Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is child support for unwanted pregnancies unfair on men Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    You must be very far left wing if you don't understand this.
    Hook up with randomers = risk of impregnating someone who believes abortion is bad/want to have kids
    Sex with someone you know = ability to make a decision knowing their way of thinking on the matters of pregnancy, children and abortion
    Hook up with randomers is no guarantee of not knowing their decision making abilities and hook up with medium term partner is not guarantee of being able to know their decision making abilities. The key here is certainty... for the woman and uncertainty for the man.

    The man has just been basically fleeced by society here, bent over backwards by the court system. It's completely corrupt cultural Marxism justice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrift2017)
    Hook up with randomers is no guarantee of not knowing their decision making abilities and hook up with medium term partner is not guarantee of being able to know their decision making abilities. The key here is certainty... for the woman and uncertainty for the man.

    The man has just been basically fleeced by society here, bent over backwards by the court system. It's completely corrupt cultural Marxism justice.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    stfu
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    Sex leads to pregnancy. No precaution can fully prevent that. You agree to sex, you accept the consequences.
    Don't sleep around if you don't want the risk
    :facepalm:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    Men have a choice when they decide to have sex with someone. If you are re stupid enough not to find out what the woman is up to in terms of abortion then it's your own fault.
    We can frame the argument another way. Women have a choice when they decide to have sex with somebody. If you are stupid enough not to find out what the man is up to in terms of supporting an unwanted child then it's your own fault.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    If found out a previous partner had become pregnant and had made the choice to keep the child I would accept the consequence of having to provide financial support, and with that child being my offspring I would want to be involved in its life emotionally. The only men's rights I would be concerned with is that I would have the right to be involved in the child's life.

    Any man who knows he has a child out there and wants zero to do with it both emotionally and financially has zero compassion from me about the financial burden he's being stung with as a consequence of his actions.

    That's not to say that a court ruling or the percentage that is garnished from the man's income will be fair, but he should provide support.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    We can frame the argument another way. Women have a choice when they decide to have sex with somebody. If you are stupid enough not to find out what the man is up to in terms of supporting an unwanted child then it's your own fault.
    That's true. It's in both parties interest to find out that kind of stuff.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nottie)
    That's true. It's in both parties interest to find out that kind of stuff.
    Do seem to base your views on people finding out stuff and agreeing stuff. This does not always happen. One person can prevent this from happening by non disclosing something, lying or changing their mind.

    The bottom line is that all the decision making is with the woman but the man is still accountable for her decision. There should be no accountability without decision making power.

    It's the same principle as the American Revolution, no taxation without representation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    If found out a previous partner had become pregnant and had made the choice to keep the child I would accept the consequence of having to provide financial support, and with that child being my offspring I would want to be involved in its life emotionally. The only men's rights I would be concerned with is that I would have the right to be involved in the child's life.

    Any man who knows he has a child out there and wants zero to do with it both emotionally and financially has zero compassion from me about the financial burden he's being stung with as a consequence of his actions.

    That's not to say that a court ruling or the percentage that is garnished from the man's income will be fair, but he should provide support.
    So I'd do the same. If a child came about as a result of an unwanted pregnancy I would want to be a part of its life, upbringing etc. and would do my best to support it financially.

    But I don't see how it's fair that I should be forced to do any of that. His actions were merely him having sex. It strikes me as something if a highly puritanical view of sex that seems to think men should be punished for sex and it's wrong for men to want to have sex without responsibility (while curiously it being fine for women to do that).

    People like to bring up the burden on the state of giving men the ability to relinquish responsibility for an unwanted child, as though we're in the 19th century and women can't get jobs and can only survive if their husbands support them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Women have more responsibility for sex then men do imo, they are the ones who really choose since most guys would shag anything anyway.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrift2017)
    Do seem to base your views on people finding out stuff and agreeing stuff. This does not always happen. One person can prevent this from happening by non disclosing something, lying or changing their mind.

    The bottom line is that all the decision making is with the woman but the man is still accountable for her decision. There should be no accountability without decision making power.

    It's the same principle as the American Revolution, no taxation without representation.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That's true, I base ,y arguments on people discussing stuff before sex. And I will stick to that. I realise it makes sex sound like business arrangements, but sex is a risky investment and you shouldn't go bareback in any aspect, unless you want to be faced with consequences you don't really want to accept.
    Having said that, both parties should stick to what they previously say. If I say I am fine with abortion but then turns out I'm not, I wouldn't expect the guy to give me any money (provided he'd give up his parental rights and not come back in few years time as a loving daddy).
    Same goes for men, if you say you are fine with financial support then you should stick to that.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    If people were better educated in this area and the government was firm about not supporting irresponsible childbearers then the only children born in this country are those whose parents want to AND can support them.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    So I'd do the same. If a child came about as a result of an unwanted pregnancy I would want to be a part of its life, upbringing etc. and would do my best to support it financially.

    But I don't see how it's fair that I should be forced to do any of that. His actions were merely him having sex. It strikes me as something if a highly puritanical view of sex that seems to think men should be punished for sex and it's wrong for men to want to have sex without responsibility (while curiously it being fine for women to do that).

    People like to bring up the burden on the state of giving men the ability to relinquish responsibility for an unwanted child, as though we're in the 19th century and women can't get jobs and can only survive if their husbands support them.
    It's not a financial punishment like a speeding fine though. It's a responsibility.

    The child has the right to be provided for up until the age it's capable of providing for itself. As the biological parent, the obligation falls on you to provide it.

    That is a consequence of sex we should all know, even if we use protection. If men don't know that then there has been a failing in sex education, but I know it so I only have experience of my own adequate sex education.

    We are entitled to the basic human right of a sex life, but rights come with responsibilities. If you perform an act with the power to create life, you have the responsibility to provide care for that life.

    Again I'm not arguing that the percentage garnished from a man's income will be fair, I have no experience of that and how much of a burden that can be. But I stand by the opinion a man is financially responsible for his offspring regardless of if he wants them or not.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrift2017)
    Under the liberal thinking, everyone has a right to a sex life and it's considered a need.
    Is this an assumption to help your hypothetical situation, or your belief of what reality is actually like?
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cherryred90s)
    In theory, I think he should be able to have a 'financial abortion' but he has to sign a contract that terminates his parental rights as soon as the child is born, so that if the woman gets a new partner that is willing to father her child, he can become the legal father of that child with equal rights as her and has to therefore contribute financially
    This
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    Is this an assumption to help your hypothetical situation, or your belief of what reality is actually like?
    Huh? Seems an agreeable statement to me. Are there people in the UK who actually still think people don't have hormones?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I assume everyone saying men should deal with the concequences of their actions then also agree that women shouldn't be allowed to give the child up for adoption

    Because that's not taking responsibility for their actions, if she had sex then she should've been prepared to for a child
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdukazam)
    Huh? Seems an agreeable statement to me. Are there people in the UK who actually still think people don't have hormones?
    That most people want to is not a debatable point.
    That everybody has a de facto right to it is.

    Suggesting that it's declared as a need suggests it's something that the Government should provide for if you don't have it.
    Water is a need. Food is a need. When people suffer from homelessness or from natural disasters, people go in to provide for the needs of those suffering.

    I'm yet to see charity or government sponsored prostitutes being provided, so I fail to see how sex is anything more than a want.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    That most people want to is not a debatable point.
    That everybody has a de facto right to it is.

    Suggesting that it's declared as a need suggests it's something that the Government should provide for if you don't have it.
    Water is a need. Food is a need. When people suffer from homelessness or from natural disasters, people go in to provide for the needs of those suffering.

    I'm yet to see charity or government sponsored prostitutes being provided, so I fail to see how sex is anything more than a want.
    Tbh that's probably more to do with Christianity. The Japanese used to use comfort women during the war, and most soldiers have always had a pretty wild time, but then again historically a lot of armies were made up of disloyal mercenaries.

    I think it is a need, to have a healthy functioning life without bashing one out over page 3
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdukazam)
    I think it is a need, to have a healthy functioning life without bashing one out over page 3
    I disagree, which is why his presumption, and the basis for the thread, is bogus.

    It's not a need. You would not die from not having sex. It is not required.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Drewski)
    I disagree, which is why his presumption, and the basis for the thread, is bogus.

    It's not a need. You would not die from not having sex. It is not required.
    If not dying is the qualification, then do you also believe the government should not subsidize housing, education, employment? All of these things can be taken away without dying. I guess it depends on perspective, but i'd consider all of those needs. I consider needs to be anything which would otherwise stop proper functioning, when you're hungry, you can't think straight, when you're cold and homeless, you can't think straight, when you're horny, you get the picture.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.