Is child support for unwanted pregnancies unfair on men
Scroll to see replies
Original post by 0to100
lol...ideally but they're tryna make deadbeats accountable for helping to create the child but you know what I hate? When women say "I didn't make this child by myself." Ok...but...you still let him spunk in you. It's kinda rich when they shake their finger at the judge demanding help but what can ya do.
Original post by CookieButter
painfully true
I honestly cannot believe all the misandrists on the first page.
I guess this was what misogyny feels like in the middle east - except for men in the west instead.
because I'm being talked about like a ****ing slave by my own culture
treating a man like a ****ing slave for at least 18 years is really more moral than simply an abortion?!
a man who accidentally gets a girl pregnant is that girl's financial hostage for ****ing 18 years, instead of a ****ing abortion?!
a woman should have to pay 100% of the finances if the man impregnated her by accident and they both understood this
you cannot just snap your fingers and establish PREVENTABLE (post unprotected sex) the most significant legal relationship of your ****ing existence just through a mistake. no. just ****ing no. that is ****ed up. if the woman KNOWS the man doesn't intend to have that child with her, that child is then HER responsibility, because she gave birth even though the father did not carry on that consent. seeing as an embyro is not a human being for a matter of weeks, holding him hostage to that accident while that foetus could be gotten ridden of is the most immoral thing I can think of . I cannot possibly conceive of something more aggressive to the status of men. I truly can't
I guess this was what misogyny feels like in the middle east - except for men in the west instead.
because I'm being talked about like a ****ing slave by my own culture
treating a man like a ****ing slave for at least 18 years is really more moral than simply an abortion?!
a man who accidentally gets a girl pregnant is that girl's financial hostage for ****ing 18 years, instead of a ****ing abortion?!
a woman should have to pay 100% of the finances if the man impregnated her by accident and they both understood this
you cannot just snap your fingers and establish PREVENTABLE (post unprotected sex) the most significant legal relationship of your ****ing existence just through a mistake. no. just ****ing no. that is ****ed up. if the woman KNOWS the man doesn't intend to have that child with her, that child is then HER responsibility, because she gave birth even though the father did not carry on that consent. seeing as an embyro is not a human being for a matter of weeks, holding him hostage to that accident while that foetus could be gotten ridden of is the most immoral thing I can think of . I cannot possibly conceive of something more aggressive to the status of men. I truly can't
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
You consent to the risks of something before you go ahead with it. That's not to say you won't receive help if the worst case scenario does happen.
All medical procedures carry small risk of infection, which the patient consents to if they go ahead with the surgery. If the patient does indeed contract an infection post surgery, they would still receive the treatment that they need, despite being aware of this possibility.
All medical procedures carry small risk of infection, which the patient consents to if they go ahead with the surgery. If the patient does indeed contract an infection post surgery, they would still receive the treatment that they need, despite being aware of this possibility.
They don't consent consent to the risks, they consent to the treatment while acknowledging treatments may cause complications such as infection and indemnifying hospital in case it happens - they're not agreeing to get the infection, they're agreeing to the treatment despite it potentially leading to an infection.
Being aware of a possibility doesn't imply your agreement for it to happen (ie. you don't consent to it); persons having sex obviously must acknowledge they (or their partner) may get pregnant, it'd be rather silly to suggest otherwise however that in no way suggests they consent to the pregnancy. And in any event a consent to ongoing action can always be withdrawn - so even if originally they wanted to have a baby therefore consenting to pregnancy they can withdraw that consent.
Original post by Thrift2017
Women are always harping on about equality. Women do not assume such a risk because they can decide to abort, but place such a risk on men by giving us outcomes, accountability but no decision making power. This is not equality.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
There's a male hormone pill comming out soon apparently so hopefully these issues will resolve a little.
In these we assume the woman is safe and everything was consentual.
Man wants child woman does not-man goes through legal stuff, mother pays no support father does all work woman has no rights with kids.
Vice vera same happens with woman wanting the baby and the man not
Man wants child woman does not-man goes through legal stuff, mother pays no support father does all work woman has no rights with kids.
Vice vera same happens with woman wanting the baby and the man not
As I've said before, the crucial difference is that childbirth for the mother is a 9-month physical and biological occurrence. Once the father is done having sex, his physical role in the birth is over.
A mother's right to an abortion is one of bodily autonomy, not legal/financial abdication. Saying they're the same is a bit like saying that someone stealing a ÂŁ50 note from you is no different from them kidnapping you and enslaving you until you perform ÂŁ50 worth of work for them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
A mother's right to an abortion is one of bodily autonomy, not legal/financial abdication. Saying they're the same is a bit like saying that someone stealing a ÂŁ50 note from you is no different from them kidnapping you and enslaving you until you perform ÂŁ50 worth of work for them.
Posted from TSR Mobile
OP, you do realise the above arguments are exactly the same as the ones at the beginning of the thread? This is just going to go round in a circle.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by JoshDawg
Also, to the argument that he got her pregnant, it takes TWO to make a baby not one, so let's reverse the logic.
"She had sex which means there is a chance of pregnancy, it's her own fault. She shouldn't have had sex in the first place"
Say that at any feminist conference and the room will be more triggered than Article 50 will be this May.
"She had sex which means there is a chance of pregnancy, it's her own fault. She shouldn't have had sex in the first place"
Say that at any feminist conference and the room will be more triggered than Article 50 will be this May.
Here's a crazy suggestion.........
Lets make people take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions !
Radical or what?
Lets make people take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions !
Radical or what?
Original post by 0to100
Ok but people are gonna sleep around, regardless of the simplicity of safe sex or abstinence. Come on, you know people in this world will not have safe sex/won't be celibate. So there needs to be a remedy for those who sleep around lol and I say, the mother shouldn't be able to do something to/with the child without the father's consent. How is this outrageous for a suggestion? It's the same situation with taking the child out of the country. Until shared custody is granted, the mother cannot take the child out the country without the father and I know this because of some case on the news couple years ago where a man sued the mother for kidnapping his daughter, and he won even though she just took her for holiday overseas lol People say bad children come from single homes...but then they basically encourage single homes telling the father to **** off, makes no sense.
I think the best solution is More effective male contraception. Something a woman can't controle, pill for example.
Also, child is not the mothers or fathers property while the embryo being in maternal uterus Belongs to her
Original post by swanderfeild
They don't consent consent to the risks, they consent to the treatment while acknowledging treatments may cause complications such as infection and indemnifying hospital in case it happens - they're not agreeing to get the infection, they're agreeing to the treatment despite it potentially leading to an infection.
Being aware of a possibility doesn't imply your agreement for it to happen (ie. you don't consent to it); persons having sex obviously must acknowledge they (or their partner) may get pregnant, it'd be rather silly to suggest otherwise however that in no way suggests they consent to the pregnancy. And in any event a consent to ongoing action can always be withdrawn - so even if originally they wanted to have a baby therefore consenting to pregnancy they can withdraw that consent.
Being aware of a possibility doesn't imply your agreement for it to happen (ie. you don't consent to it); persons having sex obviously must acknowledge they (or their partner) may get pregnant, it'd be rather silly to suggest otherwise however that in no way suggests they consent to the pregnancy. And in any event a consent to ongoing action can always be withdrawn - so even if originally they wanted to have a baby therefore consenting to pregnancy they can withdraw that consent.
By consenting to the benefits (I.e treatment) you consent to the risks (I.e side effects). You have to acknowledge that something may not go the way you want and as you are aware of the fact prior to going ahead with it, you have given your consent.
If you have unprotected sex with a woman who falls pregnant as a result, you can't complain, because you knew that it was could happen.
Consent can be withdrawn but it depends. The father can't wait until she was say 30 weeks pregnant to decide that he doesn't want to support another human because by then, it's way too late. I'm in favour of him withdrawing consent prior to 24weeks, perhaps up to 20.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by cherryred90s
Skydiving carries its risks, which you consent to when you agree to do it, which is similar to sex. Similarly, having unprotected sex isn't consent for HIV, but it's a risk that you should acknowledge before you take it
Sure, but if you catch HIV the view of doctors isn't going to be "I'm not going to help you, you made your choice when you had sex, take responsibility for your actions"
Original post by limetang
Sure, but if you catch HIV the view of doctors isn't going to be "I'm not going to help you, you made your choice when you had sex, take responsibility for your actions"
Who said that? If you scroll up, I said that just because the worst case scenario happens doesn't mean you won't still get help for it.
If you wanted to catch a bus and you run out into a road without looking both ways and get knocked down and break your arms, it's not as if you'll be refused treatment, but you can't exactly sue the driver who hit you, because you decided that getting on the bus was more important than looking both ways.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by sleepysnooze
the most immoral thing I can think of . I cannot possibly conceive of something more aggressive to the status of men. I truly can't
You're pretty damn unimaginative then.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by ByEeek
My view would be just how bad a judge of character are you to end up finding a woman that desperate? And just out of curiosity, how do they get hold of your sperm? Do you leave it lying around when with another woman? Is this really such a massive issue in this country? It feels a bit edge case to me.
So if a woman tricks a man or steals his sperm from a sperm bank and has a child then the man is a bad judge of character, and at fault therefore it's OK to rape the man financially for the next 18 years.
What about a women who hangs out with a guy who rapes her? Would you say she's a bad judge of character and therefore brought in on herself.
Funny how victim blaming is not good towards women but good towards men.
Any non- progressive group bringing up these things is told "oh you're just playing a victim."
No they are not playing a victim, public opinions is off the chart with bias and hence crates victims.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by sleepysnooze
I honestly cannot believe all the misandrists on the first page.
I guess this was what misogyny feels like in the middle east - except for men in the west instead.
because I'm being talked about like a ****ing slave by my own culture
treating a man like a ****ing slave for at least 18 years is really more moral than simply an abortion?!
a man who accidentally gets a girl pregnant is that girl's financial hostage for ****ing 18 years, instead of a ****ing abortion?!
a woman should have to pay 100% of the finances if the man impregnated her by accident and they both understood this
you cannot just snap your fingers and establish PREVENTABLE (post unprotected sex) the most significant legal relationship of your ****ing existence just through a mistake. no. just ****ing no. that is ****ed up. if the woman KNOWS the man doesn't intend to have that child with her, that child is then HER responsibility, because she gave birth even though the father did not carry on that consent. seeing as an embyro is not a human being for a matter of weeks, holding him hostage to that accident while that foetus could be gotten ridden of is the most immoral thing I can think of . I cannot possibly conceive of something more aggressive to the status of men. I truly can't
I guess this was what misogyny feels like in the middle east - except for men in the west instead.
because I'm being talked about like a ****ing slave by my own culture
treating a man like a ****ing slave for at least 18 years is really more moral than simply an abortion?!
a man who accidentally gets a girl pregnant is that girl's financial hostage for ****ing 18 years, instead of a ****ing abortion?!
a woman should have to pay 100% of the finances if the man impregnated her by accident and they both understood this
you cannot just snap your fingers and establish PREVENTABLE (post unprotected sex) the most significant legal relationship of your ****ing existence just through a mistake. no. just ****ing no. that is ****ed up. if the woman KNOWS the man doesn't intend to have that child with her, that child is then HER responsibility, because she gave birth even though the father did not carry on that consent. seeing as an embyro is not a human being for a matter of weeks, holding him hostage to that accident while that foetus could be gotten ridden of is the most immoral thing I can think of . I cannot possibly conceive of something more aggressive to the status of men. I truly can't
That's is what progressives want. They want to be able to say you don't matter if you're white, male, Christian, straight, as far as you're part in those groups goes but if you have a part in these groups then you matter: female, black, Muslim, gay, handicapped.
It's like the opposite of what people say about the Nazis. If a Christian doesn't like gay marriage, then he is considered subhuman and in need of either ostracising or reform but it's OK for a Muslim not to like gay marriage.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Chuquo2017
So if a woman tricks a man or steals his sperm from a sperm bank and has a child then the man is a bad judge of character, and at fault therefore it's OK to rape the man financially for the next 18 years.
What about a women who hangs out with a guy who rapes her? Would you say she's a bad judge of character and therefore brought in on herself.
Funny how victim blaming is not good towards women but good towards men.
Any non- progressive group bringing up these things is told "oh you're just playing a victim."
No they are not playing a victim, public opinions is off the chart with bias and hence crates victims.
Posted from TSR Mobile
What about a women who hangs out with a guy who rapes her? Would you say she's a bad judge of character and therefore brought in on herself.
Funny how victim blaming is not good towards women but good towards men.
Any non- progressive group bringing up these things is told "oh you're just playing a victim."
No they are not playing a victim, public opinions is off the chart with bias and hence crates victims.
Posted from TSR Mobile
You have listed a set of very specific edge cases. There will always be horrendous cases where foul play has happened. But let us say we introduced a law that relieved men of any responsibility for accidental babies. How would you determine if the man had been genuinely tricked or if he was simply playing to adminish his responsibility towards the child? It is his word against hers with the loser being the child.
So no. The child comes first. Both man and woman are adults. If they choose to have sex where there is known risk that a conception may occur, both parties should be equally responsible for the child, morally, ethically and financially.
And for all those women who break into sperm banks, steal some sperm and artificially inseminate themselves - well we will deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Has this ever actually happened in the UK?
Original post by Chuquo2017
So if a woman tricks a man or steals his sperm from a sperm bank and has a child then the man is a bad judge of character, and at fault therefore it's OK to rape the man financially for the next 18 years.
Sperm bank donors already have no legal rights or obligations to any biological children they father as a result. Why would that change if donated sperm were stolen rather than accessed legally?
Original post by ByEeek
You have listed a set of very specific edge cases. There will always be horrendous cases where foul play has happened. But let us say we introduced a law that relieved men of any responsibility for accidental babies. How would you determine if the man had been genuinely tricked or if he was simply playing to adminish his responsibility towards the child? It is his word against hers with the loser being the child.
So no. The child comes first. Both man and woman are adults. If they choose to have sex where there is known risk that a conception may occur, both parties should be equally responsible for the child, morally, ethically and financially.
And for all those women who break into sperm banks, steal some sperm and artificially inseminate themselves - well we will deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Has this ever actually happened in the UK?
So no. The child comes first. Both man and woman are adults. If they choose to have sex where there is known risk that a conception may occur, both parties should be equally responsible for the child, morally, ethically and financially.
And for all those women who break into sperm banks, steal some sperm and artificially inseminate themselves - well we will deal with them on a case-by-case basis. Has this ever actually happened in the UK?
These might be edge cases but often edge cases are good to be used to demonstrate a point. These are not simply foul play, the commonality is that the courts always disregarded the rights of the man.
You can look up the newspaper article:
'Father' ordered to pay ÂŁ100k for children he never knew he had after ex-wife tricked IVF clinic into using his frozen sperm
A man who had his sperm frozen in case he became infertile was astonished to learn that his ex-wife had tricked an IVF clinic into twice making her pregnant.
He then had to pay ÂŁ100,000 towards the upbringing of the son and daughter he had known nothing about.
The father, a 57-year-old retired haulier, is now demanding a change in the law to ensure no other parents go through his torment.
The astonishing story begins in 1999 when the man was about to have drug treatment for crippling arthritis.
He stored sperm at the Bourn Hall Clinic in Cambridge to ensure that he and his wife, who married in 1979, could have a child if the treatment left him infertile.
In June 2000 the couple decided to divorce and weeks later she visited the clinic and forged his signature, allowing doctors to create embryos from his frozen sperm and her egg.
She gave birth to a girl in June 2001, claiming it was the result of a one-night stand, and a boy in September 2003.
Or this one....
Gay sperm donor told to pay child maintenance for 'his' two children
13 years ago Mark Langridge helped a lesbian couple have a family. Now it's costing him ÂŁ26 a week
Mark Langridge is being chased by the CSA after donating his sperm. Photograph: Graham Turner for the Guardian
Miles Brignall
Friday 26 October 2012 18.08 EDT
Share on LinkedInShare on PinterestShare on Google+Share on WhatsAppShare on Messenger
Agay man from Essex who donated his sperm to enable a lesbian couple to have two children, but who was never named on their birth certificate and had no role in their upbringing, is being forced by the Child Support Agency to pay for their support – 13 years after the first child was born.
Mark Langridge, who has been with his partner for 16 years (and in a civil partnership for the last five), has called on the government to review the law after the CSA suddenly demanded that he start paying ÂŁ26 a week for two children he technically fathered over a decade ago.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 7 years ago)
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?