patrick.net

ch_tah2 says

He helped get into the mess; he can help with it.

Again, he has no choice; she has choices.

Society has no choice either.

The Woman has unilateral control of the situation, but can demand multilateral support from everybody else without them having ANY choice in the matter.

This is an unbalanced situation with massive repercussions for society.

T L Lipsovich says

Responsibility without having a choice is authoritarianism, and exploitation.

A woman faces fewer consequences, in fact her life may be dramatically improved, by having a child and getting both state benefits and child support, the latter of which is spent entirely by the woman and subject to no controls. She could spent it on weaves and nobody would be the wiser.

I've said, my view is the man has a choice, just earlier in the situation.

Why does everything always begin with the assumption that the man is incapable of actually caring for the child? If they have joint custody, the man's financial burden drops in many states (if not, it should). So, men have additional choices as well.

ch_tah2 says

Why does everything always begin with the assumption that the man is incapable of actually caring for the child?

That is not at issue. This is a matter of rights.

ch_tah2 says

I've said, my view is the man has a choice, just earlier in the situation.

And I pointed out that it is a bad analogy, because the woman can keep, give away for adoption, or abort the child AS WELL AS decide whether to have sex.

The only "Choice" men have is the sex part. If condoms fail or pills "Forget" to be taken, he's Shit out of luck, and totally at the mercy of whatever the woman decides.

T L Lipsovich says

This is an unbalanced situation with massive repercussions for society.

I agree, but until our society becomes not just a pro choice one, but a pro abortion one, that's the society we live in.

I have a great idea: Society only supports single mothers in half-way homes, with curfews and duties and mandatory education - but with free child and health care.

That way single mothers who can't afford babies can't live free and independently.

That would get rid of 80% of indigent births, once enough teenage and young women realize a baby is no longer a ticket to an apartment and food stamps and other benefits, but to a minimum-security prison type situation.

T L Lipsovich says

And I pointed out that it is a bad analogy, because the woman can keep, give away for adoption, or abort the child AS WELL AS decide whether to have sex.

The only "Choice" men have is the sex part. If condoms fail or pills "Forget" to be taken, he's Shit out of luck, and totally at the mercy of whatever the woman decides.

I don't think it's a bad analogy. As I've said, it is not a biologically level playing field. It cannot be 100% equal because men do not carry babies in them for 9 months. At some point, the woman decides.

ch_tah2 says

I don't think it's a bad analogy. As I've said, it is not a biologically level playing field. It cannot be 100% equal because men do not carry babies in them for 9 months. At some point, the woman decides.

I disagree, this is a matter of legal equality.

It's no different than gay marriage. Before society said "No Way". Now society says "Okay."

All we need to do is allow men to file paperwork within 90 days of being informed they are the biological dad (or will be the bio dad) to excuse themselves from fatherhood.

We've created a Sexual Utopia for women that regardless of outcome, they are always in control and always taken care of, so the incentive to regulate themselves is minimal and wholly a self-centered personal choice without reference to their partner or society.

T L Lipsovich says

I have a great idea: Society only supports single mothers in half-way homes, with curfews and duties and mandatory education - but with free child and health care.

That way single mothers who can't afford babies can't live free and independently.

That would get rid of 80% of indigent births, once enough teenage and young women realize a baby is no longer a ticket to an apartment and food stamps and other benefits, but to a minimum-security prison type situation.

I agree more should be done to discourage women getting pregnant without being able to support the child. I'm in no way a proponent of single motherhood. But, again, you are proposing some pretty draconian measures. Will they work? Maybe. But out society is not on board with it.

ch_tah2 says

But out society is not on board with it.

Of course not. Women are well aware that the law is overwhelmingly in their favor and allows them all the choice-power but heavily mitigates any negative consequences.

I say we should license parenting. You have to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to have a child. We support the poor with welfare to make sure all their living needs are met, but the those who take welfare cannot have children until they have paid society back every penny. If they die without paying it back, we'll absorb the costs, but we won't let the poverty persist generation after generation. Ultimately this will make poverty a self-correcting problem.

People should be required to put back what they've taken from the system before they get their genes into the next generation so that there are resources to protect the next generation. This is the essence of sustainability.

We can debate the enforcement mechanism, but let's first accept the principle. A child is not an accessory like a purse. Your desire to get your crappy ass DNA into the next generation does not warrant generation after generation of impoverishment. Mankind should not act as a virus, doing everything possible to reproduce to the point of killing off its environment. Your genetic code simply isn't that important. And if society is going to provide great assistance in making sure that people don't starve or die from exposure, that they are educated and protected, then society has the right to demand that you do your part in responsible reproduction, namely refraining from it until you can put back into the world at least as much as you have taken out. Anything less is just plain selfishness on your part.

It is the responsibility of each generation to leave the world a slightly better place than it has found it.

Going out on a limb based on Dan8268 comments:
1) Marriage is a default agreement to have and support children. So, a child conceived from a married couple should make both parties obligated to support that child. And, in this case, the woman does have the decision to bring the child to term even if the father opposes it. Marriage is the "agreement" that presupposed reproduction. If you don't want children, don't get married. We have no current marriage licensing agreements based on income. Perhaps that could change.
2) If you are not married, then the father should have post-contraception rights (just as women already do) as discussed in the various comments and threads above.

I am not sure how you deal with the situation where an unmarried mother chooses to have the child without the agreement of the father. In this case, currently the "state" will make the father support the child. If, in the future, men had an "opt out" right, and yet the woman chooses to continue the pregnancy, what happens to the child? Today the "state" is basically saying that the needs and rights of the child outweighs the father's (and mothers) rights. Perhaps the state "means test" the mother's capability of raising the child; however, that seems a bit invasive. As well, conditions can change and the state may be on the hook anyway (woman loses her job, or gets injured, etc...). Really, the "enemy" in terms of men's post contraceptive rights is not necessarily the women's movement but really the state which has an antiquated notion of reproduction and assumes both parties want the child and that likely the child was conceived "in marriage".

Curious if anyone knows what happens in the case of a woman having a child via sperm donor bank? I believe that the "father" in that case is not legally on the hook for support. In which case, not sure why anyone disagrees that men should be able to "opt out" if unmarried. However, is there any means testing done today for pregnancies from a sperm donor bank? Don't know the answer but curious on that....

Dan8267 says

I say we should license parenting. You have to demonstrate fiscal responsibility to have a child. We support the poor with welfare to make sure all their living needs are met, but the those who take welfare cannot have children until they have paid society back every penny. If they die without paying it back, we'll absorb the costs, but we won't let the poverty persist generation after generation. Ultimately this will make poverty a self-correcting problem.

People should be required to put back what they've taken from the system before they get their genes into the next generation so that there are resources to protect the next generation. This is the essence of sustainability.

We can debate the enforcement mechanism, but let's first accept the principle. A child is not an accessory like a purse. Your desire to get your crappy ass DNA into the next generation does not warrant generation after generation of impoverishment. Mankind should not act as a virus, doing ...

I agree in theory. The problem is in practice, you are essentially telling the poor that they cannot have children. Furthermore, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. Thus, your licensing scheme is racist. Who knew you were such a raging racist, Dan?

krc says

Curious if anyone knows what happens in the case of a woman having a child via sperm donor bank? I believe that the "father" in that case is not legally on the hook for support. In which case, not sure why anyone disagrees that men should be able to "opt out" if unmarried. However, is there any means testing done today for pregnancies from a sperm donor bank? Don't know the answer but curious on that....

I don't know either, but it could be a few different factors: 1) the man signs a contract before deposit time which relieves him of any obligations, 2) the woman knows going in the donor will not be there to support her in any way, 3) does the woman in that case need to show that she is capable financially to raise the child by herself?

So, then the question is couldn't #1 apply to non-sperm bank situations (i.e., a pre-nup for sex). It makes sense to me, although it does seem to leave the child screwed if the mom is an idiot and cannot support the child without support from the father. And the whole point of child support is to, you know, support the child...

Dan8267 says

, you lose an argument and declare victory.

You realize that I can say the same, right?

(And actually, I do not recall declaring a victory. Where's it?)

Dan8267 says

Scientists and engineers

Please do not equate engineers to scientists (and by this I mean physicists). Entirely different way of thinking.

krc says

If you don't want children, don't get married.

Well that's not true. Plenty of straight and gay people get married without the intention of having children. They should, of course, discuss the issue before hand, and if they don't, it's not unreasonable to presume they they are intending to have children. But certainly, people can get married without having the intent to have children. In fact, this is quite common among middle age and old people who already have children and are looking for a second or third marriage for companionship rather than reproduction.

krc says

I believe that the "father" in that case is not legally on the hook for support.

There's been plenty of cases of the state trying to get the sperm donator on the hook. It's not safe in the U.S. and many other countries. If you are going to donate sperm, go to another country and donate anonymously.

ch_tah2 says

I agree in theory. The problem is in practice, you are essentially telling the poor that they cannot have children.

Problems in implementation can be dealt with by improving the implementation. They are not obstacles that cannot be overcome.

Nor does this mean that poor people cannot ever become parents. It means that the poor, the bipolar, the homeless, etc. must get their together before becoming a parent. I have no problem with anti-poverty programs designed to address the root causes of poverty and to get people permanently out of poverty. I'm more than willing to pay taxes for that as I have stated many times.

ch_tah2 says

Furthermore, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. Thus, your licensing scheme is racist. Who knew you were such a raging racist, Dan?

That's called race baiting, and it's a sign of a weak position.

There was a case where standardized testing for fire fighters resulted in white, typically Irish, men being promoted because they did substantially better on the tests. The entire purpose of the test was to eliminate any bias and make the test fair and objective. But the city demoted the men afterwards because the city didn't get the results they wanted. This was morally wrong, legally discriminating against the white fire fighters on the basis of race, and it endangered the community by promoting unqualified people instead. Put simply, the city was being racist trying not to be racist.

Seeking race-specific results is racism. Having a level playing field is not. And yes, I'm a "fucking white male" and anyone who has a problem with that is a bigot. I don't care about race. I care about results. And equality of opportunity and equality of outcome are mutually exclusive. I will always pick the former.

FP says

Dan8267 says

, you lose an argument and declare victory.

You realize that I can say the same, right?

Yes, but in your case you would be wrong.

FP says

Please do not equate engineers to scientists (and by this I mean physicists). Entirely different way of thinking.

Not really. The work environment and length of time spent on projects differs vastly between scientists and engineers, but people in both fields tend to have similar world views, curiosity, and interests.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Furthermore, black and brown people are disproportionately poor. Thus, your licensing scheme is racist. Who knew you were such a raging racist, Dan?

That's called race baiting, and it's a sign of a weak position.

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

ch_tah2 says

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids licensing parenting just like there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Child Protective Services from taking children away from unfit parents. You might want to argue that there should be, but there is not. And even if there were, the Constitution can and sometimes should be amended.

Just because something is Constitutional does not mean it should be, and just because something is Unconstitutional doesn't mean it should be. The Constitution is not a religious book. It can be changed for the better.

Tom Woods interviews Paul Elam at this link

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/9/3/3/933441722ffa011e/woods_2017_01_24.mp3?c_id=13970865&expiration=1485295518&hwt=533849a4e62d106756c162d3bc8c7b39

Should I paste the transcript?

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Actually it's called unconstitutional.

There is nothing in the Constitution that forbids licensing parenting just like there is nothing in the Constitution preventing Child Protective Services from taking children away from unfit parents. You might want to argue that there should be, but there is not. And even if there were, the Constitution can and sometimes should be amended.

Just because something is Constitutional does not mean it should be, and just because something is Unconstitutional doesn't mean it should be. The Constitution is not a religious book. It can be changed for the better.

Actually, there are probably several amendments to the Constitution that your licensing scheme violates, but I was specifically referring to your plan which would disproportionately affect poor minorities. It's just ironic considering you seem to blame the white man for so many things, and then here you come and your plan would effectively wipe out a good percentage of minorities.

Dan8267 says

FP says

Please do not equate engineers to scientists (and by this I mean physicists). Entirely different way of thinking.

Not really. The work environment and length of time spent on projects differs vastly between scientists and engineers, but people in both fields tend to have similar world views, curiosity, and interests.

Still, they have different way thinking, different way of approaching problems.

FP says

Still, they have different way thinking, different way of approaching problems.

That has nothing to do with my original statement that you attempted to and failed to refute.

Dan8267 says

Scientists and engineers value curiosity, and that is a quality young children have. It's not the same thing as immaturity. Scientists and engineers still debate things at an adult level. Refute the central point of your opponent with evidence and reasoning. In value debates, make compelling arguments that your values are best and why, and what are the flaws and consequences of your opponent's. That's the difference between those who succeed and those who fail.

Declare victory for yourself means nothing.

Dan8267 says

As long as we don't confuse it with the SI unit for stupidity, the FP.

This illustrates well the difference. Engineer - originality limited to minor alterations of known concepts.

FP says

orinality limited to minor alterations of known concepts.

You mean like spelling?

Dan8267 says

That has nothing to do with my original statement that you attempted to and failed to refute.

On the contrary:

1. You wrongly stated that I have declared victory. I asked you where. You did not answer.

2. Equating scientists and engineers reveals that you don't understand how the former think. This disqualies you from passing an opinion on the subject.

Dan8267 says

You mean like spelling?

This is the best you could come up with? So sad.

Yes my spelling in English is bad. Especially when typing on a phone. I'll give you this - you are better English speller than me.

FP says

Dan8267 says

You mean like spelling?

This is the best you could come up with? So sad.

Honey, there is not argument that you have, so there is nothing to counter-argue.

But if your stupid, incoherent post is going to set up a good joke, I'm going to hit it out of the ballpark.

If you want me to take your seriously, warrant it.

Danny boy, I don't care how you take me. You fell for a simple tease like a silly teenage girl and then exploded like a complete idiot.

lostand confused says

Well in addition to that, sometimes when conception is by another man, the man "considered" as the father because of the lies is still forced to do whatever the fraud wants. No one cares he was defrauded , his heart broken, his life shattered-he still has to pay under threat of jail.

Every reasonable person thinks (or should) that is wrong.

And yes, women do have more choices after conception, but in general, they also have more responsibilities.

Plus, 99% of the time when a woman ends her responsibility, the man's responsibility ends too.

FP says

You fell for a simple tease like a silly teenage girl and then exploded like a complete idiot.

I exposed your stupidity. I didn't explode. It's pretty sad that you are so obsessed with trying to upset strangers on the Internet. Do you really have no life?

In any case, there is nothing you could say that would upset me. I simply do not give a damn what you think. I just like exposing idiots for what they are so that their stupidity doesn't spread. I'm not angry. I'm laughing at you.

There's a simple solution here.

Have the State force possession of the child to whichever party is financially capable.

1. Single mom keeps child. She can afford to raise it, so she does

2. Single mom cannot afford child, so The State steps in and forces custody to the father.

3. Neither party is capable of raising the child, so CPS steps in and The State takes custody, and the child is put for adoption

ch_tah2 says

Seriously? I can't tell if you are joking or if you've gone full SJW.

If someone can't tell if your batshit crazy or joking, that's on you.

Dan8267 says

ch_tah2 says

Seriously? I can't tell if you are joking or if you've gone full SJW.

If someone can't tell if your batshit crazy or joking, that's on you.

But I always think you are batshit crazy...