A man's right to choose.

[Papa_Complex]

I'm against abortion. For me. Fortunately I will never have to make the choice of having an abortion, because I'm not physically designed to carry a child. My position on abortion is that I can't make that decision for someone else.

My point is quite simply that the penalties for make a 'mistake' aren't equal. Either way, carrying the child or aborting it, a woman is going to be exposed to more potential harm. Saying that a man should just be able to wash his hands of the situation and walk away isn't good for society as a whole. The woman didn't create the situation, alone, nor should the situation be solely her responsibility.

For the selfish among you, maybe this will make some sense. Do you really want to be kicking in to support more children of single mothers, when those children should be supported by the people who made them? That's the outcome that you're advocating. More money out of your own pockets.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I'm against abortion. For me. Fortunately I will never have to make the choice of having an abortion, because I'm not physically designed to carry a child. My position on abortion is that I can't make that decision for someone else.

My point is quite simply that the penalties for make a 'mistake' aren't equal. Either way, carrying the child or aborting it, a woman is going to be exposed to more potential harm. Saying that a man should just be able to wash his hands of the situation and walk away isn't good for society as a whole. The woman didn't create the situation, alone, nor should the situation be solely her responsibility.

For the selfish among you, maybe this will make some sense. Do you really want to be kicking in to support more children of single mothers, when those children should be supported by the people who made them? That's the outcome that you're advocating. More money out of your own pockets.

I am against it from that aspect as well, but not against it from an illegal standpoint.

A woman already has that responsibility alone. It's her choice to carry it or not. The man can say nothing about that. This is giving a voice to the man to refuse to take part in what happens after she is done carrying instead of being held hostage.

We are already kicking money into the pot for this reason. Look at your situation where he didn't pay, all the court fees that go along with that. We spend a lot of money on nonpaying biological fathers. Costs would most likely hold steady once you factor in everything or may even be reduced on the public. Would be an interesting study to conduct to see it's impact on financials.

Hell if women know that they can't entrap guys with pregnancies, maybe they will take more responsibility in who they screw. I have no faith in men to ever do that for any reason. LOL

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

I am against it from that aspect as well, but not against it from an illegal standpoint.

A woman already has that responsibility alone. It's her choice to carry it or not. The man can say nothing about that. This is giving a voice to the man to refuse to take part in what happens after she is done carrying instead of being held hostage.

We are already kicking money into the pot for this reason. Look at your situation where he didn't pay, all the court fees that go along with that. We spend a lot of money on nonpaying biological fathers. Costs would most likely hold steady once you factor in everything or may even be reduced on the public. Would be an interesting study to conduct to see it's impact on financials.

You may be kicking in some money but you're advocating a situation in which you would have to increase that by multiples, without legal recourse.

In my situation the government, and hence the people, were out the amount that legal aid cost. Nothing more.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

You may be kicking in some money but you're advocating a situation in which you would have to increase that by multiples, without legal recourse.

In my situation the government, and hence the people, were out the amount that legal aid cost. Nothing more.

Plus the amount for everyone that works the courts and all the fees associated with that for all the multiples of people. The amount going to her lawyer also has an impact.

The people who won't be paying will be the same people who aren't paying now and are feeding our legal system.

I really doubt you would see an impact on our costs.

[Rangerscott]

Theres enough humans now. We cant even support all the ones alive now. A reset will eventually have to happen.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Plus the amount for everyone that works the courts and all the fees associated with that for all the multiples of people. The amount going to her lawyer also has an impact.

The people who won't be paying will be the same people who aren't paying now and are feeding our legal system.

I really doubt you would see an impact on our costs.

All dealt with in batch. Negligible cost per individual case, to the order to pay.

Not quite. If what you suggest comes to pass then men who father children, out of wedlock, would be able to wash their hands of it entirely. Right now, in many US jurisdictions, men who don't pay support orders can have their income be subject to garnishee, have their drivers licenses suspended, or perhaps even be jailed for contempt. The money can be obtained from the actual cause, rather than coming from all other taxpayers.

Funny thing is that when my father ultimately left the Province, hoping to get away from the Ontario support order, he moved to the only Province in Canada that actively pursued deadbeat parents. They put the screws to him faster than Ontario would have. The whole thing was handled by phone and within 2 weeks his pay was being docked, at source.

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

All dealt with in batch. Negligible cost per individual case, to the order to pay.

Not quite. If what you suggest comes to pass then men who father children, out of wedlock, would be able to wash their hands of it entirely. Right now, in many US jurisdictions, men who don't pay support orders can have their income be subject to garnishee, have their drivers licenses suspended, or perhaps even be jailed for contempt. The money can be obtained from the actual cause, rather than coming from all other taxpayers.

Funny thing is that when my father ultimately left the Province, hoping to get away from the Ontario support order, he moved to the only Province in Canada that actively pursued deadbeat parents. They put the screws to him faster than Ontario would have. The whole thing was handled by phone and within 2 weeks his pay was being docked, at source.

You would have less mothers that choose to keep the baby, there would be a rise in abortions, so you wouldn't have as many people in the system fighting for money.

Right now, a lot of these dead beat fathers don't have jobs that can be garnished and so going into the prison system ends up costing us even more money.

The costs would even out.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

You would have less mothers that choose to keep the baby, there would be a rise in abortions, so you wouldn't have as many people in the system fighting for money.

Right now, a lot of these dead beat fathers don't have jobs that can be garnished and so going into the prison system ends up costing us even more money.

The costs would even out.

And a lot of them are just hiding their under the table income, until someone throws their asses in the can.

Again, it's simply wrong to put someone in the position where they feel that they have to undergo an invasive procedure. And again, how would you feel if you were told that you were going to be forced to have a vasectomy?

[Trip]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

And a lot of them are just hiding their under the table income, until someone throws their asses in the can.

Again, it's simply wrong to put someone in the position where they feel that they have to undergo an invasive procedure. And again, how would you feel if you were told that you were going to be forced to have a vasectomy?

Some still don't give it up.

It's not right to force someone to pay for a child they clearly do not want to be apart of it's life. I wouldn't compare it to a vasectomy. That one is far more invasive. Men do not really have a like for like example of abortion, there are a few procedures for birth control for men that are still being tested that might be there one day though. And again, no one is forced to have an abortion, that is the mother's choice, adoption is still a perfectly accepted practice. Plenty of people want newborns.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Trip

Some still don't give it up.

It's not right to force someone to pay for a child they clearly do not want to be apart of it's life. I wouldn't compare it to a vasectomy. That one is far more invasive. Men do not really have a like for like example of abortion, there are a few procedures for birth control for men that are still being tested that might be there one day though. And again, no one is forced to have an abortion, that is the mother's choice, adoption is still a perfectly accepted practice. Plenty of people want newborns.

Some mistakes have lifetime consequences, and should.

I don't know about it being "more invasive." It's the closest analogue that I could come up with as it involves reproductive organs. A couple of small incisions and a couple of knots tied, vs. no incision but having your insides scraped. The latter sounds worse than the former, to me.

I'm not going to change my mind. You aren't going to change yours. I'd like to hear what the women have to say.