Directly or indirectly supporting the child's upbringing for the next 18 years. Representing them in health or legal matters. Ensuring they receive their school-level education. Caring for them in the absence of any other legal parent or guardian. All that before we start thinking about moral responsibility. If people did what they should, none of this would be anything like the problem it is. The whole point is that people aren't doing what they should. I question whether you can legally remove an individual's rights as a parent on the basis of not having signed some unspecified document. I certainly question that we should. You've claimed your proposal would reduce the number of children born in to poverty - you've done nothing to demonstrate it though. I've pointed out how the system you're proposing could be gamed too - that's unavoidable. Your other points there still ignore the distinction between parents being responsible for their child and a pregnant woman being responsible for her pregnancy. The former exists regardless of the latter.
It is an aberration of law to make one person responsible for the consequences of the action of another. You have not addressed any of my arguments so I am not really sure how to respond to what you are saying. It is common sense. Many women have children to avoid having to work, to trap a man, or just because they want a baby. That decision is influenced by the fact that some poor slob have to support the woman financially. Many of these women would think twice knowing that they would not be getting support from some sugar daddy. Your claim is fallacy. Why should some man be responsible for the consequences of the decision of a woman to continue a pregnancy.
""""""It is common sense. Many women have children to avoid having to work, to trap a man, or just because they want a baby. That decision is influenced by the fact that some poor slob have to support the woman financially. Many of these women would think twice knowing that they would not be getting support from some sugar daddy. """""" Your disdain for, and ignorance of, women explains your position. Referring to "men" who support their children as "poor slobs" speaks volumes....none good.
I realize that you have nothing of worth to add to the conversation ... no need to prove it over and over again.
Have you never been out in the world ? Spare me. Are you claiming that women are not aware that if they have a child some man will be forced to give her money ? I am not going to attempt to provide evidence that the sky is blue. Have you never seen some good looking young woman on the arm of some dude numerous decades older. Or is it that you have never listened to women talk. The best education would be to work as a server for a couple of months. People, not just women, are fickle, self serving, and generally not nice.
You are just upset because your position was shown to be hypocritical. The claim that changing the law would reduce the number of single women having babies is a side issue (although an obvious outcome) that has no bearing on the fact that your position on the law is hypocritical.
So? How dense do you have to be to never understand that I do NOT care if you think it's hypocritical. I think misogynists are worse than hypocrites so it's all a matter of opinion.
It has nothing to do with what I think. Hypocrisy speaks for itself. All you have left is name calling in an attempt to project your issues onto me. I am for equality. You are one who wants to discriminate against men and put them down because you feel that women were dealt a bad hand by nature.
If you don't actually have any evidence then just say so. BTW: To nit-pick the sky isn't actually blue.
Did you know that in French the word "bigot" means hypocrite? How can you expect anyone to take you seriously if you don't care that you're position is hypocritical?
Ummm .... the point is not whether or not the sky is actually blue?? The point was in relation to denial of the obvious. Do you want proof that water is wet ? The other day on baggage there was a gal. In one of her bags was "I poke holes in condoms" Your claim that no women will be influenced by the fact that they know some man will have to pay them if they have a child is disingenuous ignorance and a denial of human nature.
It's more common for men to "holes in condoms." Reproductive coercion is a growing problem. Men have been known to sabotage women's contraception, get them pregnant, then force them to abort in domestic abuse cases. Women purposely getting pregnant to trap men into marriage is more of a thing of the past when women were forced to depend on men to support them. The religious right would like to take us back to those times by banning abortion and birth control.
In English "I don't care what some nobody in a chat room thinks of me" means "I don't care what some nobody in a chat room thinks of me". I know I'm not a hypocrite and that's the only thing that matters to me. If someone else can't understand common sense there is nothing I can do about it....
You're taking this way too personally. When other people point out that your arguments are hypocritical and say why (as many here have done), it's up to you to clarify your position and explain why those who think it's hypocritical are mistaken. Reacting by claiming you don't care if other people in the debate think you're a bigot undermines your argument, just like when people on the pro-life side react that way. Aw, come on. With your debating skills I'm sure you could talk sense into people.
I know what you meant, I was being sarcastic, hence why I put "To nit-pick the sky isn't actually blue." : To nitpick is to be concerned with or find fault with insignificant details. It wasn't meant as a rebuttal .. geesh .. lighten up a bit. So what, does what something says on someone's bag define who they are? Actually I have NEVER claimed that no women will be influenced . .I thought better of you than to try and put words into my mouth.
I'm taking it personally??? No, YOU took it personally by going off topic and talking about me and your opinion of me. Your post quoted here shows that no amount of debate could get you to understand my position. I have , in numerous posts, explained my position quite clearly. If some posters don't like that position, or can't comprehend that position that's just too bad. Good lord, you act like there's a Big Prize, or our lives change, if we change someone's mind....it is YOU who are taking this chat room way too personally. Now, back to the TOPIC? No, men should have no say in abortion.
You're the one who keeps making this about you. If people are attacking you personally then that's wrong (and if I've written anything that comes across that way I apologize), but anything related to your position or justifying your position is fair game. If you're going to post arguments that are contradictory and logically inconsistent then others have the right to challenge it and point that out. Your going offtopic by making it about you and saying you don't care is an additional layer of hypocrisy. Most people here are using this forum to have a sincere debate on the issue at hand and issues directly related to it and not treating it like a transient chat room.
I NEVER mentioned "attacking" so your comprehension hasn't improved. And, yes, my POSITION is fair game but another poster has made it about me by concentrating on what he sees as ME being a hypocrite. In post 41 you further the "personal" aspect.....and still can't seem to tear yourself away from ME and go back to the topic. What "most" posters do has no relevance....unless we can agree that "most" stay on topic....
The man isn't made responsible by the action (inaction really) of the woman not having an abortion. The man already has a shared responsibility for their genetic progeny. Legally and morally, any consideration of an abortion has nothing to do with changing that responsibility. I'm aware of the stereotype but you'd need to establish how widespread it is in reality. You then need to establish that not (always) having child support available would be a significant factor in any such decisions (given the other sources of financial support single parents can receive). All of that would have to outweigh any negative consequences and risks of the change you're proposing. Maybe that is an argument that can be made. You've just not done so yet.
At what point does a man (or woman) take on this responsibility? Is it at conception? Or is it at an earlier point in time?
for a man it would be upon engaging in sexual intercourse as after that point he can not have any influence over concurring events. For a woman it would be upon birth as she has further influence over whether the pregnancy proceeds to birth, she may choose to abort or not, either way the man's scope of influence has no bearing.
They certainly would. Many women still depend on men to support them. This is fine if there is consent on both parties. My problem is when a woman unilaterally decides to continue a pregnancy and then expects the man to be responsible for the consequences of her decision.
What is your claim then ? You asked for evidence for something that, while anecdotal, is blatantly obvious. What am I supposed to presume your position is if not other than denial ?
