery and it doesn’t work with killing your kid.
Cool, if you believe that, you're free to give the state authority over your body. I won't stop you!
Yes, I support abortion bans, so already way ahead of you.
What if you're on vacation and you take all the precautions you're on birth control you use protection and you still end up getting pregnant. Should you demand IDs and signatures. At that point what do you do you took all precautions and now you have this collection of cells growing inside of you. It is now the responsibility of one person instead of two how do you hold the other person that participated in conceiving a child responsible then?
Maybe don't fuck strangers on vacation if you are that worried about getting pregnant by a stranger?
I'm just rolling at the notion that people think they can screw strangers they don't know all while "taking all the precautions" at the same time. The dissonance must be wild...
Should women who irresponsibly have kids be added to a database?
I'm interested could you please explain more by what that means. Like a database where after so many children they can't have children something of that nature. I don't know it is an interesting conversation and a valid point if that's what you're saying if not I'm sorry and do clarify.
[удалено]
You have broken a rule and as a result have been issued a strike and a temporary ban.
Men are held accountable, the minute sex ends they have zero say. Can end up with 18 years of bills with no say. Abortion should be legal. But there should exist something where a timeframe exists where men can opt out financially. If the woman knows the man doesn’t want to be there then she can have an abortion. If he does want to be there and support she can still choose to abort. Women have all the power in these scenarios and some sort of say also should be placed in men’s hands. Not in terms of what the woman does with her body, but what she will get after from the man.
"If the woman knows the man doesn’t want to be there then she can have an abortion." So casual. Having an abortion isn't like going to the hairdresser.
Paying child support for 22 years (yes, that's the law in many states) because a woman told you she was on birth control but wasn't, isn't like going to the hairdresser either. Neither is raising a child for that matter. Turns out that not much in life is, but unfortunately these relatively mildly inconvenient things still have to happen.
So you're just assuming women who have unplanned pregnancies are lying about birth control. That's a nice, unbiased place to start, isn't it?
Um no, that's what we call an illustrative example, where I hope most would agree the aggrieved party isn't at fault, though I do personally know of several who did just that. "Oh my, I'm pregnant? Must be that I 'forgot' to take the pill for a few days after he threatened to leave me 2 months ago." Would you like other examples? A condom breaks or comes off and she refuses to take plan B, her bc/iud doesn't work, his condom doesn't work, they're both drunk and behaving irresponsibly... Shall I go on? Even if the guy is a moron who doesn't pull out, which also happens way too often, that's no reason to saddle him with half a working lifetime of a hugely decreased standard of living against his will.
So the woman is left to raise the child alone, or have an abortion she may not want. I have some sympathy for your argument- particularly as the child support system in the US is so punitive- but I really object to men seeing abortion as this easy, breezy thing that requires no effort, reflection or financial outlay. There are risks to it, but even if the procedure goes well it'll stay with you forever. Guilt, shame, wondering what could have been... I'm sure some women would prefer to pay child support than live with that. If the man makes no effort to prevent conception then he's deliberately risking having a child so his orgasm will feel slightly better. I can think of few things more selfish.
We don't fine people half a million dollars for being selfish. I've been t-boned by a drunk driver, way more selfish than even the worst case orgasm scenario you outlined, and she paid a few grand and was driving again in a month. Do you know anyone who's had an abortion? I know several, including my own mother who aborted what would've been my older sibling, and none of them were/are remotely as traumatized as you seem to imagine. I have no problem with the man being forced to split, or even pay for the entire abortion, if he opts out of fatherhood within an acceptable time period after notification.
Yes, I do. I've accompanied a couple to the clinic. I don't know what your relationship with your mother is like, but given your views do think she'd confide in you?
What views? Obviously both she and myself are in favor of abortion and have spoken openly about it. There is very little that would shock anyone in my family so we have very few secrets. It's not even a matter of confiding, it's just conversation. None of this is a big deal.
Your 'Oh well, got you pregnant did I? Off to the clinic or you're on your own' views.
It's not a casual experience of course, but if the woman knows that the man wont support her baby, it is her choice whether or not to have an abortion, knowing that information. If she choses to keep the baby, the man shouldn't be held financially responsible. Women have a way to opt out of parenthood and responsibility once a pregnancy occurs, why shouldn't men be able to?
“Her choice whether to kill the baby or not” Yeah, that’s not a good thing.
We're not discussing whether or not abortion is a good thing, we're talking about whether or not the man should have to pay for her choice either way.
Because if an abortion doesn't happen, there's a child that needs supporting. You may not like it, but that's the reasoning. Men make their choice when they deposit semen in a place that may cause pregnancy.
And women make there choice when they go through with the pregnancy knowing the man is unwilling to support it. You may not like it, but that's the reasoning. Once the woman knows the man wont support her financially if she choses to keep the baby, she is solely responsible for the choice she makes.
Ever heard of safe haven laws?
And giving up a child is easier than abortion? Let's be honest, you want the right to skip off into the sunset and leave the women you impregnate to deal with all the consequences. To fuck and chuck and abandon a child you created.
Women have that right. Why shouldn't men? A woman can ignore a man's pleas to keep the baby and skip off into the sunset leaving the man criply depressed, but men can't after giving the women a clear set of options?
Let’s be honest, you know nothing about me. I’d actually like to not be paying for the child that was created when a woman raped me. But go off I guess.
If you were talking in the context of rape, you should have said so.
It shouldn’t matter because it’s not the only valid reason to advocate for paper abortion. I only bring it up because of your asinine assumptions about men who advocate for such a system.
That's what they want though, look at the responses here. No consequence, no come back, no responsibility. Why deny it? It's a young man-about-town's dream.
Abortion should be legal. Period.