Support NeoGAF

[Gaborn]

I've said it before, but that's already the case for single women now. A lot of them don't know the father, and she winds up with full responsibility of the child and all of its attendant needs and she already has a support structure in the forms of numerous social programs made to help single mothers.

Which is why we have DNA testing and can in many (I'd say most cases) find the father for sure. As as for "numerous social programs" fuck THAT. It's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for your spawn because you choose to deny that you had a child.

And there is already societal pressure on young single women to abort, with this pressure being reversed in more conservative areas.

True there is, that doesn't mean it SHOULD be. When the OP started this thread he talked about a hypothetical that seems rather repugnant. He talked about the world as he wanted it to be. Now I'm doing the same.

If a mother cant do it, why is she forcing a child to be born? You make it seem like we are trying to change the world in the sense that there arent already millions of dead beat fathers already and deceitful women out there.

Forcing the child to be born? Why make that assumption? Let's say she has a good job, not a great job but it's enough to scrape by. Then the economy has a down turn (That happens sometimes you know *glances around meaningfully*) and suddenly she's lost her position and her baby STILL needs food it STILL needs diapers and she STILL has rent to pay. Who should be responsible if not the dad to help her?

We are simply proposing a legal option to opt out of accidental pregnancy AHEAD of any pregnancy.
We arent saying there are 2 people dating never talk about having kids but the girl gets pregnant and the guy wants a legal option to not raise the kid financially or emotionally.We are talking about both people agreeing to no accidental pregnancy taking place and if one happens than the women agrees to take full responsibility because she either agreed she wasnt ready for pregnancy or because she understands that she shouldnt force another person into parenthood because she decided to have the child after all.

Which, frankly is a rather idiotic and one sided deal for the woman in question.

Can you guys really not see the difference?

Nope, I can't. Situations happen where you start out in a position to take care of a kid if you accidentally get one, then a year later you just CAN'T. That doesn't mean it should fall on tax payers to clean up your mess.

 

[Espada]

Which is why we have DNA testing and can in many (I'd say most cases) find the father for sure.

That is extremely expensive. If you're for saving the taxpayer money and bettering society, this is the wrong way to go.

As as for "numerous social programs" fuck THAT. It's not my responsibility as a taxpayer to pay for your spawn because you choose to deny that you had a child.

There is no "fuck THAT" when it comes to children without fathers. These programs MUST exist for their sake, and for their mothers' sake. Those programs exist because they are among the most vulnerable segments of society.

True there is, that doesn't mean it SHOULD be. When the OP started this thread he talked about a hypothetical that seems rather repugnant. He talked about the world as he wanted it to be. Now I'm doing the same.

True, but that's incredibly idealistic. Society pressures us in one way or another, let's not think that we'll come to a point where all decisions are supported equally. A more secular society will insist that women abort, while a more religious one will cast it in the most negative terms.

 

[Gaborn]

There is no "fuck THAT" when it comes to children without fathers. These programs MUST exist for their sake, and for their mothers' sake. Those programs exist because they are among the most vulnerable segments of society.

Allow me to rephrase. Fuck THAT when you're talking about a father who won't take responsibility, it's again a necessary evil when you're talking about a kid whose father is dead.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

If a man "aborts" the child in that arrangement put out, it would be as if the child has no father, and the father no child. The mother would've made a serious mistake, but she would be treated as any other single mother who has no father on the child's birth certificate.

Notify her of this, and move along.

The rights of the child can not be relinquished without its consent.

 

[Espada]

Allow me to rephrase. Fuck THAT when you're talking about a father who won't take responsibility, it's again a necessary evil when you're talking about a kid whose father is dead.

Society has to deal with that, not with "BUCK UP" but by increasing the value of fatherhood and its benefits. Mind you, we're talking about a minority of men since most are involved and a good number pay their child support end of the bargain.

But for the clowns that don't want to be dragged into that role by a woman, provide a legal way out. The situation now is no good for the women and children stuck with a guy who loathes the woman for what she did and the kid for what it represents.

The rights of the child can not be relinquished without its consent.

In this hypothetical situation, the child wouldn't have rights because there would be no father. Hence the father "aborts" himself. That said, your situation is unlikely. Assuming government subsidization of abortion, and notification of the father's action, most women would abort.

 

[Jenov]

The right of woman to have an abortion will never and can never be made equal to what you're proposing. Walking away from a living, needing child is not equal, no matter the circumstances. It may not be "fair" - but that's biology's fault, not society.

 

[Gaborn]

Society has to deal with that, not with "BUCK UP" but by increasing the value of fatherhood and its benefits. Mind you, we're talking about a minority of men since most are involved and a good number pay their child support end of the bargain.

But for the clowns that don't want to be dragged into that role by a woman, provide a legal way out. The situation now is no good for the women and children stuck with a guy who loathes the woman for what she did and the kid for what it represents.

He's not stuck with the woman but he'll always be a part of who that kid is. If he doesn't want to see either that's fine, but his wages should still be garnished to help support the kid's care.

 

[Espada]

He's not stuck with the woman but he'll always be a part of who that kid is. If he doesn't want to see either that's fine, but his wages should still be garnished to help support the kid's care.

I don't have a problem with the child getting what it needs from the father once its born. That situation is perfect as it is. This is something wholly different. How much money is spent by the state chasing men who don't pay child support?

 

[Gaborn]

I don't have a problem with the child getting what it needs from the father once its born. That situation is perfect as it is. This is something wholly different. How much money is spent by the state chasing men who don't pay child support?

Probably too much, men should also have some of their wages garnished extra for the state to pay for the DNA test and investigation to establish paternity, whether in whole or in part. Of course if they take responsibility right from the outset without requiring one (or by paying for one themselves) that should be waived.

 

[oneHeero]

The rights of the child can not be relinquished without its consent.

So why not have a option prior to a pregnancy? Is that to much to ask? If you dont agree to it, you wouldnt have to use the option. That's the beauty of it, no one is forcing you use the legal proposition we are suggesting. Just like no one is forcing you to agree to abortions being right or not. Its your own choice. It would also be the girls choice to use the legal option or not. Basically like a prenup. She is knowingly agreeing with the guy that she does not want a pregnancy though. And if that changes than you could get the agreement canceled as an option.

A girl does not have to agree to the option just like she can stop dating that guy if she doesnt agree with his point of view. ITS JUST AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY USE THIS OPTION. Its not being forced onto society as a requirement.

What if the girl doesn't want kids but gets pregnant on accident and wants to have an abortion? The guy wants the kid, who gets screwed? The guy right? NOT Anymore, they can both agree ahead of time that neither want an accidental pregnancy and the women has the choice to abort(as she does now) and the guy has the choice to leave all responsibilities behind and never be allowed contact in the future.
It works for females too.

I find it hard to believe you cant see this as being a option. Are you for gay marriage? If so, than why wouldnt you be for allowing another option in terms of unwanted pregnancies?

I'm for gay marriage, I think people against it are fucken stupid. It doesnt effect them in anyway. It's not their choice, so what if there are risk(in their opinion) it should be the 2 peoples choice to participate in a marriage if they want to.

Just like it should be both the guy and the girls decision to have a pregnancy or not have a pregnancy(and if she choses to have a child from a ACCIDENTAL pregnancy than the guy should be allowed to leave all responsibilities since BOTH parties agreed on a no accidental pregnancy contract.

 

[Gaborn]

So why not have a option prior to a pregnancy? Is that to much to ask? If you dont agree to it, you wouldnt have to use the option. That's the beauty of it, no one is forcing you use the legal proposition we are suggesting. Just like no one is forcing you to agree to abortions being right or not. Its your own choice. It would also be the girls choice to use the legal option or not. Basically like a prenup. She is knowingly agreeing with the guy that she does not want a pregnancy though. And if that changes than you could get the agreement canceled as an option.

A girl does not have to agree to the option just like she can stop dating that guy if she doesnt agree with his point of view. ITS JUST AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY USE THIS OPTION. Its not being forced onto society as a requirement.

What if the girl doesn't want kids but gets pregnant on accident and wants to have an abortion? The guy wants the kid, who gets screwed? The guy right? NOT Anymore, they can both agree ahead of time that neither want an accidental pregnancy and the women has the choice to abort(as she does now) and the guy has the choice to leave all responsibilities behind and never be allowed contact in the future.
It works for females too.

I find it hard to believe you cant see this as being a option. Are you for gay marriage? If so, than why wouldnt you be for allowing another option in terms of unwanted pregnancies?

I'm for gay marriage, I think people against it are fucken stupid. It doesnt effect them in anyway. It's not their choice, so what if there are risk(in their opinion) it should be the 2 peoples choice to participate in a marriage if they want to.

Just like it should be both the guy and the girls decision to have a pregnancy or not have a pregnancy(and if she choses to have a child from a ACCIDENTAL pregnancy than the guy should be allowed to leave all responsibilities since BOTH parties agreed on a no accidental pregnancy contract.

The problem is in the essentially year from before conception to after a baby's born and you really start looking at your expenses a LOT can change. You're saying that if a woman agrees to that "option" then no matter what the man isn't responsible for the baby. So as I said, say she loses her job, or the baby has an unforseen medical problem that isn't covered under her insurance, who should help her pay for it? Tax payers? Her parents?

You shouldn't be able to just walk away because unforeseen circumstances crop up almost constantly and advocating that "option" is like suggesting an 8 year old can map out their entire career path without allowing for any deviation or changing their mind.

 

[goomba]

So when a woman has a baby and gives it up for adoption is she failing to live up to her responsibility ?

Its just wrong that women can have a kid, abort a kid or give a kid up where men are at the mercy of the mother.

 

[Espada]

Probably too much, men should also have some of their wages garnished extra for the state to pay for the DNA test and investigation to establish paternity, whether in whole or in part. Of course if they take responsibility right from the outset without requiring one (or by paying for one themselves) that should be waived.

Hmm, maybe we should tax all working men? This would save the state money in chasing people who absolute will not cough up the money the child needs, while providing far more to those children than the deadbeat ever could.

 

[Gaborn]

Hmm, maybe we she should tax all working men? This would save the state money in chasing people who absolute will not cough up the money the child needs, while providing far more to those children than the deadbeat ever could.

Nope. I wouldn't garnish the wages of men that are not the father either. But if they find you and you've been denying your responsibility? You can pay for your own damn paternity test.

 

[Espada]

Nope. I wouldn't garnish the wages of men that are not the father either. But if they find you and you've been denying your responsibility? You can pay for your own damn paternity test.

But that solution makes much more sense, produces much more for those children and saves the state time (and money). Society already provides for the disadvantaged by using funds from those who are not. This would just be more of the same.

 

[Jenov]

So why not have a option prior to a pregnancy? Is that to much to ask? If you dont agree to it, you wouldnt have to use the option. That's the beauty of it, no one is forcing you use the legal proposition we are suggesting. Just like no one is forcing you to agree to abortions being right or not. Its your own choice. It would also be the girls choice to use the legal option or not. Basically like a prenup. She is knowingly agreeing with the guy that she does not want a pregnancy though. And if that changes than you could get the agreement canceled as an option.

A girl does not have to agree to the option just like she can stop dating that guy if she doesnt agree with his point of view. ITS JUST AN OPTION FOR PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY USE THIS OPTION. Its not being forced onto society as a requirement.

What if the girl doesn't want kids but gets pregnant on accident and wants to have an abortion? The guy wants the kid, who gets screwed? The guy right? NOT Anymore, they can both agree ahead of time that neither want an accidental pregnancy and the women has the choice to abort(as she does now) and the guy has the choice to leave all responsibilities behind and never be allowed contact in the future.
It works for females too.

I find it hard to believe you cant see this as being a option. Are you for gay marriage? If so, than why wouldnt you be for allowing another option in terms of unwanted pregnancies?

I'm for gay marriage, I think people against it are fucken stupid. It doesnt effect them in anyway. It's not their choice, so what if there are risk(in their opinion) it should be the 2 peoples choice to participate in a marriage if they want to.

Just like it should be both the guy and the girls decision to have a pregnancy or not have a pregnancy(and if she choses to have a child from a ACCIDENTAL pregnancy than the guy should be allowed to leave all responsibilities since BOTH parties agreed on a no accidental pregnancy contract.

You're still not seeing it right. The newly born child is the one that is hurt by that "option" by losing out on half of it's financial support for food, water, shelter, etc.

Do you not see how that's unfair to the child?

And I fail to see what gay marriage has to do with this....

 

[Gaborn]

But that solution makes much more sense, produces much more for those children and saves the state time (and money). Society already provides for the disadvantaged by using funds from those who are not. This would just be more of the same.

Anyone who works is already taxed for that purpose (those social programs you mentioned). What I'm suggesting is an added garnish for men who have a child they're refusing to support. The government should first establish paternity either through DNA test or admission of responsibility and then have the dad pay child support out of a portion of their wages, with an extra 10% or so tacked on to pay for the DNA test until that is paid off. I don't think that's unreasonable if they're making the state prove they're the father (and the state is successful in doing so). There are even home DNA kits that you can buy these days.

 

[BladeWorker]

It takes two to screw up and end up "accidentally" pregnant. A baby is not something that happens to you, it's something that you make happen.

If you leave that child - that little human being, that little you - without what support you are able to offer, you are committing the most irresponsible act you could ever possibly do.

That child deserves more than you saying "I never wanted you, so I'm going to run away and pretend you don't exist."

 

[goomba]

You're still not seeing it right. The newly born child is the one that is hurt by that "option" by losing out on half of it's financial support for food, water, shelter, etc.

Do you not see how that's unfair to the child?

And I fail to see what gay marriage has to do with this....

How about how unfair it is on the child on being brought into the world with a father that never wanted to have it in the first place?

 

[Jenov]

So when a woman has a baby and gives it up for adoption is she failing to live up to her responsibility ?

Its just wrong that women can have a kid, abort a kid or give a kid up where men are at the mercy of the mother.

It's not wrong. It's nature. By the way, both parents have to give up the baby for adoption, it's not exclusively the mother's decision. If the father wants the child, he can take custody and then ask the mother to pay for support instead.

So really you're only angry that it's "wrong" that a woman can choose to have a kid or abort a kid. Well guess what, when you're able to make men pregnant, you'll have righted nature's wrong

 

[goomba]

It takes two to screw up and end up "accidentally" pregnant. A baby is not something that happens to you, it's something that you make happen.

If you leave that child - that little human being, that little you - without what support you are able to offer, you are committing the most irresponsible act you could ever possibly do.

That child deserves more than you saying "I never wanted you, so I'm going to run away and pretend you don't exist."

So why can mothers give up their babies for adoption without question?

 

[BladeWorker]

So why can mothers give up their babies for adoption without question?

They can't. In a legal adoption, both parents have to sign off. Only if the father gives up his parental rights does the mother have the only say.

 

[KevinRo]

It's not wrong. It's nature. By the way, both parents have to give up the baby for adoption, it's not exclusively the mother's decision. If the father wants the child, he can take custody and then ask the mother to pay for support instead.

So really you're only angry that it's "wrong" that a woman can choose to have a kid or abort a kid. Well guess what, when you're able to make men pregnant, you'll have righted nature's wrong

You can't be serious? Can you listen to yourself

 

[Jenov]

How about how unfair it is on the child on being brought into the world with a father that never wanted to have it in the first place?

??

It would be even more unfair to have the unwanted child then be denied the money needed for food, shelter, and clothing just because Dad didn't want to pay.

 

[Espada]

Anyone who works is already taxed for that purpose (those social programs you mentioned). What I'm suggesting is an added garnish for men who have a child they're refusing to support. The government should first establish paternity either through DNA test or admission of responsibility and then have the dad pay child support out of a portion of their wages, with an extra 10% or so tacked on to pay for the DNA test until that is paid off. I don't think that's unreasonable if they're making the state prove they're the father (and the state is successful in doing so). There are even home DNA kits that you can buy these days.

Oh, I see what you're getting at now. That definitely works, but I'd add some sort of incentive to be more involved with the child. Anything to get the involvement to be more than just financial.

So why can mothers give up their babies for adoption without question?

They can't. I read about a mess of a case where the mother's family disliked the boyfriend and pressured her to put the kid up for adoption, but the father not only hadn't signed away his rights but he wanted custody of the child.

 

[goomba]

It's not wrong. It's nature. By the way, both parents have to give up the baby for adoption, it's not exclusively the mother's decision. If the father wants the child, he can take custody and then ask the mother to pay for support instead.

So really you're only angry that it's "wrong" that a woman can choose to have a kid or abort a kid. Well guess what, when you're able to make men pregnant, you'll have righted nature's wrong

Oh so the father has a choice so long as that choice is to support the child.

 

[goomba]

They can't. In a legal adoption, both parents have to sign off. Only if the father gives up his parental rights does the mother have the only say.

The point being that she can give up a child for adoption if she doesnt want one, men cant.

 

[BladeWorker]

The point being that she can give up a child for adoption if she doesnt want one, men cant.

You can legally petition to relinquish your rights as a parent. If she gives birth, her body changes permanently.

 

[goomba]

You can legally petition to relinquish your rights as a parent. If she gives birth, her body changes permanently.

And even after relinquishing parental rights, you still pay child support.

 

[Jenov]

Oh so the father has a choice so long as that choice to support the child.

You made a choice to have sex.