Feminism is Good.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

Child support swings both ways, women are liable to pay child support to. The scenario that you are fixating on, is not exactly based on reasoning, its based on fear. The fear of knocking a woman up accidentally and having to pay child support for the next eighteen years, is a male fear. But in fixating on that scenario you are neglecting several key issues. Firstly, either parent can abandon their children and whatever age, making Mothers liable to pay child support too. Secondly children who are abandoned by one parent are not necessarily an 'accident'. Parents abandon children that they mutually planned to have together with their partners. Thirdly supposing parents did not have any responsibility to their offspring and could abandon them at will, what kind of implications would that have a small and large scale,aka the family and the state.

Actually, women who don't list a father can do that unilaterally. It's called adoption. And they won't pay child support.

That said, it's a male fear because legal abortion affords women reproductive autonomy but failing to abolish compulsory child support does not afford men similar reproductive autonomy. Raising or funding a child is a big deal and being forced to do it can be devastating. This fact has often been cited as part of why abortion ought to be legal:

National Organization For Women

According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking early abortions make it more likely that women will bear unwanted children, continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term, or undergo abortion procedures that would endanger their health.

[1]

This is the largest women's interest organization in the United States speaking. It's difficult to not take it seriously.

Anouska

Thirdly, abortion is a highly controversial medical procedure that has divided women into two different opinion camps, pro-life and pro-choice. For pro-lifers, and even pro-choicers, abortion is not an option, just in the same way that burger king is not an option for vegetarians. Personally, I would not stop anyone from having abortion, but I would not get one myself. I don't think I could psychologically deal with the concept that I have killed my own child. For me I couldn't take the clinical view that whatever is inside me is just a bunch of cells and nothing more because I would identify those cells as my baby.

That's fine.

Anouska

Men do have the option of not being a parent. They may have financial obligations, but they need never see their child or have a relationship with their child. A fiscal abortion has nothing to do with being father, its just the desire to have that security blanket that if everything does go wrong and that girl does get pregnant, and they can walk away scott free.
There are legitimate ways to find male discrimination within the social policy, child custody is an example, however fiscal abortion is not one. It's just a point that gets flagged up again and again because its every man's worst nightmare. But think about it realistically, are you the type of guy who goes from town to town spreading your wild oats? Do you have a fear that one day you may get called up by your baby's momma to do a DNA test on the Murray Povich show... I doubt it. So don't worry smile

But you don't seem to get the point. The financial obligation is unfair because of the imbalance of reproductive autonomy, combined with convenient adoption laws that allow mothers to get off "scott free" if they don't want to actually raise the children they birth. So yes, it is discriminatory, in the same way that requiring an ID to vote is discriminatory against blacks or how requiring that spouses be of the opposite sex is discriminatory against homosexuals: yes, on paper, it's "equal," but the policies give one demographic more power than the other by their nature. They are all built, dare I say it, designed, to shaft one group and empower the other.

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

Child support swings both ways, women are liable to pay child support to. The scenario that you are fixating on, is not exactly based on reasoning, its based on fear. The fear of knocking a woman up accidentally and having to pay child support for the next eighteen years, is a male fear. But in fixating on that scenario you are neglecting several key issues. Firstly, either parent can abandon their children and whatever age, making Mothers liable to pay child support too. Secondly children who are abandoned by one parent are not necessarily an 'accident'. Parents abandon children that they mutually planned to have together with their partners. Thirdly supposing parents did not have any responsibility to their offspring and could abandon them at will, what kind of implications would that have a small and large scale,aka the family and the state.

Actually, women who don't list a father can do that unilaterally. It's called adoption. And they won't pay child support.

That's assuming neither parent wants the child or the biological father is unaware of their offspring. A father can fight to have his name put on a birth certificate or get custody of his own children. If he gets custody then the mother is liable for child maintenance. Women who pay child support are not like unicorns, they do exist.
Even so, what I am trying to highlight are the implications of a policy that allowed a fiscal abortion. A fiscal abortion would increase child abandonment which in turn would place a greater amount of stress upon welfare services. The parent with sole custody would have to provide and care for their children, which brings about issues of child care provision and employment. Both child and parent are at real risk of being trapped in a cycle of poverty. What if that parent could not afford to bring up their children alone? They have to hand their children over to care. The devastation of being forced to pay a monthly payment is nothing compared with the devastation of having to give up a wanted and loved child.

Robot Macai

That said, it's a male fear because legal abortion affords women reproductive autonomy but failing to abolish compulsory child support does not afford men similar reproductive autonomy. Raising or funding a child is a big deal and being forced to do it can be devastating. This fact has often been cited as part of why abortion ought to be legal:

National Organization For Women

According to the American Medical Association, funding restrictions that deter or delay women from seeking early abortions make it more likely that women will bear unwanted children, continue a potentially health-threatening pregnancy to term, or undergo abortion procedures that would endanger their health.

[1]

This is the largest women's interest organization in the United States speaking. It's difficult to not take it seriously.

Raising and funding a child are not the same. Is it fair that one parent only the to fund the child while the other has to do both? That's how the system stands at the moment, and you guys seem to be on the winning end. You may perceive a fiscal abortion as a piece of legislation that magically makes up for your lack of womb, but I see it as a piece of oppressive legislation that absolves and transfers any responsibility placed upon the man to the woman.

Robot Macai

But you don't seem to get the point. The financial obligation is unfair because of the imbalance of reproductive autonomy, combined with convenient adoption laws that allow mothers to get off "scott free" if they don't want to actually raise the children they birth. So yes, it is discriminatory, in the same way that requiring an ID to vote is discriminatory against blacks or how requiring that spouses be of the opposite sex is discriminatory against homosexuals: yes, on paper, it's "equal," but the policies give one demographic more power than the other by their nature. They are all built, dare I say it, designed, to shaft one group and empower the other.

Mothers can only get away with that if the father does not challenge for custody, or does not disclose her pregnancy to the father. A fiscal abortion is about economic autonomy- not reproductive autonomy. If a man does not want to reproduce he can either get the snip or be celibate. Currently how things stand the guy gets the better deal. He can walk away leaving his offspring with its mother who will have to both raise and fund their child, while he can do whatever. All that is required of him is to make a monthly payment, which is nothing to the financial and social sacrifices the mother has to make.

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

I'll be looking out for you on Maury dramallama

[Marluxiana]

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

Cool fact from psychology: that's because confidence is actually a more major attractor than actual physical build.

[worse than i seem]

Robot Macai

But diapers and so on can only cost so much. Your argument works for low-income males, but not high-income ones. Explain why there is no cap on child support, if it's not alimony.

Because it's expected you pay a certain amount to take care of your child. The more you have, the more you can give to them.

In reality it's not about what you owe the mother, it's what you owe your child. You biologically brought that person into the world and are expected to care for it (whether you are male or female, it really comes down to who has full custody of the child).

Quote:

Ejaculating inside of a woman =/= child. Potential child, yes. Actual child, no. On the other hand, choosing to birth a child = child, and choosing to abort a child = no child. Men do not choose to bring children into the world, women do. You're simply incorrect on this one.

Only it does. Men know they have no say when it comes to whether or not the woman is going to have an abortion. Therefore when they have sex with a woman they are risking bringing a child into this world if the woman wouldn't abort in the case of pregnancy.

Just because something isn't planned doesn't mean you can waive any responsibility.

Quote:

A woman decides a birth is to take place. The father must pay for this choice, otherwise he is not accepting responsibility for his own actions.

And the man decided to have sex with her.

You're really trying to find any reason to excuse a man of any responsibility for the pregnancy with the argument "BUT SHE COULD HAVE ABORTED!!!!!"

Which is not the same thing.

Because, again, it's not about what money he owes the women. It's about the money he owes his child.

Quote:

Yes it does. He didn't bring it into the world. He made a sperm donation. That's literally the end of his contribution to the manufacture of this child. The child was incubated in its mother's womb, and its mother decided whether or not it is to be born at all--not the father. Under your thinking, if I give someone a car, and then they get into a car accident with it, I am partially responsible for that accident. Doesn't fly.

Here would be a better comparison:

A man gets in an accident with a woman where no fault can be determined. Your car is fine, here's has some pretty serious damage.

There are two options the women could take:

*Fix the car with her own money/money you give her for repairs (abortion)
*Turn a claim into the insurance, in which the man's insurance will go up for several years (have the child)

Does the man get to scream that he's no longer responsible to pay his insurance because hey, she could have totally just taken a one time payment from him to take care of it.

He had sex, he created a child, that child was born.

He now has a legal obligation to care for the child. As long as that kid is his flesh and blood, he has to deal with it.

Quote:

Now then, answer me this: since child support is not alimony, and not an obligation to the mother, but to the child, why can mothers put their children up for adoption and not pay child support? Explain. You dodged this question last time. I won't let you do it again.

The mother cannot give the child up for adoption without the father agreeing.

The father can actually gain full custody of the child at that point and then the mother has to pay him child support. If the father does not consent the adoption cannot go through.

[Knobist]

Marluxiana

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

Cool fact from psychology: that's because confidence is actually a more major attractor than actual physical build.

I need evidence for that.

[Anouska]

Jacque De Molay

I'm incredibly happy that women can become engineers and not be yelled at. I'm happy that a man and women can both wear pants and smoke a cigar without being looked at as an eyesore.
What is there to be angry about? Feminism is women wanting equal rights and in the modern day their rights are pretty much secured. How can you be against that without being a misogynist? Women don't have to just keep having kids. Women can do as they please without having their rights violated. I might argue that Feminism is losing it's necessity because most women have their rights secured and aren't expected to pop out 5 kids but I wouldn't argue that Feminism is bad. Our society is becoming more automatic and people don't have to worry about fitting sex roles because we're not having to support a tribe anymore. We have the luxury of Skinny Jeans,Hybrids, Starbucks and Coca-Cola! We don't have to take action because of a dire need to keep the tribe alive anymore. We can take action because we feel like taking action.

I'm happy that our society is abundant and can afford Feminism. What do you think?

I don't think that you understand what feminism truly is, and honestly most folk don't. Contemporary feminism is largely fragmented overlapping with different ideologies and academic fields. Feminist viewpoints are too quite fragmented to the point they conflict. For example liberal feminists would say that equal rights are progressive towards equality, while radical feminists would say that equal rights are meaningless, because social institutions that exist within society reproduce inequality. There is some interesting pieces of research by radical feminist that highlights the continued existence of gender inequality and discrimination within socialist societies despite the introduction of gender equality policies.
This example is transferable to our own societies where gender equality policies exist, but statistical data still shows plenty of evidence of inequality i.e. pay gap, child care, division of labour, the glass ceiling, violence against women ect. Plus modern feminists have flagged up issues such as the 'dual-burden' which identifies the expectation for women to both work, raise the kids, and take care of the house.
Inequality exists, and feminism has always been at the forefront of research into sexism. It is so depressing and dejecting to see so many of my contemporaries not recognize, or be ignorant to the important and vital contributions that feminism has made and continues to make towards equality... and its even more depressing to see so many people state that sexism no longer exists, or even worse, state that women are some how the privileged group.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

That's assuming neither parent wants the child or the biological father is unaware of their offspring. A father can fight to have his name put on a birth certificate or get custody of his own children. If he gets custody then the mother is liable for child maintenance. Women who pay child support are not like unicorns, they do exist.
Even so, what I am trying to highlight are the implications of a policy that allowed a fiscal abortion. A fiscal abortion would increase child abandonment which in turn would place a greater amount of stress upon welfare services. The parent with sole custody would have to provide and care for their children, which brings about issues of child care provision and employment. Both child and parent are at real risk of being trapped in a cycle of poverty. What if that parent could not afford to bring up their children alone? They have to hand their children over to care. The devastation of being forced to pay a monthly payment is nothing compared with the devastation of having to give up a wanted and loved child.

Except this doesn't actually address the point. The point I'm raising is that the law as it pertains to reproduction serves female interests exclusively, and this is not acceptable. Either grant fiscal abortion, or prohibit physical abortion. The choice is yours. But this double standard simply will not float for more than a generation or two.

Anouska

Raising and funding a child are not the same. Is it fair that one parent only the to fund the child while the other has to do both? That's how the system stands at the moment, and you guys seem to be on the winning end. You may perceive a fiscal abortion as a piece of legislation that magically makes up for your lack of womb, but I see it as a piece of oppressive legislation that absolves and transfers any responsibility placed upon the man to the woman.

Considering one chose to bring the child into the world, and the other only chose to squirt a load inside of a v****a? Yes. It's totally fair. The price of personal autonomy is personal responsibility. This is why I'm opposed to compulsory child support at all, in fact; the mother made this happen, not the father, quite literally. You can say that having sex is signing up for childbirth and rearing, but it's nothing compared to abstaining from abortion; in one case, it's a risk, and the other, it's practically a guarantee.

Anouska

Mothers can only get away with that if the father does not challenge for custody, or does not disclose her pregnancy to the father. A fiscal abortion is about economic autonomy- not reproductive autonomy. If a man does not want to reproduce he can either get the snip or be celibate. Currently how things stand the guy gets the better deal. He can walk away leaving his offspring with its mother who will have to both raise and fund their child, while he can do whatever. All that is required of him is to make a monthly payment, which is nothing to the financial and social sacrifices the mother has to make.

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

I'll be looking out for you on Maury dramallama

So what you're saying is, your body is a sacred cow, but your money isn't? Under this thinking, men who wanted children, but had theirs terminated in utero, should be allowed to go to court and get their baby mommas to pay for a surrogate mother. I'm sorry, but are you really prepared to swallow that load, sugartits? wink

[Robot Macai]

worse than i seem

Robot Macai

But diapers and so on can only cost so much. Your argument works for low-income males, but not high-income ones. Explain why there is no cap on child support, if it's not alimony.

Because it's expected you pay a certain amount to take care of your child. The more you have, the more you can give to them.

In reality it's not about what you owe the mother, it's what you owe your child. You biologically brought that person into the world and are expected to care for it (whether you are male or female, it really comes down to who has full custody of the child).

Okay, one, no, it's not "in reality" what I owe the child. In reality, it's what I owe the mother. This is indicated by the fact that people can eschew child support if they just agree to put the child up for adoption. The financial obligation is not to the child, even if you write that down in your court documents; it's to the mother, or occasionally the father.

worse than i seem

Quote:

Ejaculating inside of a woman =/= child. Potential child, yes. Actual child, no. On the other hand, choosing to birth a child = child, and choosing to abort a child = no child. Men do not choose to bring children into the world, women do. You're simply incorrect on this one.

Only it does. Men know they have no say when it comes to whether or not the woman is going to have an abortion. Therefore when they have sex with a woman they are risking bringing a child into this world if the woman wouldn't abort in the case of pregnancy.

Just because something isn't planned doesn't mean you can waive any responsibility.

Now you've entered into circular reasoning territory. Under this logic, prior to legal abortion, getting pregnant meant having responsibility to that child, since they "know they have no say when it comes to whether or not" they can "have an abortion. Therefore when they have sex with a" man "they are risking bringing a child into this world if" they can't get an abortion "in the case of pregnancy."

"Just because something isn't planned doesn't mean you can waive any responsibility."

Seriously, this is the exact line of reasoning used to justify not just bans on abortion, but keeping those bans in place.

worse than i seem

Quote:

A woman decides a birth is to take place. The father must pay for this choice, otherwise he is not accepting responsibility for his own actions.

And the man decided to have sex with her.

You're really trying to find any reason to excuse a man of any responsibility for the pregnancy with the argument "BUT SHE COULD HAVE ABORTED!!!!!"

Which is not the same thing.

>my body, my choice
>your responsibility.

Choose one. The price of personal autonomy is personal responsibility. These policies will not last for more than a generation or two. Enjoy them while they last.

worse than i seem

Because, again, it's not about what money he owes the women. It's about the money he owes his child.

Adoption. This has been addressed on multiple occasions outside of this post.

worse than i seem

Quote:

Yes it does. He didn't bring it into the world. He made a sperm donation. That's literally the end of his contribution to the manufacture of this child. The child was incubated in its mother's womb, and its mother decided whether or not it is to be born at all--not the father. Under your thinking, if I give someone a car, and then they get into a car accident with it, I am partially responsible for that accident. Doesn't fly.

Here would be a better comparison:

A man gets in an accident with a woman where no fault can be determined. Your car is fine, here's has some pretty serious damage.

Did the woman choose whether or not her car is severely damaged? No? Then it's not a better comparison. Try again?

[Robot Macai]

Jacque De Molay

Marluxiana

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

Cool fact from psychology: that's because confidence is actually a more major attractor than actual physical build.

I need evidence for that.

Just don't let women s**t on you, have zero shame about however you feel, and give them zero shame for however they feel. It works.

[Anouska]

Robot Macai

Anouska

That's assuming neither parent wants the child or the biological father is unaware of their offspring. A father can fight to have his name put on a birth certificate or get custody of his own children. If he gets custody then the mother is liable for child maintenance. Women who pay child support are not like unicorns, they do exist.
Even so, what I am trying to highlight are the implications of a policy that allowed a fiscal abortion. A fiscal abortion would increase child abandonment which in turn would place a greater amount of stress upon welfare services. The parent with sole custody would have to provide and care for their children, which brings about issues of child care provision and employment. Both child and parent are at real risk of being trapped in a cycle of poverty. What if that parent could not afford to bring up their children alone? They have to hand their children over to care. The devastation of being forced to pay a monthly payment is nothing compared with the devastation of having to give up a wanted and loved child.

Except this doesn't actually address the point. The point I'm raising is that the law as it pertains to reproduction serves female interests exclusively, and this is not acceptable. Either grant fiscal abortion, or prohibit physical abortion. The choice is yours. But this double standard simply will not float for more than a generation or two.

An abortion is medical procedure for women, so yeah it does serve their interest. But its availability to women does not mean that men deserve some kind of legislation to make up for their own lack of womb or sense of dis-empowerment because they do not have a womb. If they have fears about the financial repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy then they can proactively deal with it before having sex, i.e having a vasectomy, being celibate ect. That right there is how men decide when or if they have babies or not. A fiscal abortion would only add the extra security that a man can sleep with a woman without having any consequences because the burden of any unwanted consequences would automatically default to the woman- which is unfair on women.

Robot Macai

Anouska

Raising and funding a child are not the same. Is it fair that one parent only the to fund the child while the other has to do both? That's how the system stands at the moment, and you guys seem to be on the winning end. You may perceive a fiscal abortion as a piece of legislation that magically makes up for your lack of womb, but I see it as a piece of oppressive legislation that absolves and transfers any responsibility placed upon the man to the woman.

Considering one chose to bring the child into the world, and the other only chose to squirt a load inside of a v****a? Yes. It's totally fair. The price of personal autonomy is personal responsibility. This is why I'm opposed to compulsory child support at all, in fact; the mother made this happen, not the father, quite literally. You can say that having sex is signing up for childbirth and rearing, but it's nothing compared to abstaining from abortion; in one case, it's a risk, and the other, it's practically a guarantee.

An accidental pregnancy is accidental by nature, and therefore not by choice. The choice of abortion is not based upon on the availability of abortion. The choice of abortion is based upon the moral and ethical reasoning of the individual. A devout Catholic would not recognize abortion as a choice, nor would I.

Robot Macai

Anouska

Mothers can only get away with that if the father does not challenge for custody, or does not disclose her pregnancy to the father. A fiscal abortion is about economic autonomy- not reproductive autonomy. If a man does not want to reproduce he can either get the snip or be celibate. Currently how things stand the guy gets the better deal. He can walk away leaving his offspring with its mother who will have to both raise and fund their child, while he can do whatever. All that is required of him is to make a monthly payment, which is nothing to the financial and social sacrifices the mother has to make.

Anouska

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

I'll be looking out for you on Maury dramallama

So what you're saying is, your body is a sacred cow, but your money isn't? Under this thinking, men who wanted children, but had theirs terminated in utero, should be allowed to go to court and get their baby mommas to pay for a surrogate mother. I'm sorry, but are you really prepared to swallow that load, sugartits? wink

What I am saying is that a fiscal abortion is an exploitative and oppressive piece of legislation which could create more inequality, to an already unequal system. Men only have the burden of financing their child, while women have the burden of both raising and funding for said child. The abolishing of child support would mean that all child caring duties and provision are defaulted to women and the welfare state aka the taxpayer.
Realistically, and some what unfortunately for you, I doubt that the neo-liberal politics that govern our societies would ever agree to the notion of a fiscal abortion because of demands and dependency it would create for welfare services.

[Plata Plomo y Sangre]

Marluxiana

Tactical Leg Sweep

ROFL. Secularism is the patriarchy! rolleyes

The most prudent thing to do is just to abandon debates with feminists, because they will never admit that any group besides women as a whole face discrimination. They've long held firm that you get yours, so ******** 'em. As a minority, I will fight for my own group, and I will steamroll over them if necessary in order to do so.

Funny, I fight for equal rights for homosexuals (I am one), racial minorities, etc. But of course, I only believe women deserve rights. Yup.

Way to go, you're doing exactly what you're accusing feminists of!

Woah, did you do that hard hitting analysis of my post in your a**? I'm doing exactly what I'm accusing feminists of doing? Holy s**t, Sherlock, how did ya manage to piece that one together? I only .. you know, ******** said that's exactly what I was doing explicitly.

And good for you that you fight for homosexual rights and racial minorities. Unfortunately for you neither of those is a part of feminist dogma, at least not in the context of women's issues, so thanks for replying with a nonpoint.

[Anouska]

Tactical Leg Sweep

Marluxiana

Tactical Leg Sweep

ROFL. Secularism is the patriarchy! rolleyes

The most prudent thing to do is just to abandon debates with feminists, because they will never admit that any group besides women as a whole face discrimination. They've long held firm that you get yours, so ******** 'em. As a minority, I will fight for my own group, and I will steamroll over them if necessary in order to do so.

Funny, I fight for equal rights for homosexuals (I am one), racial minorities, etc. But of course, I only believe women deserve rights. Yup.

Way to go, you're doing exactly what you're accusing feminists of!

Woah, did you do that hard hitting analysis of my post in your a**? I'm doing exactly what I'm accusing feminists of doing? Holy s**t, Sherlock, how did ya manage to piece that one together? I only .. you know, ******** said that's exactly what I was doing explicitly.

And good for you that you fight for homosexual rights and racial minorities. Unfortunately for you neither of those is a part of feminist dogma, at least not in the context of women's issues, so thanks for replying with a nonpoint.

There are many different feminist variations that focus on women from different ethnic minorities, like Chicana feminism and Black feminism. Many of these distinct branches were formed as a response to the dissatisfaction of main stream feminism of the 60-70s, which was felt to over look ethnic minorities. Feminism that focuses on sexuality like Lesbian feminism has been round since the 70s.
The idea of a universal feminist dogma is a fallacy, I doubt such a thing ever existed. I would suggest that you look into the branch of feminism that is associated with your minority, whatever that maybe,. You may not wholly agree with the ideology that they are selling but you can review whatever research they produce to deepen your understanding of the inequalities that your minority is facing.

[Robot Macai]

Anouska

An abortion is medical procedure for women, so yeah it does serve their interest. But its availability to women does not mean that men deserve some kind of legislation to make up for their own lack of womb or sense of dis-empowerment because they do not have a womb. If they have fears about the financial repercussions of an unwanted pregnancy then they can proactively deal with it before having sex, i.e having a vasectomy, being celibate ect. That right there is how men decide when or if they have babies or not. A fiscal abortion would only add the extra security that a man can sleep with a woman without having any consequences because the burden of any unwanted consequences would automatically default to the woman- which is unfair on women.

"My body, my choice, your responsibility."

Anouska

An accidental pregnancy is accidental by nature, and therefore not by choice. The choice of abortion is not based upon on the availability of abortion. The choice of abortion is based upon the moral and ethical reasoning of the individual. A devout Catholic would not recognize abortion as a choice, nor would I.

The choice of abortion is based on whatever the ******** the pregnant woman wants it to be based on. The price she must pay for this autonomy is being the sole bearer of the responsibility of her choice. You don't get to claim all the decision-making power and then simultaneously pawn off half the responsibility for the direct consequences of your decision on someone else. This ship will not sail.

Anouska

hat I am saying is that a fiscal abortion is an exploitative and oppressive piece of legislation which could create more inequality, to an already unequal system. Men only have the burden of financing their child, while women have the burden of both raising and funding for said child. The abolishing of child support would mean that all child caring duties and provision are defaulted to women and the welfare state aka the taxpayer.
Realistically, and some what unfortunately for you, I doubt that the neo-liberal politics that govern our societies would ever agree to the notion of a fiscal abortion because of demands and dependency it would create for welfare services.

The difference you keep failing to make: the woman chooses to accept this responsibility; she has the real option to opt-out of it, as in, get an abortion. A man does not. This is the crux of the issue that you don't.seem to really grasp. To even suggest that the price of your bodily autonomy being personal responsibility is "oppressive" is laughable outright.

That said, things are slowly but surely moving in the direction I want them to go in. Paternity fraud legislation today, child support abolishment tomorrow. In liberal States at that. Your time is marked.

[Project 429]

Jacque De Molay

Marluxiana

Robot Macai

EDIT: Also yeah, I do kind of spread my wild oats. I'm a big fat guy and I, from time to time, get laid. I'm surprised it even happens, I thought women hated fat guys until I started flirting and got a few positive responses.

Cool fact from psychology: that's because confidence is actually a more major attractor than actual physical build.

I need evidence for that.

Open your window.

[worse than i seem]

Robot Macai

Did the woman choose whether or not her car is severely damaged? No? Then it's not a better comparison. Try again?

We're talking in circles here so I'm only going to address this part.

The woman did not choose to be in accident where her car was damaged in the same way a woman did not plan to get pregnant from sex.

So the comparison stands.