Male Equality
 

I would first like to say that I know that this article old, but I thought it was interesting. I did a search and didn't see anything on it, so forgive me if I'm just repeating something which has already been discussed prior.

Basically, my friend just showed this to me today. I actually found it quite funny.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11731580/

I do believe they lost their case, but I seriously hope this issue comes up again.

Basically, a woman has three options when dealing with the prospect of motherhood:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for.
3.) Have an abortion.

All are legal in the United States.

A man also has three options when given the choice to be a father:

1.) Raise the child.
2.) Pay child support.
3.) Skip town.

In the United States, #3 is illegal, even though it's basically the same opt-out option as a woman's #3.

Does anyone think that a male choosing not to pay child support will be legalized in the United States anytime soon?

I don't want to stifle current discussion of the topic, but here's some background information that I think might be relevant. linkylink

I recall when this came out, and thought it a good example of showing some of the sillyness about abortion.

While the logic behind the lawsuit amused me, I go with the two wrongs dont' make a right stance on this one. Just because your partner doesn't want her fetus destroyed doesn't nullify your part in creating said fetus.

So when the father wants the child, but the mother doesn't, the father is shit outta luck? How is that in any way fair?

edit: I shoulda clicked the link first... sorry

Actually, it's like this:
Woman
1.) Raise the child with father.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for. (With consent of father)
3.) Have custody battle with father, loser pays child support.
4.) Have an abortion.
5.) Work out an agreement with father that one keeps the baby and assumes all financial liability, the other has no rights or responsibilities afterward.

Man
1.) Raise the child with mother.
2.) Give it up for adoption or to someone else to care for. (With consent of mother)
3.) Have custody battle with mother, loser pays child support.
4.) Work out an agreement with father that one keeps the baby and assumes all financial liability, the other has no rights or responsibilities afterward.
5.) Be a loser and skip town/not pay support

There actually ARE women out there that pay child support to fathers. This is such an old and tired topic. Just a bunch of men that are bitter that women can have control over their own bodies.

You stuck your dick in her, now be an adult and pay the consequences. If you are really dead-set about not having kids, be proactive and sterilize yourself.

Emphasis added.

Its not fair, but as long as some people think of a fetus as no more than a tumor the father can't have any rights or it would nullify their argument.

Wow... it would be difficult to make that further from the truth.

So what you're saying is that men should basically have no rights what-so-ever.

If a woman doesn't want to be a mother, a man can't prevent her from having an abortion. So why should a man be forced by a woman to be a father if he doesn't want to? That seems like a double standard to me.

(I don't want to turn this into a topic about abortion, but I scoff at the "It's my body, so I'll do whateve I want to it!" argument. The day that a woman becomes capable of having a baby by herself is the day I'll accept that argument.)

Anyway, I personally wouldn't skip out on child support if I ever had a child, but I do agree with the underlying logic of the lawsuit.

Agreed on all points. The body is that of the woman, but the responsibilty of the child should be split evenly between the procreators. It takes sperm and ovum to create a human being. If I could have carried my daughter for 9 months, I swear to God I would have. Just because I wasn't given that option doesn't mean I, as a man, should have less rights. I have no problem with women doing manual labor, even though the average man is stronger than the average woman. I don't think it's fair to exclude or mistreat someone based on their gender.

I think that the responsibility should be split on everything 50/50.


Getting to Kutulu... Both genders are responsible for procreation, male and female. If a man has a child and doesn't take responsibility, then he is a child who should have a vesectomy until he's mature enough to live with the consequences for his actions. Likewise, if a girl goes out and has unprotected sex, gets pregmnant, has an abortion, and all that jazz, she should have her tubes tied until she can be mature enough to life with the consequences of her actions. Children (and by that I mean people who can't act like responsible adults) should NEVER have sex. Until contraceptives are have a 100% success rate, people should stop acting like wild dogs and learn to show some restraint.

I also am a little weary from all the condemnation coming from women about dea beat dads. Most dads aren't dead beat dads. I do everything I possibly can to make my daughters life wonderful. I wiould do anything for her.

Another thing that's been bothering me: If women had control over their bodies, wouldn't they avoid the whole abortion process by not shagging some guy? Where is that control under these circumstances? I can understand circumstances such as rape, incest or retardation, but most abortions have nothing to do with those things. Most of the time it's the old 'caught up in the moment' thing...but I digress. This isn't about abortion.

As a woman has 100% of the control of the situation does she not also bear 100% of the responsibility?

As far as I remember of the mothers who pay child support a greater % are "deadbeat parents" than fathers. Also if child support is enforced should the mia parent not also be guranteed access rights? I just can't see how being forced to support kids you aren't allowed to see is in any way fair or a good atmosphere for the kids, many mia parents would still support but mandatory seems odd without the other side of the equation balancing.

No, nor do I think it should be.

I said everything else I wanted to say about men's reproductive rights in the linked thread.

Gilda

Well, I think the first logical step here is to implement a system that forces single mothers recieving child support to spend it on.... the child.

I know a girl who used to work in an office where she answered a phone all day long answering questions from people recieving and owing child support.

She said it was disgusting how many women blow the child support money on whatever. Go shopping for new clothes when it comes in, make car payments, if the man in question makes enough money, support both her and the child on it without working...

She, who I never would have expected this out of before she worked there, by the end claimed for one, 100 times more women blow the support money, than guys who don't pay up. And for two, because of this, she had more respect for the "Dead Beat Dads" out there, than the mothers they're paying support to.

I think once we get that whole system ironed out, theeeeen we can tackle male reproductive rights. Gotta start at the top, one problem at a time.

The whole rape/incest argument is nonsense because they don't make a dent in the number of cases of "normal" pregnancies.

So, with that being said, most women will say that the guy 'stuck his dick in her, he has to pay the consequences'. Well, the girl consented to 'have his dick in her' and so her argument becomes baseless.
It is true that the inequality in rights comes from the fact that the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months while the father does not.

The main argument is that, in the original case, the women lied to the man and said she was unable to become pregnant. She goes ahead and carries the child, against the father's will, and makes him pay child support. In other words, she trapped him.

Let's make the guy pay 1.5* for 9 months... hell make it 18 months to compensate for the pregnancy, then he's off the hook.

Can we PLEASE get some kind of forum rule against this form of arguing? It's very close to trolling, quoting someone's argument and then telling them exactly what it isn't in a blatant attempt to frustrate them, but insisting it is anyway. Complete Strawman.

Taking a quote out of context is also very bad form. I would have thought you would have learned your lesson on posting from the Gay Marriage thread but apparently not after this and your post in the comics thread. Since you made no point here I assume you just wanted to attack the poster (again) and have nothing to add to the discussion.

Yep, that bothers me too. I think I posted quite a bit on that very topic, in some long-gone abortion thread. I'm very pro-choice for women, but I emphasize that the "choice" should be coming BEFORE the pregnancy. "Choice" after the pregnancy already happened is, frankly, irresponsible. But I know it happens, heat-of-the-moment, etc etc, and I think the right to "choose" should be preserved. But the man AND woman are still both responsible for the conception in the first place, and that is why both ought to be equally responsible for the financial costs of the child... no matter who raises it.

Hence, I don't agree with the following: True: the woman lied to the man. False: the man was trapped. If the man TRULY did NOT want to have children, it is STILL his responsibility to use a condom every single time. It does not matter what the woman is saying about her physical condition, use of birth control, tubes tied, etc... if the man DOES NOT want children, the only responsible thing to do is to use a condom (or get a vasectomy).

Sidenote: I do think men should have a say in a woman getting an abortion. But if the woman is forced to give birth to the child purely because of what the man wants (and I assume he plans to raise it), I think he should have to compensate her somehow because of the work of carrying a child for 9 months. That should be all set in stone ahead of time, if necessary... how much he will compensate her, etc. But that will probably never happen. :p

I wasn't just attacking him, I was pointing out an attempt at trolling. "So men should have no rights at all?" is an utterly ridiculous thing to say and blatantly an attempt to aggrivate his opposition.

But of course, as long as people have his back, it's not trolling, it's just an "opinion". But when someone has a problem with that, then you're flaming. Pathetic.

That quote was in no way out of context. He did force on his opposition the position that men should have no right in any parenthood related decisions such as the ones mentioned when he knew it wasn't true. That's an aggressive strawman and a form of trolling. Not an "Opinion".

I'm sorry, but if you continue to attack me and defend him, then I have no respect for you. All I'm trying to do is point out obvious misconduct that gets unnoticed due to forced neutrality. He's blatantly trolling and using the "It's my opinion card" to get away with it, and you're playing into his hands wonderfully.

Actually for it to not count as a troll you must post your view of a fair situation. By not posting any alternative plan, by default you support the current situation. One in which a man has no right to decide on any point of the child rearing process outside of conception.

If a woman with a man becomes pregnant and decides she does not want to become a mother she's pro-choice. If a man is with a woman who becomes pregant, and doesnt want to become a father, he's a deadbeat.

That's what it comes down to at the moment. While I in no way want to make an atmosphere where it is easy to skip out on fatherhood, this is gross inequality.

The only arguments I have heard from women on the issue which argue for the status quoe are the EXACT arguments people make for pro-life. It's the "keep it in your pants" argument, while valid why should only men face an unavoidable consiquence of it and not the other?

ESPECIALLY considering in this case.

Not to turn this into a legality of abortion discussion, but that's a nasty little kink in the whole discussion and one that I'd not considered. I don't have a whole lot to add that hasn't already been said. I agree that there's a gross discrepancy, but I'm having a hard time trying to come up with a solution that makes sense. More thoughts when I've had more time to think about it.

While we understand that no one likes to be baited and slammed...

I guess I want to be sure I know what you're saying... And that's that you still have nothing constructive to add to the thread? And just wanted to point out what you consider to be a disgusting unfairness?

Well, in hopes that it will appease you, I'm going to apolagize for everyone who has "trolled" in this thread.

Back to the subject...

After comming back and re-reading this whole thread, I think I kind of want to retract some of my former opinions here.

The previous poster is right, in that there is no right answer... Though, keep it in your pants if you don't want a kid is about the most logical that's been presented to date.

Men should in my opinion have a say in the abortion... Consent from both, not the option to force an abortion.

Please understand that while I disgree with a lot of the child support system and issues, were I to be placed in that situation, I would NOT need a government agency telling me to care for my child. I would fight tooth and nail to have equal custody, at worst.

An aside, since it's care for the child that the support system is addressing, does the government, or agency or whatever, count money spent directly on the child, as opposed to money handed to the mother?

Meaning, say I have a kid, and the girl and I split, but every other week, I show at her house with groceries, or buy all the kids clothes, or whatever... Does that count? Or if I do that, would I still have to pay the mother a given amount?

A passing thought, why not automatically consider the man not to be a the father unless they opt in? Ok it is kinda odd however then the mother knows the guy wants to be a father and the whole process can be resolved nicely rather than having mothers name fathers and then the whole mess we have right now.

Edit:
Heck, if the father opts in you automatically have joint custody etc as its a shared parenting, otherwise custody is split appropriately.

I believe that child support must come in the form of a check to the custodial parent (mothers can pay child support to men, though men are almost never granted custody which is another discussion entirely). I think showing up with groceries and buying clothes in the eyes of the court are nice extras that you chose to do as opposed to trying to aggregate all those little things together to be the equivalent of paying a check.

Family law isn't my specialty, though, so if someone knows for certain, feel free to speak up.

Read the rest of my post and not just what you want to read. Anyone can take a single sentence and stretch it out of context.

Quite the opposite. I believe that men should have some rights in the issue of fatherhood, as opposed to the no choice they have now. A man can't force a woman into motherhood against her will, yet a women can force a man into fatherhood against his will. I don't agree with that. It takes two to make a baby, so both should get some type of equal say in the issue of parenthood. It shouldn't be 100 - 0 in favor of the woman.

Just to clarify, I don't believe that all men should turn into deadbeats and skip out on their child support, nor do I believe in the "Eye for an eye" view (You know, "Two wrongs don't make a right"). I do believe, though, that men should be given a bit more say in the issue of parenthood.

Sorry, but that's total BS. If that guy didn't want to get her pregnant, than he should have worn a condom every time. Just to be sure. What a moron.

Okay, now as to what I believe. I think that all parental responsibility, financial, care, and love of the child should be split 50/50. It takes two to make a child. Every one should be able to know both their parents and have the support and yes, resources, that both sets of parents can provide.

If fathers of children are allowed to opt out of having any fiscal responsibility for the child, why not the woman too? I mean, what if the only reason she got pregnant was because he wanted a boy. Then she gives birth to a girl and he want's nothing to do with the baby? Why shouldn't the mother then be allowed to leave the kid at the father's doorstep saying you wanted a child. Now you've got one. This line of reasoning leads to places like China that have a low female to male ratio. Where sex selection is practiced through ind exposure (to the elements) of female infants.

I wouldn't be calling anyone a moron when you imply wearing a condom prevents pregnancy.

Thats whats so fun with this idea, it exposes many of the pro-abortion arguments for the sophistry they are.

So Ustwo is against abortion? And Willravel is against abortion? Huh. I guess when you discuss politics long enough, everyone eventually has some common ground.

Um... how? The woman has an option with abortion, the man does not have any option.

So answer my question. This is the exact same argument that pro-lifers give. When the exact same people who support pro-abortions give this argument.

How is it ok that only men have to "keep it in their pants" when women have the option of a way out?

Women can opt out of financial responsibility by: abandoning the kid, putting them up for adoption, leave the kid at their dad's doorstep and taking off. Men, if they really don't want to ever have to provide financially towards a child, and can honestly say they do not want a child, can get a vasectomy. Who said anything about men having to "keep it in their pants"? One of the consequences of having sex is the possibility of having a child. If you can't accept that then either don't have sex, use a condom (yes, I know it's not 100% effective but it's damn well better than trusting someone's word that they can't get pregnant) or get snipped. You can't trust others to look out for your interests. You can only trust yourself to do that. BTW, I'm not a pro-lifer.

My answer to this debate has always been thus: Until a woman can spontaneously impregnate herself without the aid of a man's sperm, the responsibility for the pregnancy falls squarely on the shoulders of two people. It doesn't matter who is carrying it, they are equally responsible for its existence.

Women can give a baby away for adoption, and women can have an abortion. A man, being equal partner in the creation of the fetus, has no options whatsoever. That is inequality.

And I'm tired of all the "if you didn't want to be a daddy, you should have kept it in your pants" bullshit talk. The woman, unless RAPED, is exactly as much at fault for the conception as the man, but the man has no options should conception occur. That, too, is inequality.

And not only does the woman have all the options, but she's the only one who can make the decisions to keep or not keep the baby. If the woman doesn't want it, and the man does, the man is totally fucked. In the reverse situation, the man is still fucked. Now, i'm not AT ALL suggesting that the man should have to give permission for an abortion or adoption... but you must recognize that inequality.

So us as guys are fucked if we do, and fucked if we don't, lol. Where woman are concerned (In modern day) has it ever been any other way?

I don't think it's an "inequality" in the sense that there's nothing you can do about it. It's nature.

Luckily guys the solution to this is obvious.

Don't fuck trashy or batshit insane women, and never a trashy batshit insane one.

The hard part of course is figuring out the good ones from their insane sisters, and thats the true key to happiness.

Magic double post.

Some of us maintain that all women are crazy; it's just a matter of degrees. :)

Crazy sure, but there is crazy and there is batshit insane.

Crazy: They expect you to enjoy going to their aunts for the day.
Batshit insane: They burst into tears and throw things at you when you say you would rather not go to their aunts for the day.

Yeah but they never turn psycho until AFTER the sex. Why? cause generally they're so good in bed they know you'll have a harder time leaving.

too many people saying responsibility falls on the shoulders of 2 people.

Yet they then give full authority to the female in the decision for both of their lives.

little sense here please?

side note: go up and read Analog's post.

That is someone with their head on straight.

sounds like what we need is vagina in a can.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y29...t/poon_can.jpg

I'm sick of the straight up lies in this thread. If you are going to present a debate, be honest.

Putative fathers have rights and CAN prevent mothers from giving up kids for adoption. It's been said before in the thread and others. To continue to state that is trolling. This also goes for abandonment.

Also, it's dishonest to make as big an issue about abortion as it has been made of here. Only about 20% of potential births end in abortion. For most people, because of spiritual, moral, or medical issues abortion is NOT an option.

Also, why the hell should a man have any say in whether the woman can get an abortion or not? Whose freaking body is it? When does a man have to ask permission from someone else to get a medical procedure done?

Back to the OP, the article never said that the woman LIED about her ability to get pregnant. That is you people drawing your own conclusions based on you own presumptions. People are born all the time from people who have been told they can't get pregnant. Women can get their tubes tied and it isn't 100%. I know at least 5 people that had another kid after being told by their doctor that they can't have kids. Shit happens.

Ok Kutulu, please explain my one question.

How come women can opt out and men can not upon conception? Dont give me that "keep it in your pants" stuff, it does not hold up as long as abortions are legal.

Because its her body. It can't get any simpler than that.

A man should have some say so in the matter because a woman doesn't get pregnant on her own-- End of story. A baby might develop inside of your body, but you aren't solely responsible for creating it. A man had as much part of creating that child as you did.

The day that a woman is able to become pregnant in the absence of a man is the day that I will concede that argument.

And, to answer your question, I read that other thread and I believe a man has to get the permission of his wife to have a vasectomy while a woman needs no such permission to have an abortion.

But that child's body belongs to her as well?

I checked around on this and I don't believe this is based on any laws. It is true that many doctors will require consent of the wife but this is for liablity issues and not a legal requirement. However, if you can provide a citation, I'd be interested.

Is the fetus capable of independant life?

Once an older person is no longer able to take full care of themselves, can we just have them killed? I mean if we can do that with unborn children, I see no real difference (besides the fact that the older person has had the opportunity to live life, of course).

Kutulu I'm not getting into the right of a woman's abortion. So throwing that right around does not answer the question.

The question is a woman is allowed to abort a child. This is her method of not becoming a mother, not drastically changing her life, not having the responsibility. Don't answer by stating how a man should use a condom, vasectamy, etc. This is about post-conception, a woman *should* take care of everything on her side instead of aborting. Unless she was raped she has as little amount of excuses as the man.

However, a man has absolutely no method of dealing with a pregnancy post-conception. They can not abort if the woman decides to carry it, they can not wash their hands of responsibility as the woman can decide to. Their lives are changed, futures altered, plans ruined by the same outcome that a woman at any time can decide she does not want.

Don't speak to me about a woman's right of her own body. Dont speak to me about prevention. This discussion is about a mans rights post-conception, or lack thereof. If you can state why a woman should have every opportunity and a man have absolutely none, please try.

It's not the same thing because the older person (assuming they are no longer competent) was once a sentient being with the ability to decide what they want done to them medically through a living will. A fetus has not lived in the sense that they have never left the womb and have not communicated in a meaningful way. You would have been better off using an example of someone who was mentally retarded. Anyways, your observation is straying from the point of the debate.

My case again is that arguing this is futile as women are the bearers of children. Whether they want to be or not. It is their body and they can decide what they want to do to it. This is not inequal. This is nature. The biological purpose of sex is to conceive children. This debate could only come up in a western country as in most non-western countries women don't have the right to decide much for themselves. Abortion is not an option in many countries.

I'm not saying that it's fair BTW. Especially if the woman lies about whether she wants children. That's not right.

Dramatic example: say the woman has the kid. You never pay a dime. The mother never asks you for any. Roll forward 18 years later and the kid comes looking for you. They ask you why you never helped out when they were living in poverty with their mother. They tell you all the horrible trials they went through. You come to realize had you given some support they would have been better off. What kind of person are you, they ask. Their wearing your face and you can recognize them as one of your own. What do you do? Tell them that you think that it's unequal that women get to make the decisions regarding pregnancy so you didn't have to contribute towards any support?

This argument is shallow and those in favor of it sound like children to me. Where's your honor and responsibility?

Not quite. I am for abortion but I don't sugar coat it in the BS that is a womans right to her own body, blah blah blah. I am for abortion because I see it as self selective eugenics. It keeps genes out of the pool from people willing to sacrifice their own healthy children.

Its an unfair situation. I get that, but that's the way nature set things up. Is it fair that they have to deal with gaining 40 pounds, getting stretch marks and wrecking their bodies in general, taking time off of work, etc. while we just have to do is kick back and handle a crazy pregnant woman? No, just like this, its the way it is.

There are ways out already. Couples can reach agrements where one party is completely taken out of the picture. Sure, it doesn't work all of the time but that's life. Choose your partner well.

YOU may not be speaking of the right to abortion but it still goes hand in hand with the arguement.

Another thing, it's not as if abortion is a decision *most* people just make over their morning coffee. Half of the country thinks it should be outlawed and of the ones who support it, a damn good portion want it legal but would never consider it for themselves. Even the ones who *think* they would want it can't make the decision either. We are talking about a subset of a subset of a subset that is butthurt about the way nature is and a woman's right to choose.

The debate was about male equality (legally, morally). Whether the child is sentient before birth (a.k.a. what abortion vs. anti-abortion ultimately boils down to) has bearing on the discussion. If the child isn't sentient, then the fetus, which might as well be a bank account, would simply belong to the mother, including all legal rights and responsibilities. That means abortion and such, but also no payments from daddy. If the child is sentient, then kiling the baby is murder, and the living child belongs to both parents.

As for the comparison between a fetus and an elderly person who has lost the ability to make responsible decisions....I really don't see a difference. You say that a lack of life experience makes one life more meaningful than the other. That's obviosuly not true. I'm 22...is a 35 year old more important than I am? Not unless you are an agist (bigot based on age). I know you're not an agist, so I can only assume that you meant something else.

Perhapse I would be better off using the mental retardation comparison, but it's been done to death. We all know what it boils down to....what is a soul, and how can you prove that one does or doesn't have one? That question is better left to scholars and philosophers, so I decide to err on the side of life. Yes, I said it. Err on the side of life. Think about it. Do you want to be wrong? If the child doesn't have a soul until being born and you make sure it isn't aborted, then you simply have one more person in the world. If the child who isn't born yet does have a soul, and you kill it, then that's obviously murder.

If I have a baseball implanted in my chest, is that baseball my body? Of course not. Yes, a woman can do what she wants with her body, but a fetus is no more a part of a woman's body than a half digested hamburger. The child is half sperm and half egg. That means that the legal and moral responsibility will be with both the father and the mother. People act like mothers are the only parent. I will spend the rest of my life as my daughter's father. Yes, for 9 months, she was inside my wife, but does that negate my responsibility? Honestly? I don't think so.
Forcing someone to do the right thing is dangerous. Give them the chance to do the right thing. If they make the wrong decision, then they are irresponsible at best, a horrible person in all honesty. Some of us do the right thing, you know.
My honor and responsibility is me waking up every day and devoting my life to my daughter's well being and happieness. I would do anything for her. I didn't even have to think twice when I took the crappy job that payed better vs. the fun job that didn't pay enough because I know that my small sacrafice means that we will always have food on the table.

I think the real question is where is the responsibility of the mother? Yes, we all know that there are bad fathers out there, but what about all these teenagers getting abortions? Where is their sense of responsibility? The whole "my body, my right" thing disolves pretty quickly when you consider that abortion is one big removal of consequences and responsibilities. You have sex, which we all know is intended to create children, and then when you get pregnant you get a "get out of the maternity ward-free card". What honor is there in killing something that you created for the mear reason that you shouldn't have created it in the first place?

I'm not going to argue about abortion. Suffice it to say that I would never get one myself unless I were raped. I couldn't bear to carry a child that was got on me by a violent means. But from an encounter that was mutual, I would always decide to keep the child. Of course you have to keep in mind that I am 30 and am fully capable of raising a child both financially and emotionally. I agree that women most definitely have responsibility in making decisions about whether or not they want to have children and if they do not; what they want to do to prevent it. They have more responsibility in that area than men do or ever will. Because the woman will almost always be the one stuck with the child. If it were up to me, all women would be on birth control from the time they start menstuating until they're conscientious enough to make informed decisions.

But I can't be against abortion for the reason that I've met some people who were adopted. They rarely have the love that most here probably received from their biological parents. Most of the ones I met were mistreated in some way or another by their adopted parents. A few of theses individuals you would not want to have met in a dark alley. On top of that, it's not easy to adopt a child. Those who can afford it often are white and choose white children. What of all the children who are black,hispanic and asian? What about girls who get pregnant through incest or rape? What about those who are too young to financially support a child? Raising a child is expensive. Let alone the hospital bills for giving birth for those who are uninsured. What if you learned your child will have severe, visible malformations and retardation?

I believe that you have to seriously weigh the quality of life the child will have before you make the decision to abort.

For the record, I've never gotten an abortion and doubt very much that any woman uses it as their primary source of birth control as it is not cheap. It would be relatively cheaper to get on contraceptives. But, I could be wrong.

The issue is really male rights here. And we've proven, that no matter how you spin it, it's unfair. The people who argue we deserve no such thing, as it's a womans body, are really just throwing out a hollow argument.

And by the way, if I can recall high school biology class... In a very technical sense, the fetus isn't even part of the womans body at any point. There is no blood flow between the two. There isn't even a direct nutrient transfer, it kind of filters through the placenta, and then into the child.

The umbilical cord is a connection between two seperate bodies.

Regardless, again, I doubt there is an answer to this problem (and I do see it as a problem) that everyone can agree on. But I do think some compromise is probably possible.

However, whenever it gets brought up, woman are going to scream "ITS MY BODY" and in the end, the male is going to slink off with his tail between his legs.

And willravel is right, a lot of people seem to make this assumption, that not only should a woman have the right to her body (which she should) but that she is the necesary parent, and that the father is optional.

Sorry to say it, but I'll bet I know a lot of kids that would be better off with their father, but they are stuck with their mother, based shearly on gender.

In fact, I'm related to one. She lets him run wild, he does not behave, and now at 15, he's a little duesche bag. His father HAS morals, and a sense of responsiblity. Had he grown up there 90% of the time and 10% with his mother, rather than vice versa, I garauntee he would prove to be a better part of society.

The crux of the problem as I see it is that our billions of years of evolution has shaped us so that doing the actions towards having children is incredibly pleasurable and rewarding yet for a variety of reasons many of us don’t want to have children. Unfortunately one of the big problems with capitalism as a system, especially the way it is run at the moment is that it is very dependent on continual growth and there really isn’t much planet left. Combined with the fact that people just don’t seem to die anymore, obesity etc. we have strong tensions on the issue of baby making. So ordinarily I would say that the answer is for society to force people to stop being so self centred and to gear people more towards having children – but the reality is that there are valid non selfish reasons for not wanting to add more chaos to this world.

That being the case I think we need to make the system more accountable for women who receive these payments. Men need to know the money is being spent for the child’s welfare. As for women who lie, the courts have to stop this simplistic attitude of just ruling in favour of women in family court cases. Its not working at all. We need a radical rethink of the process.

I am a big anti-women campaigner because I think that the last 30 years have brought through a number of changes in favour of women and many of them were not well thought out or knee jerk reactions. That said, in this case I think this guy is a complete dick and he should be taking an interest in his child and saving his money to help raise the kid rather than wasting it in frivolous suits like this. I hope the judge throws the book at him. I don’t want to have kids either – but fuck it if its going to happen doesn’t matter which slut lied to me I will still love the little beast.