Three Times the Lady, Once Times the Whore
Myself and every other man on Earth have been saying it for years: alimony is fucked — and it’s extremely sexist.
But wait, what about this?
Did you know you’re liable for child support if you knock some slut up who lies about being on the pill and then doesn’t want to have an abortion because of some ridiculous shit like she suddenly has “principles” or because her mother didn’t abort her? Well you are liable for that cash cow and it’s the biggest croc of shit and injustice that could ever be imagined.
First of all, honey, you don’t do everything your mother does because you don’t swallow. And secondly, where were all these magic, money-sucking principles while you were on your back enjoying the greatest hour and a half of your life? Perhaps you were praying to a different, more easy-going God at that point — or maybe God was half as drunk as you and not paying attention. I doubt it.
Thanks to American Superman Matt Dubay, the black hole of injustice feminist blowhards and the dumbest women on Earth call “taking responsibility” will soon be put straight — as straight as a shotgun or a bunch of cowboys or every single picture frame that any man has ever hung anywhere. Men are master hangers, whereas women are merely masters at hanging onto a free ride.
A lawsuit, rightly dubbed, “Roe vs. Wade for Men”, has been filed by Mr. Dubay and the Nation Center for Men, which seeks the obvious:
Women and Child Support: Fuck You!
Whatever you think about abortion, in America it’s not illegal when it’s not illegal and that’s the bottom line — or the Man Line because that’s the line we men walk at all times. You know what else isn’t illegal in America (at least at the moment)? Eating a Snickers bar. If someone offers you a Snickers bar and you don’t want it, and then they turn out to win like a plasma TV or some jet skis in the wrapper, you’re not entitled to shit! Abortions are exactly the same.
Roe v. Wade for Men claims that since men have absolutely no choice in deciding whether a fetus is unconceived (aborted) or given up for adoption after birth, they have no legal responsibility to pay for the goddamn thing.
Is this Law for the Retarded: 101? Of fucking course that’s true. Look, here’s how the court proceedings will go:
“Have you motherfuckers ever heard of No Taxation Without Representation!?”
No, I’m joking. You can’t say motherfuckers in court.
“Your honor, guess what. If you go rent a car and opt not to tell them you’re blind, you can’t go wrecking around town like a carom and then drop a damage bill off at the car rental place with their newly renovated Renault Peugeot that now has two missing wheels and new fucking Delorean doors. It’s not their problem. It’s yours. Case closed.”
The Honorary Man of the Month for March is Matt Dubay’s lying slut of an ex-girlfriend — we’ll call her Slutarella; who is about to be thrown under the proverbial bus of her fucking lifetime in the name of men’s rights. Not equality for men man-mind you, but men’s rights. Men seeking equality is like Robert De Niro auditioning for a Star Wars film.
It’s beneath him.
Related Articles:
Oh shit!
u are stupid
My dad pays child support when he doesnt have to…Why? because he is a true man…He takes care of his responsibilities.
Ahh and out comes the shaming language. Any time a woman want’s a man to do something that’s not in his interests she attacks his masculentity. You should do ___ otherwise your not “a real man”.
Women want men to “take care of their responsibilities” and then want to what “taking care of our responsibilities” entales. It usually involves sending them a lot of money. You want me to take care of my responsibilities? No problem. I’ll tell you want I’ll get sole custody of the kid and you can pay me child support. You can come by and see him when ever you want.
Oh but I forgot. According to government stat’s when women are forced to pay child support [and they almost never are] they: are ordered to pay much, much, less; become deadbeats much more often; and are much less likely to be jailed, or have their drivers license suspended for back support. So that wouldn’t work.
How about we just abolish child support. A person’s responsibilities should be proportional to their rights. And since men have no reproductive rights [eg. the ability to unilaterally discharge parental responsibility] they should have no reproductive responsibilities [being forced to pay child support].
Did you know you’re liable for child support if you knock some slut up who lies about being on the pill and then doesn’t want to have an abortion because of some ridiculous shit like she suddenly has “principles” or because her mother didn’t abort her?
Or how about being liable for child support because you knocked up some stupid slut who lied about being currently being infertile and who you later found out ALREADY HAD an abortion because she got knocked up by a pennyless ex-boyfriend. But since you’re not a lazy piece of shit and actually earn a living she all of the sudden becomes pro-choice; because she has a decent chance of getting her clutches into your earnings.
This is a simple case really. Either the ability to unilaterally discharge one’s parental responsibilities after a pregnancy has already occured is a right or it isn’t. Women can currently discharge their maternal responsibilities after a pregnancy has already occured via: abortion, adoption, or abandoment.
If you believe that you should be able to opt out of parenthood then that ‘right’ should be extended to men as well as women. If you believe that people shouldn’t be able to opt out of parenthood then it’s time to: outlaw abortion; repeal abandonment laws; and start charging women who put their child up for adoption child support to reimburse the state or adoptive couple for the cost of raising that child.
We can’t have a bunch of deadbeat moms running around now can we?
Is there another link to the suit?
No, we should go back to the past when men kept their children and the women went home to live with Dad. Men will deal with them. But Dads don’t want these burdens returning home and governments can’t afford all the lazy women, therefore child support was created. Time for change.
Let’s think about the opposite scenario of the Dubai case:
Say a man and a woman both decide to have a baby and then the woman becomes pregnant. However the woman changes her mind and wants an abortion. Legally she can, and the man’s child that he wants get killed (Even if he plans on raising the child alone).
Therefore a woman is able to change the terms of the oral contract at any time and what the man wants does not matter, according to law.
If you read between the lines the law is made knowing that female are weak minded so they are given special treatment. The fault is always given to the man for a pregnancy, even though female contraception exists. Condoms aren’t only made for men; actually females have many more forms of contraception than men.
As long as the two have consensual unprotected sex, I find it normal that the guy will pay for the child. Of course, if she lies about being on the pill or whatever stuff like that, then yes, she shouldn’t get crap.
Also, I think women should have to justify the way they spend the child support money because I doubt a toddler wears Prada shoes for instance. But besides that it’s just common sense that both parents should contribute to the child. If you don’t like the consequences don’t have sex. If you don’t want a child as a man, don’t fuck around.
And abortion shouldn’t be used because you didn’t want to use the condom or pill. That should be if by mistake something happened or the woman got raped or something, even though there are pills for after.
And don’t bash on kristina because she has some points that are valid.
“As long as the two have consensual unprotected sex, I find it normal that the guy will pay for the child. Of course, if she lies about being on the pill or whatever stuff like that, then yes, she shouldn’t get crap.”
Oh of course, because everyone youv’e ever slept with has gotten a written contract with you that says you were on the pill or not on the pill. No one believes the man in the courtroom when he says “She said she was on the pill!” It’s unfair, and it’s biased, but it’s reality.
“Also, I think women should have to justify the way they spend the child support money because I doubt a toddler wears Prada shoes for instance.”
Yeah, because the government has the money, time and resources to track the spending of every single woman on the child support system. Even if they did, the fact that they have to is proof enough that the system should be abolished or at least redone.
“If you don’t want a child as a man, don’t fuck around.” What of the women? So everyone should just stop having sex unless they want kids. Congratulations married couples, don’t want a kid, have fun jerking it mister newly wed, aren’t you glad you spent 10000fuckingdollars on this waste of 200 of your friends weekends, no sex and she can take half of your shit!
kristina doesn’t even make any valid points and talks about horrible things that are classified as FUCKED UP. Who puts that much thought into graphic descriptions of torture, even if they are lying whores. All of you are anyway, they are only worse because they get more payment then you do.
So shut the hell up, and go smash your keyboard with a sledge hammer so we never have to hear your stupid opinions again. Fuck off Dick’s website.
~J
What is sick about abortion is the fact you’re one of those who thinks women should not have the option to abort, kristina. Yeah you go for those equal rights grrl.
Just give up now and I’ll give you a signed photo of my forum avatar.
‘Fuck off and die, lots of love, Necro’
17yr olds aren’t WOMEN. They are girls; aka children.
Observe how this one feels entitled to goad her inexperienced misconceptions down everyone’s throat, like it’s the sacred word of Zeus. That’s what the entitlement syndrome does, it creates entitlement princesses (MABTW copyright of terms acknowledged).
The day society starts taking advice from 17yr old GIRLS no less, will be the day AFTER we got hit by some bigass meteorite, and only girlies survived it because Brave Men as you’d expect, would have honorably exercised their Titanical Manstincts.
“Thank you Sir” would seem to be a more appropriate response.
Dick-Abortion is sick…you are truly giving men a bad look for womenwith this article…In this article you show men to be pigs who care nothing more except having a good fuck…This article would disgust my Father…Then again my father is human…No I’m not for women who use trickery just to get money…But tht doesnt neccesarily mean that just because they got pregnant she wasnt on the pill….even doctors say the pill and condom aren’t entirely 100% effective…and you down a woman because she doesnt wish to KILL her baby? Yes those who couldnt give a care about their baby and are in it only for the money are shit faced bitches who should be dragged about by their hair and then left to bes savagely eaten by rabid wolves…intestines first…but dont say taht all women are like this…and if women have to pay the price for having sex outside marriage then so do men…just like if men have to pay so do women…
My dad pays child support when he doesnt have to…Why? because he is a true man…He takes care of his responsibilities(not that thats all he thinks of us) and he does it without complaining…
Quit generalizing all women in the same category Dick…we arent all the same…
sides if i ever get pregnant im giving the man a chance to be in his childs life or not…there wont be any childsupport especially if he doesnt want to be there for the child…and any support i recieve from him will befor MY baby not me…and i really dont care if you men believe me or not :/
Jason Michael Carroll: Alyssa Lies
Thats the anti-thesis of Feminism
Like the devil in prada.
“Probly not that many” “how many men do you knwo that had casual sex” Its not personal, because i dont have a child. Although its not men that have unpretected sex Female, its both women and men. You like always lay the responsiblilty of sex on males, and the decisions of money and children for the women. You are assumming all men having sex frequently, but i have statistics that say women are more secretive, and are more likely to be infidelity then men. What if the woman had sex with numerous men? Ya a babys a baby it doesnt matter if you had sex with an alien and you produced its your offspring and in american homes its tought to wait till marriage because if you get a woman pregnant you have to quit school and work manual labor. Thats a price men and women pay but my point is if it is not any of the mans decision of whether the child is allowed birth then she shouldnt be entitled to money. Do you know in more urban neighborhoods women used to have as many babies by as many men as they could for welfare checks. Women made the bank off of that and didnt pay for shit for the babies. The government finally put restrictions on that but women still get knocked up and use the situation to however it benefits them. That should be illegal because not only is a living being inside your stomach dying when you kill it but if you choose to give birth to it just for money thats a crime.
Men deserve equal rights in everything if women deserve equal rights in anything.
You don’t know what ‘Devil’s advocate’ means but you use it anyway? Typical.
First, more like the Devil’s whore, and second, you probably don’t even know that that means.
Nor do I care.
First, more like the Devil’s whore, and second, you probably don’t even know that that means.
Oh can’t I? Uh, okay, thanks for that Laura, I’ll try to be a good girl and remember that next time. Sheesh. Lose your assumptions Ms Defender of All Men, I am not a misandrist, I am merely the devil’s advocate. You are the devils plaything and thats for sure.
He holds your strings.
Oh can’t I? Uh, okay, thanks for that Laura, I’ll try to be a good girl and remember that next time. Sheesh. Lose your assumptions Ms Defender of All Men, I am not a misandrist, I am merely the devil’s advocate.
Female - is it not rather hypocritical to complain about men not using contraception? You say, “The fact is is that many men do have unprotected sex with women they barely know, apparently without giving a second thought to whether the act would result in a child. You therefore can’t blame women for perceiving that men do not have as large an investment in children as the women themselves, do.” Here was I thinking that contraception was the responsibility of both parties. The men that sleep around with no contraception must be finding willing partners in their irresponsibility. No, you cannot just blame men for this one Female.
The act of consensual sex in and of itself, without all of the feminist/PC bullshit that comes with it, entails RESPONSIBILITY. Rest assured that I agree that some men refuse to accept it, however Men don’t have a choice in the matter. Men are given the choice of nothing (look up “nothing” in the norse language), too either be a slave to a woman, or to be a slave to the state, for the “good of the child”. What a farce. Men aren’t given any rights to His own children in any way, We have to fight for our children. What do women have to do? How hypocritical feminists, and most women are when they speak of how “fatherlessness” is such a problem, like most women, they bitch about the problem that they have created.
We have taxpayer funded offices(USA), that will take away your money and your children at the drop of a dime, however it seems funny that that there isn’t any offices dedicated torwards Men recieving legal aid for their own children in these cases. Its funny how women can recieve so much for something that for the most part they don’t participate in, and all the while complain about how fucked up their life is. How small-minded, and selfish is the female gender, for the most part, much like our legal system.
Women can and do, refuse to accept the responsibility of their actions. Women, have over 11 different ways to control their reproduction, and afterwords, have both abortion and adoption as an option. Women shouldn’t control anything in my view, they’re incapable of it, that’s why they’re given so many “choices”. They know how to use their mouths, however the refuse to use their brains in a logical manner.
-Strength and Honor-
Jon, let’s not make this unnecessarily personal. The fact is is that many men do have unprotected sex with women they barely know, apparently without giving a second thought to whether the act would result in a child. You therefore can’t blame women for perceiving that men do not have as large an investment in children as the women themselves, do.
How many men do you know that have had casual sex, who have rung up the woman 6 weeks later to ask her if she is pregnant and to say that if she fell pregant to him, that he would therefore like a say in whether or not she decides to have an abortion? Or who tried to change her mind about termination by offering to marry or support her? Yea, probably not too many.
If a man and woman have sex and a woman gets pregnant, it should be a joint decision what happens to the baby. If they both agree to taking having it they both should pay for it. Female is making steriotypes like the man is the bread breaker and should make all the money and it should be the womans decision how she either aborts or extorts money from the man. Its her body but its HIS baby too! If she wants to force him to pay money for the child when its born then it should be his God given right to see the child any damn day he wants. Thats sexist to believe that a man is the only one responsible because he didnt have a condom or have his tubes cut and tied. You know theres women condoms too? Women can also have their tubes tied so they dont have children. Its a two way street and its equal responsibility from the birth of the child to the taking care of it. Dont try to act like men all run to mexico and leave women with the babies. Most men love their unborn babies too and would fork over their life saving so their baby could live. But the courts dont care about the mans plea they just give all the rights to the woman REGARDLESS of the situation. It doesnt matter if she fucked the drug dealer across the street or the doctor thats her neighbor. She is allowed rights men are not, is that equality Female? If i fucked you do you think its right for me to have no say even if i didnt wear a condom?
Right in every respect.
If conception was an accident then either have an abortion, decide to make a go of it jointly for the child or accept that the man doesn’t want it and make your own way. Those are the three choices - deal with it. You cannot control all of the miserable knocks life may deal you, but you can make sure you don’t needlessly contribute to the misery of somebody else. Forcing a man to pay financially for an accident that was as much your fault as his *is* needlessly contributing to his misery because you could have had an abortion, or accepted your responsibility and paid for the child yourself. To be honest, if you weren’t capable of supporting a child in the first place, what were you doing sleeping around with men you hardly know? Especially if you weren’t prepared to think about the consequences and the possibility of abortion. That is hardly a good basis for bringing a child into the world.
There are plenty of real men calling your type what they are, Bitches. It don’t matter how you define them, they are real men. Women even boast about being a bitch. But can you find a real Lady? Not many of those exist anymore.
I forget you have a problem remembering what you had written. Maybe it’s because you change you mind so much.
You said ‘the probably do scream and cry’ concerning the women who fail to pay CS, and that is not the case at all. No one cares whether women pay up or not, it’s all about forcing men to pay for women, it’s surely isn’t becasue they are concerned with the children or else women would be forced to pay and labels deadbeats.
Notice when you use the word “Deadbeat” it only refers to men even though most women never pay CS after they are ordered.. You have no clue about what you’re saying. If she is ordered to pay CS then she is already removed from the custodial role. Damn you’re ignorant.
My name isn’t Billy Bob bitch and you can take your dubbos and cram them in your weibliche Öffnung.
schliessen Sie Ihre weibliche Öffnung Weibchen!
What do I know about being a real man? First-hand? Absolutely nothing. However, I do know that most real men don’t call women, bitches.
[quote="Billy"]When women say those things it is to force a man to do something she wouldn’t do.[/quote]
Say what things? You should provide a quote so people know what words you are referring to. We can’t all be psychics.
As for your question, why don’t women scream and cry about women negleting to pay child support, they probably do. Regardless of sex, any parent who neglects or abuses their child is unfit and should have their children removed. Fact is, many people are just stupid. Colloquially, they are called dubbos.
There’s alot of dubbos in this world. Don’t you be one too Billy Bob.
Fem you are an ignorant hypocritical bitch.
What do you know about being a real man?
When women say those things it is to force a man to do something she wouldn’t do. It’s time for women to grow up and become real women.
Why don’t women scream and cry when females neglect their ordered child support payments? The majority of women ordered to pay don’t, and nothing is said. They try to tell us they are concerned with the children, sure they are, they are concerned with the female children over 16 years old who Mothered a child..
“this does contradict your position in regards to Dubya.”
No, I was trying to reveal to you the internal inconsistencies of your view on the subject. You believe that women should have more choices than men do.
Wolfe, I thought about your comments on contractual obligation and I’m still thinking as I’m typing. There is always a risk that your wife/girlfriend/one night stand/friend with benefits will lie to you. Female, in that sense, is correct. While I do advocate that we should trust our partners, if it’s a stranger or new friend we are having sex with (or even recent g/friend), the man has no reasonable basis on which to assume that his partner is trustworthy and so he has a responsibility to look after the child that results. Yet, there should obviously be some consequences for the fraudulent party…because she *has* placed an undue burden on him. As of yet, I haven’t decided yet.
If it was a wife (who over the years earned the trust he gave her) or a longtime companion, that is another story entirely, obviously unintentional and so that places a significant craw in the mechanics here.
Is there an obligation if the action is unintentional? Well…it doesn’t deny the fact that the unborn child is obviously innocent. It didn’t just jump into the uterus by itself. It was placed there (*even* unintentionally) by the voluntary actions of the sex partners. So, I’m not sure it is right to abandon the child even in that situation.
Let’s try this:
X does such-and-such an act.
That act results in an unintentional consequence: through no choice of Y’s, Y has to live in X’s house, eating X’s food, etc. If Y leaves, he is dead.
Is X obligated to keep Y in his house?
Perhaps, we should think of it as a consequence. If Dubay unintentionally places an innocent third party in a condition of utter dependency..ah, I’ve got it! hahaha..this is so simple.
The mother is solely responsible for that child if she deceived him. *If* Dubay unintentionally placed the child in dependency on *HIM*, then he would be responsible for the child (consequence). Yet…..since the child does not ‘need’ him to supply for his material wants and needs (the child probably has other relatives, for example), there is no basis for which Dubay should be held responsible for something he may not have intended. This is - obviously - assuming his former lover was a long-time partner.
“I remembered the exact same phrase from the [criminal] code”
*grins* I remembered the phrase from a prolife site. That is actually part of the reason why I checked up on it. Prolifers (and pro-’choicers’ for that matter) - in their zeal - don’t always check back on their data and I didn’t expect female would trust information from a prolife site, anyways.
To Grump. Thanks for the correction (to you and me) on Canadian abortion after birth/umbilical cord. I remembered the exact same phrase from the [criminal] code, though remembered none of the context, which is why I thought your original statement was so plausible.
On the other questions you raise: sorry, really don’t want to debate it here. Too easy to get things way, way off track (even more than they are). I certainly admire your resolve on the matter.
You are saying, then, that the child has no right to life from the mother, but has a right to near-indefinite support (’til 18-25 and beyond in some countries) from the father.
Because he believed, in good faith, that it could not possibly result in conception. You have to admit the woman was lying to him. Why would she do so? What rational woman, not seeking to entrap a man, lies to him about fertility?
Actually, I don’t, because of female sexual predators. I’ll grant you they are probably rare compared to male ones, but they exist and are grossly underreported.
The viagara? Well, there’s pressure on from extreme feminist theorists to define rape as including any act of consensual sex where the woman may have been inebriated (and we’re not talking falling down drunk, we’re talking 1-2 glasses of wine). If this passes, I predict that ultimately, the same will hold for men.
The not knowing where babies come from? I’d put that on any situation of a mature woman having sex with a 12 or 13 year old boy. That’s statutory rape in virtually every country, and it happens more often than we know.
Tough to do for a 12 year old boy raped by a 30 year old woman.
We agree there, and yet it represents the endgame of feminism on abortion.
-wolfe
Grump, I guessed you were saying the man should also be responsible for his child, however, this does contradict your position in regards to Dubya.
I am not pro-life, I am pro-choice.
I can clearly see the argument about contract/intent, however, as I mentioned before to Dakota, I am on the child’s side when abortion is not the choice of the mother. This means that I believe men need to be accountable for their actions. I don’t care if the man did not intend to become a father, the fact is, he was not held down and raped by this woman. He had consensual sex and he chose not to use contraception. That was his choice, the only valid defense he could possibly have would be that he was raped against his will after his drink was spiked with viagra; or, he never knew how babies were created. I find both of these scenerio’s a little hard to believe. The man needs to grow up and accept the consequences of the choices he has made.
Canadian’s lack of a gestational cut-off time for abortion is very disturbing.
Wolfe,
First - correction to above “even though the infant is yours” = “even though the infant is your grandchild”
“where she says “that’s the law? it’s more accurate to say that in Canada, that’s where there is the lack of law — or, strictly speaking, legislation.”
Thanks for the correction. I knew this, but didn’t express my point very well.
“The feminist argument is that the child has no obligation to demand of the mother that he be able to live. The child therefore, by using the same impeccable logic, has no obligation to demand of the father that the child be supported.”
That’s what I was trying to say. I was arguing with female on her own terms to help her see the inconsistency of her position. Obviously, it didn’t work (but I should have realized as much - it’s very difficult to convince anybody of anything on the internet. Debate is a waste of time, but this subject tends to rile me up). Sorry to mess you up there, Wolfe.
“I believe that if it were possible for a father to intervene and stop a woman from having an abortion, then he should be fully prepared to pay surrogate fees, all her medical, maternity clothing, etc. expenses, and guarantee the child will be taken care of once born. ”
I sort of agree with you, in the sense that if he wants the child, he should be there to provide for her needs (esp. if they don’t live together), because in providing for her, he is providing for his unborn and every father should be responsible for the child he creates. Yet, I don’t consider this ‘payment’ for keeping the child, because the mother is also responsible.
“For a contract — an obligation — to be formed there must be intent. There was no intent in the Dubay case. ”
This is an excellent point. I’ll ponder it relative to the other things I have written here. Thank you.
“Is it good for a man to be lied to and forced into fatherhood?”
No
“Is it good for a baby to be able to be killed while she’s sitting there crying and the cord hasn’t yet been cut?”
No, even in the case of a baby who is partially birthed.
“Would it be good for women to be forced to become incubators?”
I really don’t like the analogy because I think it’s a little backwards, but yes - women should be forced to nourish and protect their offspring until it can survive on its own. This applies when the offspring is in her body *and* in her house, both in utero and out - hence, our laws against child neglect and abuse.
Just so that female doesn’t get on my case about it: YES, I believe fathers should be responsible, too!
“Please don’t take that as disagreement with your overall arguments or any lack of respect for you or your beliefs.”
*S* Wolfe, don’t concern yourself over that. I’m glad to receive a little disagreement or rebuke.
“I am extremely reluctant to say that we must end abortion immediately via the full force of the state.”
Wolfe, it is unrealistic. I’m prolife, but I don’t believe that criminalization alone will end abortion. We - as prolifers - need to do more than simply lobby for a change of the law. We must also work to influence our culture in a positive way, and to help women when they are in trouble or beforehand so they know what to do to keep themselves from getting into trouble. This involves many many different actions - working at adoption agencies and CPCs, writing a book, counselling and supporting women emotionally and financially. All of these things and more…one of my greatest worries is that after criminalization, the vast majority of prolifers will ignore the abortion issue as if it doesn’t exist anymore. Sorry for going on and on about this - I”m a little passionate on the subject.
“Yes, this means I acquiesce to some degree in the killing of human beings. Not a comfortable position.”
As a libertarian, I’m ‘forced’ to support the continual legalization of abortion in the case of rape. It is not something I like to talk or think about and I hope that I am wrong on that. I understand your discomfort.
“would I be prepared to use physical force and the police to stop her from having an abortion? No.”
If it was my daughter, I would, but I don’t even have children yet so perhaps my opinion would change. I doubt it, though. Wolfe, I’ve done so much research on this, so much reading (from both sides of the debate), so much that..I seriously doubt I’ll ever have any hesitancy about forcing anybody (including my own when I have them) to carry their child. I’ve got a question though: would you think differently if your daughter was about to commit infanticide (even though the infant is yours)? If so, why?
“If you want to debate this position, please take it to Politik, in the forums.”
Too lazy.
Gotta get going. Wolfe - your points are taken but..well, I don’t have time to comment right now.
Have a g’day
“in those situations, I think the pregnant woman should be treated as surragote and paid the going rate as such.”
I don’t agree because in most cases the pregnant woman was a willing participant in the sexual activity. I’m not about punishing people for having sex, yet if we do something (whether that something is inherently a moral and good activity or not) and that puts somebody else in a position of vulnerability - whether that person is born or unborn, I think that the individuals who may have (even unintentionally) put somebody in a situation of dire need has a responsibility to ensure that it is taken care of. Sorry for being so verbose. I ‘m trying.
“Women can abort/adopt out and men can run off.”
not without being required to pay child support.
“do you like the socioeconomic consequences of that?”
No. I’m quite aware of the law of unintended consequences. I was just saying that it was unjust of fathers to be given more responsibility than mothers.
“Do you think that it is fair for you, the taxpayer, to pay for these assholes children?”
No. That is what charities are for. We - as a community - *should* do a lot more for the poor.
“If your father deserted your mother, would it have been alright for her to be solely personal responsible for you?”
It would be inconvenient for her. I don’t think it is alright for fathers to leave their children, and neither for mothers! It would not be alright for my mother to abort me, either. Don’t confuse the moral with the legal, but at least both parties had and exercised their rights. I thought you would be more ‘pro-choice’ female. ;P
“Without assistance from other relatives/friends or the state, she would have had to work full-time to support you and raise you. Is that fair?”
It’s not fair, but why does a woman have more rights than a man? You do bring to mind something else, though, and that is the apparent foolishness of anti-abortion people to support Roe v. Wade for men, esp. because most women abort for ’socioeconomic’ reasons. So, I probably shouldn’t have so loudly cheered Roe v. Wade for men.
“Then, if you were male and grew up to be a juvenile deliquent or criminal, your mother would have got the blame for being a single parent, and it’s your own damn fault for being raised in a female-headed household. ”
My Mother would not be to blame. It would be my own choice. While your use of sarcasm is charming, it doesn’t help.
“I see a lot of women getting the blame here, even by other women, without thought for the actual pragmatic effects for the child and society as a whole.”
But this has been what feminists have been doing for years with regards to men. Most of them don’t even care about the unborn child anymore. That wasn’t always true in the history of feminism. Feminism used to be anti-abortion in orientation.
I only want women (feminists in particular) to realize what full equalization of the sexes mean. Unfortunately, that’s extremely unlikely because it would include cuttout alimony, sex-quota discrimination, child support payments for unwilling fathers, etc.
“and make the woman completely responsible, even for the fact that the man himself chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy.”
The woman chose to be completely responsible. She could have aborted or adopted out, and with regards to condom use - well, if she has a choice to abort or adopt out, he should have a choice to refuse child support if he chose (when she was pregnant) not to be involved in that child’s life, expressed a desire for abortion or adopting out, etc. It’s not that hard, female.
“Are you making this up?”
Nope. I take abortion very seriously. I don’t make up data, and when I’m mistaken - I am only glad to correct myself. Since you were doubtful, I went and looked it up again.
“Criminal Code of Canada Sec. 223
223. (1) A child becomes a human being within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother, whether or not
(a) it has breathed;
(b) it has an independent circulation; or
(c) the navel string is severed.
Killing child
(2) A person commits homicide when he causes injury to a child before or during its birth as a result of which the child dies after becoming a human being.”
Alright, to be exact, the criminal code of Canada will only criminalize abortion when the child is completely out of the mother’s body (which makes the act an infanticide), and it won’t matter whether the umbilical cord is cut or not. Sorry, I flubbed up on the nuance. Thanks for motivating me to double check that, female.
In Canada, there is no gestational cutoff in law. There is no longer any law preventing abortion. Grump was, AFAIK (as far as I know) correct in saying “up til the cord is cut”. As Grump says, a woman could have a doctor smash the baby’s head in with a hammer, or crush it, just before the cord was cut, and it would be a 39th-week abortion.
Shocking? I think so. But it’s what the feminists wanted.
OK, so if a couple has sex, and the man says he’s sterile so they don’t need to use a condom, and she gets pregnant, she alone is on the hook? Get real. The fact that you can’t see the obvious disparity in rights here is disturbing. I’ll repeat: morally, for a contract to be formed and an obligation to be incurred, there must be intent, even passive intent.
If a couple has sex, with both being fertile, and birth control fails, one could count that as passive intent to create a child. If a couple has sex and the woman states very clearly that she is sterile (and lies), it follows that there was no intent, even passive, to create a child on the part of the man. He therefore has no moral obligation, and is not reneging or denying responsibility.
Yes, a woman should be responsible for her lies, as a man should be for his.
I’m not sure whether you’re just arguing to argue, or whether you really believe what you are saying. If it’s the latter, I award you an “F” in Moral Philosophy”.
-wolfe
Female said
What’s that? You don’t want the man to pay for being a man and doing what his biological nature dictates? You don’t say…guess we’ll just leave everything for women to sort out then.
-No, what I am saying is that you still want more more more pretty much. Its not enough just to enslave a man and ride the state gravy train home, now you suggest that we actually PAY women to be “incubators”? How egotistical, and ignorant. Heres an idea, instead of giving women money, why doesn’t the state take that money that is taken by force and actually BUY the things that the child “needs”. I would be more than happy to do that, however it isn’t about that. As well I would ask about the ravaging effects of having your children taken away from you, withheld from you and being forced to pay for it for 18-19 years, or the emotional effects thereof.
Now I am confused. Is the child born or not yet born? What is the cut off, in terms of gestation weeks, for termination?
Wrong. This is about getting a woman to accept responsibiity by allowing a man to deny his.
To JoeSchmoe: thanks for raising this, and thanks for the interesting articles. Thanks also for now condensing them and posting links. Good idea.
Grump: I devote a fair bit of space here to disagreeing with a couple of things you said. Please don’t take that as disagreement with your overall arguments or any lack of respect for you or your beliefs. You’ve proved yourself eminently rational.
I’ve largely stayed clear of this argument, but I’ll put my two cents in. FWIW, I believe almost all abortions entail killing a human being. I believe there are cases where abortion is perhaps morally justified, and cases where it definitely is if the mother chooses to. I am extremely reluctant to say that we must end abortion immediately via the full force of the state. Yes, this means I acquiesce to some degree in the killing of human beings. Not a comfortable position.
[The thought experiment that makes me take this position: If I had a teenaged daughter, and heaven forbid, she was sexually active and then got pregnant, would I be prepared to use physical force and the police to stop her from having an abortion? No. I would attempt to dissuade her from doing so; I would let her know that I believed she was killing a child, but I could not physically force her to my way of thinking. Given this, how can I force anyone's daughter? And yet, this makes me an unwilling accomplice to killing.]
If you want to debate this position, please take it to Politik, in the forums.
Grump is, as usual, both logical and passionate. (a good passionate, a passion that embraces rationality). I differ with her on (at least) two small points, but agree with much of what she says, ignoring moral aspects.
First, Female asked if Grump was making up the whole business of umbilical cord/killing baby. Nope. I differ with Grump slightly; where she says “that’s the law” it’s more accurate to say that in Canada, that’s where there is the lack of law — or, strictly speaking, legislation. The courts overturned Canada’s abortion legislation some years back, and the feminists have dared Parliament to do something about it ever since. As a result, Canada has near zero legal protections for the unborn child.
In Canada, the feminist victory is soberingly nihilistic in nature.
Next, Female once again totally misses the point. This isn’t about men denying responsibility; it’s about asking women to accept some. That’s it. Point finale.
Grump, surprisingly, seems to make the same mistake when she states “why can’t the man renege on his child support obligation if he has absolutely no choice”.
With respect, no, no, no a thousand times no. The feminist argument is that the child has no obligation to demand of the mother that he be able to live. The child therefore, by using the same impeccable logic, has no obligation to demand of the father that the child be supported.
To view it from a different angle, this isn’t about reneging on an obligation. For a contract — an obligation — to be formed there must be intent. There was no intent in the Dubay case.
Finally, to Female: Your non-sequitur on surrogate motherhood is truly bizarre. FWIW, sure, I believe that if it were possible for a father to intervene and stop a woman from having an abortion, then he should be fully prepared to pay surrogate fees, all her medical, maternity clothing, etc. expenses, and guarantee the child will be taken care of once born. Your weird introduction of forced pregnancy is bizarre; that’s not what’s being talked about here at all; quite the reverse.
For once, try and see it from the view of normal people — male and female.
Is it good for a man to be lied to and forced into fatherhood?
Is it good for a baby to be able to be killed while she’s sitting there crying and the cord hasn’t yet been cut?
Would it be good for women to be forced to become incubators?
I say no, no, and no.
-wolfe
“Rights for me, not for thee!” the feminist’s mantra
Yes, that is what I am saying, however, I still think abortion should be legal and that a woman should have the legal authority to determine to abort without interference from a man. There have probably been situations where men have gone to court to attempt to block an abortion from occurring, and in those situations, I think the pregnant woman should be treated as surragote and paid the going rate as such.
They already do. Women can abort/adopt out and men can run off. What Dubay is trying to do is wipe out debt collection agencies who enforce deadbeat dads to pay alimony.
Are you making this up?
Men do renege on their obligations, do you like the socioeconomic consequences of that? Do you think that it is fair for you, the taxpayer, to pay for these assholes children? If your father deserted your mother, would it have been alright for her to be solely personal responsible for you? Without assistance from other relatives/friends or the state, she would have had to work full-time to support you and raise you. Is that fair? Then, if you were male and grew up to be a juvenile deliquent or criminal, your mother would have got the blame for being a single parent, and it’s your own damn fault for being raised in a female-headed household. I see a lot of women getting the blame here, even by other women, without thought for the actual pragmatic effects for the child and society as a whole.
This is how I see it. You all want the man to give up the responsibility of the consequences of his actions (accountability) and make the woman completely responsible, even for the fact that the man himself chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy. As the man chose not to wear a condom or have a vasectomy, I don’t see how this can be considered a case of entrapment. More like a case of profound stupidity and irresponsibility.
“You want equality, then try this on for size, as she is using her body as the incubator, the man should perhaps pay her a weekly amount for this service, plus danger money for both carrying the child and delivering it. ”
Using her body as an incubator? Female, you are the hypocrite. Wow..women have nine months of ‘incubator’ status (funny, since the more apt analogy is pregnancy->incubator, since the mother’s womb came first) and the choice to destroy the fetus at will, while the man is literally forced to be a financial ‘incubator’ for years. Are you being purposely obtuse here, female? My point is that the hypocrisy is on your part. You have a choice here: either support the point that *both* parents should be responsible for the child until it can survive on it’s own, or that *both* parents can choose to abandon the child before birth. If the mother can abandon the child up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut (that’s the law for Canada, even if the child is fully out it would be perfectly legal to kill it because there is still a physical connection to the mother), then why can’t the man renege on his child support obligation if he has absolutely no choice at all when the mother is pregnant? Her ‘reproductive’ rights far outweigh his, and that is not right or just, female.
‘Then, due to the physically ravaging effects carrying a child has on one’s body, another weekly amount for any decrease in physical health she suffered as a result of pregnancy.’
Oh, dear lord, did we not point out the financially ravaging effects of child support payment and parenthood? Did you know that each child costs about 200 000 dollars to raise and support?
‘How much do they pay for surragote mothers in the US? Why shouldn’t all women be paid such tidy sums? ‘
1. Because they can abort the kid at any point while surrogates are normally under contract and agreement - she is a babysitter. In other words, the kid isn’t hers!
What’s that? You don’t want the man to pay for being a man and doing what his biological nature dictates? You don’t say…guess we’ll just leave everything for women to sort out then.
Fem said:
How ludicrous does this debate need to get? You want equality, then try this on for size, as she is using her body as the incubator, the man should perhaps pay her a weekly amount for this service, plus danger money for both carrying the child and delivering it.
-Hmmm, more “entitlements”? Typical female, heres a newsflash for you, childbearing is probably safer now than it ever has been in the HISTORY of humanity. What you are proposing, is to PAY someone for being a woman and pretty much doing what her body was made for? Sounds like bullshit to me….
Then, due to the physically ravaging effects carrying a child has on one’s body, another weekly amount for any decrease in physical health she suffered as a result of pregnancy. How much do they pay for surragote mothers in the US? Why shouldn’t all women be paid such tidy sums?
-It must be horrible to have a child, thats why so many women have them, again and again and again. Or they are so forlorn if they don’t have a child, and then cannot have one. You are pretty simple to figure out, you are like many people, its all about money to you. You would exclude half of the world in your selfishness and/or ignorance. Why shouldn’t they be paid such tidy sums? Well here’s a question, why should men be forced to pay such tidy sums if they can be thrown away at the blink of an eye? Is that really “responsibility”? I think not.
http://www.abortionhelp.com.au
http://www.vasectomyinfo.com.au
No need to thank me.
Here is any interesting article about Dubay’s case being wrong, but so is abortion.
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/gaynor/060310
Here is another article, saying this lawsuit is ridiculous, but the real solution is not to feminist’s liking
http://www.donkeystomp.com/archives/2006/03/roe_v_wade_for.html
Sorry about that…….I will do that from now on.
A Man’s Right to Choose?
A new lawsuit asks whether men should be allowed to get “a financial abortion” in cases of unplanned pregnancies.
By NANCY GIBBS
SUBSCRIBE TO TIMEPRINTE-MAILMORE BY AUTHOR
Posted Wednesday, Mar. 15, 2006
Should a man be forced to be a father if he doesn’t want to be? Yet another front in the abortion wars reopens now that the National Center for Men has undertaken a crusade to establish a “Roe v. Wade for Men.” “Up until now, reproductive choice has been seen as a woman’s issue: you’re either pro-life or pro-choice,” says center Director Mel Feit. “We’re adding another element. If we expect men to be responsible, isn’t it right to give them some choices too?”
It’s a legal stunt, but as a way of calling attention to double standards and unintended consequences, the campaign makes sense. Matt Dubay, a 25-year-old computer programmer in Michigan, was ordered to pay child support after his former girlfriend had a baby. He says he had made it clear when they were dating that he did not want to have children; she had said she couldn’t get pregnant anyway because of a medical condition. When she did get pregnant, he argues, she could have chosen to have an abortion. So shouldn’t he have a choice as well, about whether to support a child he never wanted to have?
Dubay and the center filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court, which raises all kinds of confounding questions about rights and choice and what we really mean by equality, when we look at the social and biological roles played by men and women in the course of becoming parents. Feit argues that within a short window of time after discovering an unplanned pregnancy — he has proposed a month, but thinks a week might even be more appropriate — a man should have the right to terminate his legal and financial obligations to the child. “I’m not talking about fathers opting out of obligations that they’ve committed to,” Feit says. “I mean early in pregnancy, if contraception failed, men should have a choice, and women have a right to know what that choice is as they decide how to proceed.”
His argument gains force as more and more states pass laws requiring, as part of pre-abortion counseling, that pregnant women be informed that the baby’s father has a legal obligation to pay child support. These rules were a response to evidence that the overwhelming majority of women seeking abortions do so for social and economic rather than medical reasons. Abortion opponents hope that by informing women about the legal and financial support systems available to them, including the father’s obligations, they might reduce the number who choose abortion.
But solving one problem may just be creating another: pregnancy counselors find that another great source of pressure on ambivalent women is often the father of the child. As states crack down on “deadbeat dads,” men have a greater financial incentive to pressure women into ending unwanted pregnancies. Some threaten to break up with their partner if she doesn’t get an abortion. There is concern that violence against pregnant women is fueled by men trying to avoid a financial liability. So Dubay could argue that allowing men to shed their financial obligations for unwanted children might protect women from all kinds of pressure when they are deciding how to handle an unplanned pregnancy.
The larger philosophical argument is basically this: Do men have as much of a right to control their reproductive lives and financial futures as women do? “Roe v. Wade really changed the world for women,” Feit says. “It allowed them to separate intimacy from procreation, freed them from the fear of contraceptive failure. That kind of empowerment and security that women feel in intimate relations — well, men can’t, frankly.” The only sure protection is total abstinence. Feit contends that men who don’t want to have a child and made reasonable efforts to avoid it should at least be able to choose a “financial abortion” that frees them from any responsibility for the baby.
In a sense women already have a version of that right: Most states have laws permitting a woman to relinquish all her parental responsibilities if she leaves a baby at a hospital after giving birth. “No shame. No blame. No names” says the poster on the bus shelter. Naturally such laws are designed to offer an alternative to the heartbreaking stories we read of babies dumped in trash cans and abandoned by the side of the road.
The rights of fathers have always been the background noise of the abortion debate. Beginning with Planned Parenthood v. Danforth in 1976, then in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, state efforts to require that fathers be notified before women have abortions were struck down by the Supreme Court as placing too great a burden on women. A majority of Americans approve of