So far there have been no convincing arguments against the initial point that there is a fundamental and illogical asymmetry in the way this is handled by the legal system.

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd "What's best in the child's interests" And is it in the child's best interests to have a parent who did not want this to happen? It is in the child's best interests to have unloving, unhappy parents? No, the child should have parents who are eager to take care of him/her.

if unable to play a part in the child's development, it still should be assumed that one would help financially.It should not be an afterthought.Support exists on many levels.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles You believe, then, in holding people responsible for the choices of others?

That is the most ridiculous quote.

The choice was made by both the man and the woman to have sex. We all know sex = possible pregnancy. Therefore, the man made the concious decision to take that chance.

This is how I see it.

As much as this is unfair, the fact is this:

When a woman gets pregnant, it is in her hands to decide what happens subsequently. By having sex, you are thereby consenting to these terms in the event something like that were to happen. If you don't like these terms, then don't have sex.

OR you could NOT be a dumbass and go around fucking random chicks and not knowing whether these chicks WOULD want to keep the kid or not. You should be talking to your partner about what she would do if that were to happen, and if she would want to have the kid... don't have sex with her.

This whole "opting out" shit is stupid. You cannot "opt out" on being a father. That is such a pussy assholish thing to do.

OH, and you cannot equate abortion to opting out of being a father. Abortion is the choice to stop the growth of a group of cells within your body... the woman is not a mother yet, so she is not bailing on her responsibility. Opting out of supporting a baby is being a dead beat dad.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles So far there have been no convincing arguments against the initial point that there is a fundamental and illogical asymmetry in the way this is handled by the legal system.

the world can't always break down in nerd friendly format

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Where should we draw the line at measures taken to reducing this sort of thing? We could always sterilize the poor.

As practical as it sounds, it's not going to get done for a lot of reasons so it's not exactly hypothetical.

You can do the preventative steps- freedom of choice to subscribe to education and contraception methods
You can do the last resort- freedom of choice to use abortion in case of accidents
You can do the damage control- freedome of choice to use social services and tax benifits in place

You can ignore the 'problem' of responsibility and lose your right to freedom of choice in so much as it's a civil law that you must accept responsibility for your actions. Just like getting a licence for driving and having to obey the speed limits, you exceed them or break those and you get stung for a few bucks. You opt out of the responsibility for your biological offspring, then you get stung for a lot of dollars...

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa The choice was made by both the man and the woman to have sex. We all know sex = possible pregnancy. Therefore, the man made the concious decision to take that chance.

The woman made the choice to have sex. Therefore, she took the chance and ought not to be able to abort. She doesn't want to carry to term, she shouldn't have sex.

Same logic.

quote:

When a woman gets pregnant, it is in her hands to decide what happens subsequently. By having sex, you are thereby consenting to these terms in the event something like that were to happen. If you don't like these terms, then don't have sex.

Hehe, the "terms" are an artifact of the legal system. The same argument applies to abortion wherever abortion is illegal.

quote:

This whole "opting out" shit is stupid. You cannot "opt out" on being a father. That is such a pussy assholish thing to do.

Women shouldn't be able to "opt out" and kill a fetus just because they don't want the responsibility.

quote:

OH, and you cannot equate abortion to opting out of being a father.

No equation, but no responsibility without power to choose, either. It is a very simple legal principle, but one not being applied consistently here. The current situation is asymmetrical and illogical.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Women shouldn't be able to "opt out" and kill a fetus just because they don't want the responsibility.

If there was 100% effective birth control (short of lopping things off or abstaining) then I might agree with it, but there isn't due to a lot of reasons.

quote:

No equation, but no responsibility without power to choose, either. It is a very simple legal principle, but one not being applied consistently here. The current situation is asymmetrical and illogical.

Maybe, but we don't live in a perfect world of equal wages in some cases and the added burden of financial difficulty during the actual pregnancy with medical costs and trying to work at the same time. The support and raising of a child completely dependant on their parents while trying to work for the first 0-5 years before school and the added costs after that. Childcare isnt free...
If the state was prepared to pony up the cash for everything, then maybe, but it doesnt because then everyone would be crying about the single parents causing a huge tax hike.

Another thing is that almost everyone seems to admit that the status quo is unfair, even while continuing to support it. What I would propose instead is that in cases where the father decides to opt out, the mother should receive full financial support from the government, much more than the current "welfare" programs, if she decides to keep the child. This would both make single motherhood a plausible option for women who aren't well-off and remove the current legal asymmetry.

Then we have the screaming tax hikes from lads running around impregnating anything without any regard for how it will affect anyone.
I mean really, do you really wish to pay for other peoples errors and accidents all the time or are you able to afford the subsequent tax hikes?

This seems to be coming down to an argument from consequences, that men are just too evil and irresponsible with their reproductive abilities to be trusted with such a choice. Instructive to watch.

Not from me, I realise that theres plenty of women out there only too willing to use this kind of entrapment to obtain tax breaks, welfare and alimony as a lifestyle.
All being equal though, people are complete bastards to one another more often then they probably should be and it's not the kids fault as they dont have the freedom of choice from day 1. They should have a fair go at life though without the added hardships of being raised in poverty which is all I'm advocating.

quote:

They should have a fair go at life though without the added hardships of being raised in poverty

I agree, which is why I advocate a large increase in welfare for single mothers.