Obama's straight talk on fatherhood

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

m1ldslide1

Platinum Member
Feb 20, 2006
2,321
0
0
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Atreus21

Of that I have no doubt. My concern is: If congress somehow passed a resolution that made abortion a state-decided issue, would you veto it?

I think Obama would, and McCain would not.

So I'm voting for McCain.

How would Congress do this? The only way would be by constitutional amendment, and that already requires a veto-proof supermajority to do so. How would the President even factor in?

Okay, but the congress can pass other pro-choice and/or pro-life legislation.

Whoever is more likely to veto pro-choice legislation gets my vote.

While I am completely ok with your position on this matter despite how I may disagree with you, you really ought to consider that there are so many additional issues that deserve a lot of weight and consideration when it comes to your vote beyond just abortion. Pro-choice/Pro-life decisions are not the backbone which keeps this country afloat. For example, people suffering financially due to the economy means less money to support a child. Those who get knocked up and don't have enough money to deal with the situation will be more prone to getting an abortion.

I see it as a question of priority.

I believe abortion for convenience to be murder. That being the case, we're committing murder, sanctioned by the government, in huge quantities each year. And not just any murder; this is parents killing their children.

If a politician is point-blank telling me that he or she is okay with something so horrifying, I don't care what else they stand for.

If you (the candidate) don't have a problem with raping women, I don't really care to hear about your stance on reducing gas prices. If you don't have a problem with murder, I could care less about how you think we should pull out of Iraq because it's killing our soldiers. What right have you, the candidate who accepts murdering children, to give two cents about soldiers killed in the line of duty?

That's my reasoning. Some issues are more important than others. If a candidate doesn't believe abortion is abhorrent, how can I expect him or her to believe anything to be abhorrent? To me, no issue, here or abroad, is more important than abortion.

That's why, even though I disagreed with his Iraq stance, I would've voted for Ron Paul had he won the nomination.

Yeah, in a weird way I agree with Atreus here. If I had the same beliefs as him, it would be hard to find another topic as important as the killing of thousands of american children every year. As enraged as I am about the Iraq war and all of the corruption and exploitation committed by the gop and even most democrats, it would pale in comparison to how I felt about abortion.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: DanceMan
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

I don't see this as a 'reward', more like prevention and less cost. There are some fathers that would like to pay child support, but find it difficult to do so, because they barely make enough on their current job, doubly so if they have a new family to support also. (I also know there are deadbeats, but that's another story).

So, if they received job training and EIC, then that might be an incentive for them to pay it. Because if they don't, then usually these mothers end up on welfare, which means you end up paying anyway.

Secondly, these should not really be considered additional 'rewards', more like incentives. Job Training and EIC are already extended to other citizens (depending on need). What this is doing is to allow the man to increase his job skills so that they can get a better job so they can pay the child support (this is usually done for the mother automatically, and is often a condition of accepting welfare), and the increased EIC credit would help offset the tax deduction he may have lost because he's not the primary person for support. In this case, the feds are no more involved than they were before, and this has the result of the feds actually having a chance to be out of families lives eventually, where if there's no child support, the feds are more likely to be involved.

Child support may be a state thing, but when it's not paid, it has effects at the local, state, and federal level.

:thumbsup:

Allow me to also toss in that even though a father may have difficulty affording to pay child support, that doesn't relieve him of the responsibility even if he has a new family to look out for. In the end, that child still needs to eat and have a roof over its head whether the dad can afford to pay for it or not.

If the stepson is living with you, how many of his basic needs aren't being met?
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Allow me to also toss in that even though a father may have difficulty affording to pay child support, that doesn't relieve him of the responsibility even if he has a new family to look out for. In the end, that child still needs to eat and have a roof over its head whether the dad can afford to pay for it or not.


If the stepson is living with you, how many of his basic needs aren't being met?

None because I am a damn good stepfather, but that doesn't matter. I am not responsible to pay for his needs. That's biological father's and mother's responsibility. Fathers should not be held any less accountable for the child support they owe just because another person is choosing to help pay for their child's needs out of the kindness of their heart. If he paid his child support then his money and the mother's money would be paying for the child's needs while my money is used to pay for everything else. That's the way it should be.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the link is that the kids of the non-fathers are 5x more likely to live in povery and commit crime, etc.

according to an ad for a local charity, the kids of the non-fathers are much more likely to grow up to be non-fathers themselves, continuing the cycle.

Ah, that makes a bit more sense then.

It doesn't change anything about "rewarding" behaviour that is mandated by law anyway. It's pretty sad that we might have to basically pay people to follow the law. F'n sad, and not a good answer at all. The Feds should be LESS involved in people's lives - not more involved like this would make them. Also, isn't child support a state thing?

Your logic is bizarrely convoluted. I'm curious, do you believe that enforcement of the law costs nothing? Both in dollars and in govt involvement in people's lives?

Exactly, enforcement is what we lack right now. Ignoring court orders for child support without consequence is easier than ignoring parking tickets. You lose your license exponentially faster for not paying a ticket than you do for not paying child support. How screwed up is that?

Are you serious? You people are idiots. I was out of work for a year and couldn't find a job. The state sent me a bill every month. I explained I was out of work and had no income. They didn't care. I thought child support was a percentage of income? Apparently it is, but only if income goes up. If I get a $0.10 raise they are on me like stink on shit, but if I get laid off they don't give a fuck. I had my license suspended because I couldn't find a job. Good luck finding a job with no transportation. Way to fuck yourselves. Leave it to the state to make it harder for someone to pay to try in an attempt to make them pay.

Sorry assholes, but men get fucked by child support. 25% of my income, and I don't even get to declare the child as a dependent so I get screwed on taxes also.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

The law is intermittently enforceable and is incredibly manpower intensive to do so. There's a reason why the law isn't enforced that heavily, it's because it's so damn expensive to do so. First you have to find the dad, then you have to make him pay... but you can't have him pay so much that he becomes destitute because then he loses his ability to work and give future child support payments. Then after you set that up you have to make sure he keeps paying. Have you really thought this through as to why things are the way they are?

So we can accomplish our goal either through heavy handed authoritarian ways at incredible expense, or we can use that same money to provide incentives to have the problem take care of itself. Which do YOU think is the better solution?

The state has no qualms about driving men to the poor house.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

The law is intermittently enforceable and is incredibly manpower intensive to do so. There's a reason why the law isn't enforced that heavily, it's because it's so damn expensive to do so. First you have to find the dad, then you have to make him pay... but you can't have him pay so much that he becomes destitute because then he loses his ability to work and give future child support payments. Then after you set that up you have to make sure he keeps paying. Have you really thought this through as to why things are the way they are?

So we can accomplish our goal either through heavy handed authoritarian ways at incredible expense, or we can use that same money to provide incentives to have the problem take care of itself. Which do YOU think is the better solution?

The state has no qualms about driving men to the poor house.

Which is counterproductive. That's yet another reason why Obama's plan makes sense.
 
Nov 30, 2006
15,456
389
121
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

THEN ENFORCE THE LAW!!! Why is that so hard for you people to understand? The law IS enforcable - DO IT. Don't just throw your hands up and say it doesn't work and then say we have to pay people to do it.

The law is intermittently enforceable and is incredibly manpower intensive to do so. There's a reason why the law isn't enforced that heavily, it's because it's so damn expensive to do so. First you have to find the dad, then you have to make him pay... but you can't have him pay so much that he becomes destitute because then he loses his ability to work and give future child support payments. Then after you set that up you have to make sure he keeps paying. Have you really thought this through as to why things are the way they are?

So we can accomplish our goal either through heavy handed authoritarian ways at incredible expense, or we can use that same money to provide incentives to have the problem take care of itself. Which do YOU think is the better solution?

The state has no qualms about driving men to the poor house.

Which is counterproductive. That's yet another reason why Obama's plan makes sense.

Please link his plan for me...thanks!

 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Possibly so.

For the record, I'm not in favor of an anti-Roe v. Wade. That is, I'm not in favor a nation-wide ban, imposed by 9 justices. I'm in favor of returning the issue to state legislatures.

how do you condone returning the issue of abortion to the states if abortion is equivalent to murder? murder's OK if it's not in your backyard?

Just because something should be a crime doesn't mean everything should be a federal crime.
 

BoberFett

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
37,562
9
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Are your arguing that the law is not being enforced right now? You would be wrong in that.
No, others were.
Okay, we're getting somewhere. And exactly how is the law enforced right now? If a father doesn't pay his child support, how do we punish him? Get this... by taking away his ability to earn money. Seriously. We trash his credit, revoke any professional license he might hold, and garnish his wages. So do you see what I'm getting at here?

Yep, that happens all the time. Pretty counter-productive.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett


Are you serious? You people are idiots. I was out of work for a year and couldn't find a job. The state sent me a bill every month. I explained I was out of work and had no income. They didn't care. I thought child support was a percentage of income? Apparently it is, but only if income goes up. If I get a $0.10 raise they are on me like stink on shit, but if I get laid off they don't give a fuck. I had my license suspended because I couldn't find a job. Good luck finding a job with no transportation. Way to fuck yourselves. Leave it to the state to make it harder for someone to pay to try in an attempt to make them pay.

Sorry assholes, but men get fucked by child support. 25% of my income, and I don't even get to declare the child as a dependent so I get screwed on taxes also.

Let me ask you something. Do the needs of your child just magically disappear when you are out of a job? Suck it up. You had a child. You have a responsibility. That responsibility does not go away just because you go through a time in your life where it is less convenient for you to pay for your kid's needs.

Also, the amount you pay is based on your income. However, there is a minimum that you always have to pay which differs by state.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Wrong. Nowhere did I suggest it could magically happen. I am just saying THIS idea that we need to PAY people to do it is stupid. It's just as stupid as PAYING kids to stay in school(grades etc). But regardless, this is not a FEDERAL issue unless you want more socialism. I don't think socialism is the answer.

Where are the Libertarians and Conservatives on this? It's an easy argument despite the emotional rhetoric.

Meh, I didn't expect much less on this forum...

You are against spending money on incentives for fathers to pay child support (which is not going to be in the form of hard cash according to Obama btw) yet what you are failing to understand is that the amount of money that is necessary to properly rely on enforcement alone to fix the problem will be so much more than the money necessary to fix the problem through both a mixture of enforcement and incentives.

Don't you get it? We both want the same thing here. We want to fix the problem in the most efficient way possible spending the least amount of tax dollars possible. Simply leaving it up to these fathers to take responsibility is exactly what we are doing right now and while it is the cheapest approach it is not working at all.

No, I don't "fail to understand" like you claim, however enforcement is the primary vehicle for compliance(in any judgement) and it still wouldn't go away even with the "rewards". Obviously he's not saying hard cash but EIC is tantamount to that as it's a direct credit.
And yes, we agree that it needs fixed but we disagree on bringing the Federal gov't into it. IMO, it's beyond the scope of their charge. I do believe that I've stated that states can do what they want as it's their business(support). THAT would give more local control over it. Again, the problem here is the Federal gov't - it's not their responsibility.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: BoberFett
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Are your arguing that the law is not being enforced right now? You would be wrong in that.
No, others were.
Okay, we're getting somewhere. And exactly how is the law enforced right now? If a father doesn't pay his child support, how do we punish him? Get this... by taking away his ability to earn money. Seriously. We trash his credit, revoke any professional license he might hold, and garnish his wages. So do you see what I'm getting at here?

Yep, that happens all the time. Pretty counter-productive.

That I kind of agree with. This is why we opted to allow my stepson's father to have his license back even though he didn't pay for crap because we figured that we weren't getting paid anyways so what's the difference. However, just because it is counter-productive in that sense does not take away the need to enforce the law. How do you propose we enforce it? What do you suggest we do which gets all fathers to pay the child support they owe?
 

davestar

Golden Member
Oct 21, 2001
1,787
0
0
Originally posted by: Mursilis
Originally posted by: davestar
Originally posted by: Atreus21
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Atreus21

I see your point.

But I disagree nonetheless. It's simple to me. Abortion, like murder, is wrong, regardless of the circumstances, regardless of a person's economic status, and the government should recognize that first and foremost. Afterwards, they should worry about addressing the issues, such as poverty, which would drive a person to commit the crime.

Well, it's up to you but just understand that you will never see a reduction in the amount of aborted children using your logic unless abortion is completely outlawed leaving the people without a choice. Only then will the opinions and actions of the government in regards to being pro-life have any impact on one's decision to get an abortion. Otherwise, the people don't give a crap what the government thinks.

I respect your position on supporting your priorities but I think you need to pay more attention to your goals for this country which is separate from priorities and how those goals will be reflected by your vote. The goal is to reduce abortion as much as possible with as few negative side effects as possible. Outlawing it will not produce a positive result due to the other negative consequences so the only choice left is to convince America not to choose to get an abortion. Morals and beliefs are obviously not working. The answer is money and economics.

Possibly so.

For the record, I'm not in favor of an anti-Roe v. Wade. That is, I'm not in favor a nation-wide ban, imposed by 9 justices. I'm in favor of returning the issue to state legislatures.

how do you condone returning the issue of abortion to the states if abortion is equivalent to murder? murder's OK if it's not in your backyard?

Just because something should be a crime doesn't mean everything should be a federal crime.

but if someone truly feels that abortion is a form of murder, then logically that person should desire that abortion should carry the stiffest, murder-equivalent penalty.

the point is, if people engage in all this rhetoric about abortion = murder and choose to treat that issue as more important than ALL others, then they should follow their ideals/policies to their logical conclusion. to do otherwise is irresponsible.
 

Tab

Lifer
Sep 15, 2002
12,145
0
71
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BoberFett


Are you serious? You people are idiots. I was out of work for a year and couldn't find a job. The state sent me a bill every month. I explained I was out of work and had no income. They didn't care. I thought child support was a percentage of income? Apparently it is, but only if income goes up. If I get a $0.10 raise they are on me like stink on shit, but if I get laid off they don't give a fuck. I had my license suspended because I couldn't find a job. Good luck finding a job with no transportation. Way to fuck yourselves. Leave it to the state to make it harder for someone to pay to try in an attempt to make them pay.

Sorry assholes, but men get fucked by child support. 25% of my income, and I don't even get to declare the child as a dependent so I get screwed on taxes also.

Let me ask you something. Do the needs of your child just magically disappear when you are out of a job? Suck it up. You had a child. You have a responsibility. That responsibility does not go away just because you go through a time in your life where it is less convenient for you to pay for your kid's needs.

Also, the amount you pay is based on your income. However, there is a minimum that you always have to pay which differs by state.

imho, i think it's total bs that men have no choice in the matter if a women gets pregnant but this is another can of worms.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

No, I don't "fail to understand" like you claim, however enforcement is the primary vehicle for compliance(in any judgement) and it still wouldn't go away even with the "rewards". Obviously he's not saying hard cash but EIC is tantamount to that as it's a direct credit.
And yes, we agree that it needs fixed but we disagree on bringing the Federal gov't into it. IMO, it's beyond the scope of their charge. I do believe that I've stated that states can do what they want as it's their business(support). THAT would give more local control over it. Again, the problem here is the Federal gov't - it's not their responsibility.

You have all complaints and no answers. If the states aren't doing anything to change it and the people have no power to change things then who else are we supposed to turn to? We cannot leave it the way it is. The system is not working at all.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
No, once again you ASSume that status-quo is my goal. It clearly is not. I just think Obama's ideas are incredible stupid on this subject and clearly put the feds into a situation where they shouldn't be. If a state wants to do this - fine, let the people of that state do it and pay for it. Support is a state issue - not a fed issue.

Gee... I'd love for you to explain how I was making an ASSumption when your sole argument up til now was for enforcement of the existing law.
It's pretty much impossible for you to admit to being wrong, isn't it? Maybe if you could learn to think a little outside the box and not kneejerk so much...

It's no different than your ASSumption that I'm for McCain since I post against Obama. Just because I'm against his asinine proposal does NOT mean I am for doing nothing.

Meh, it seems you've changed and lost touch with reality.... it's too bad...

Nice DUH-version. Let me know when you're capable of a genuine on-topic discussion.

:roll:

No, it's the same thing. YOU ASSume that since I am not for 1 thing that I must be for another in both cases. In both cases you are wrong and have been repeatedly informed of it. Try not misrepresenting my stance so I don't have to correct you time and time again.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: dahunan
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: dahunan


Yet... he thinks people who earn more money should be taxed less than others..

...and for someone who is so concerned about how his tax dollars are spent to solve problems he sure does like to support the solutions which cost more money than others for issues such as this child support problem. He doesn't desire to solve these problems efficiently. His only priority is to avoid any solution which he believes can possible be described as "entitlement" despite how much that solution may solve the problem in a cost efficient manner.

Incarcerating undereducated Fathers IS BIG Business... Republicans are all for Big Business... they even support the oil speculators

look at the trolls fluff each other.... Nothing you both have said represents my opinions, but I'm not surprised the facts don't matter to you.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: BoberFett


Are you serious? You people are idiots. I was out of work for a year and couldn't find a job. The state sent me a bill every month. I explained I was out of work and had no income. They didn't care. I thought child support was a percentage of income? Apparently it is, but only if income goes up. If I get a $0.10 raise they are on me like stink on shit, but if I get laid off they don't give a fuck. I had my license suspended because I couldn't find a job. Good luck finding a job with no transportation. Way to fuck yourselves. Leave it to the state to make it harder for someone to pay to try in an attempt to make them pay.

Sorry assholes, but men get fucked by child support. 25% of my income, and I don't even get to declare the child as a dependent so I get screwed on taxes also.

Let me ask you something. Do the needs of your child just magically disappear when you are out of a job? Suck it up. You had a child. You have a responsibility. That responsibility does not go away just because you go through a time in your life where it is less convenient for you to pay for your kid's needs.

Also, the amount you pay is based on your income. However, there is a minimum that you always have to pay which differs by state.

imho, i think it's total bs that men have no choice in the matter if a women gets pregnant but this is another can of worms.

They do have a choice when it comes to the woman getting pregnant. Last I checked, sex takes two to tango. Besides, even if the men did not want the child after conception that does not excuse these dead beat fathers from not paying for their child's needs. They feel that just because the needs are being met some way by someone else then their responsibility becomes void which is bullshit. These guys are so focused on being pissed off at the state and the mothers that they completely forget that the only person who is getting the short end of stick is the kid. They look at child support as giving money to the mother. They do not look at it as paying their share of the child's needs which is also bullshit. The child is the only person in this matter that did not have a choice yet they are the innocent ones whose lives are being punished. It's disgusting. Nothing but a bunch of irresponsible selfish scumbags.
 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Straight talk but when it came time to talking about how to fix the problem he goes though a liberal laundry list

"We should reward fathers who pay that child support with job training and job opportunities and a larger Earned Income Tax Credit that can help them pay the bills. We should expand programs where registered nurses visit expectant and new mothers and help them learn how to care for themselves before the baby is born and what to do after -- programs that have helped increase father involvement, women's employment, and children's readiness for school. We should help these new families care for their children by expanding maternity and paternity leave, and we should guarantee every worker more paid sick leave so they can stay home to take care of their child without losing their income."

In other words it's still your fault America - show me the money. As if we don't have enough entitlement our culture already. Where's the "work hard like me, get good grades, work your ass off, be polite and personable and maybe you can even be like me someday" -Obama
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Allow me to also toss in that even though a father may have difficulty affording to pay child support, that doesn't relieve him of the responsibility even if he has a new family to look out for. In the end, that child still needs to eat and have a roof over its head whether the dad can afford to pay for it or not.


If the stepson is living with you, how many of his basic needs aren't being met?

None because I am a damn good stepfather, but that doesn't matter. I am not responsible to pay for his needs. That's biological father's and mother's responsibility. Fathers should not be held any less accountable for the child support they owe just because another person is choosing to help pay for their child's needs out of the kindness of their heart. If he paid his child support then his money and the mother's money would be paying for the child's needs while my money is used to pay for everything else. That's the way it should be.

And if the point of the support payment is to ensure the child meets a certain standard, why wouldn't the payment decrease when the child is living with 2 parents whom would assumed to be able to maintain a sufficient household themselves.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: jman19

If you nail a chick, and she gets pregnant, it's your responsibility. If you don't want that, don't have sex. Not too complicated.

And if you nail a chick and she gets pregnant and wants to abort your child you have no choice in the matter; you can't force the woman to carry the fetus to term...so since childbirth is obviously 100% a woman's choice...why not change the laws to allow paper abortions for men and let women be responsible for their choices?

Perhaps if 100% of the men in our society would unite in solidarity and advocate that abortion be 100% illegal unless we can also have "choice for men" or "paper abortions for men" then maybe we'd see some real progress on this issue.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: jman19

If you nail a chick, and she gets pregnant, it's your responsibility. If you don't want that, don't have sex. Not too complicated.

And if you nail a chick and she gets pregnant and wants to abort your child you have no choice in the matter; you can't force the woman to carry the fetus to term...so since childbirth is obviously 100% a woman's choice...why not change the laws to allow paper abortions for men and let women be responsible for their choices?

Perhaps if 100% of the men in our society would unite in solidarity and advocate that abortion be 100% illegal unless we can also have "choice for men" or "paper abortions for men" then maybe we'd see some real progress on this issue.

Again, the legality of abortion has very little to do with the abortion rate. In addition, the fact that many women without some support from the father would be unable to support a child. A father's paper abortion could in many circumstances force the issue and lend control over a woman's body to her boyfriend. That's probably not going to fly.
 
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Originally posted by: WHAMPOM
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Why should fathers be "rewarded" for doing what they should be doing in the first place?

What about men who never wanted to be fathers (snip,snip)and who offered to pay (been smarter to keep it in their pants) for an abortion?

It's too bad that the world isn't as black and white as you imply that it is, Whampon. What if a man can't find a urologist who will agree to perform a vasectomy (you're not older than 25, I need your wife's permission, etc.)? What if the woman stole the sperm from a discarded condom? What if a man wants some frozen fertilized embryos destroyed and a woman wans to use them?

If we are going to force men to pay child support then we need to dramatically overhaul the laws so that men are guaranteed tremendous access to their children and women and administrators who deny them such access risk heavy fines and jail time, etc. We also need to change the law so that a man has an equal chance of getting full custody (and child support payments from the mother) or at least 50% custody and no child support payments (either way). Right now the family courts practice discrimination against men. The laws also need to be changed to cap the amount of child support so that a well-to-do man isn't paying much more than 50% of what a child actually needs.

Perhaps Obama should be a real man himself and address those politically incorrect concerns and issues?

While we're at it, could we pass some laws to force the government to pay for all of the indignities men have suffered as a result of legal sex discrimination against men--being kidnapped and enslaved into the military, being forced to die in the military and involuntary circumcision, etc.? I'd love to see a powerful men's rights movement come to power in this country.

"So, you women and gender-feminist "men" think we should have to pay child support...fine...but we want to change the child custody laws and make the family courts treat men fairly and compensate men for all of the ways they've suffered at the hands of the government....and we want government funded vasectomies for the poor and the middle class (an excellent idea, actually)."

 

Zebo

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2001
39,398
19
81
Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper
Originally posted by: jman19

If you nail a chick, and she gets pregnant, it's your responsibility. If you don't want that, don't have sex. Not too complicated.

And if you nail a chick and she gets pregnant and wants to abort your child you have no choice in the matter; you can't force the woman to carry the fetus to term...so since childbirth is obviously 100% a woman's choice...why not change the laws to allow paper abortions for men and let women be responsible for their choices?

Perhaps if 100% of the men in our society would unite in solidarity and advocate that abortion be 100% illegal unless we can also have "choice for men" or "paper abortions for men" then maybe we'd see some real progress on this issue.

Dude there's lots double standards in society - like "chicks" over 50 dieing to get married again and can't find any takers.

Besides we , as society, have said the interests of children override fairness and freedoms adults for a long time.