Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Gay Tony

Men and Child Support

Recommended Posts

007_eleven

If a man can get a woman to sign a form that states they have agreed to protected sex with a 99% chance of conception blocking and in the result of pregnancy she agrees to have an abortion or take full custody of any child produced that should be legally binding and absolve the man from parenthood. There are loopholes that need to be closed, witnesses present and no indications of coercion on either side but even in the case of contraceptive sabotage or failure the agreement should still stand. An alternative would be that any unborn fetus is not eligible for government subsidies as a child unless both parents agree to sign as mutual caretakers, with abortion clinics being tax funded and universally available to the point where they are free or very cheap for customers, thus providing incentive for couples to not give birth to unwanted children.

 

It may be inside the woman's body but a fertilised egg is also 50% property of the man. If women want to have children they need to find a man who will actually sign a document to agree to it, not just poke a hole in a condom. I'm aware this does not happen all the time but with the overall effectiveness of contraceptives meaning it is medically almost 100% possible to separate sex and pregnancy we should adjust the legal system to recognise consent for these two different circumstances.

 

Thanks to abortion females are sexually liberated, they can have intercourse with whoever they want without the risk of a child, it's only fair that men are provided with the same opportunity through regulation around pregnancy and parenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saggy

This might be a crude way to look at it... But if you grew up with a part of your body, that if you partook in a natural physical activity (i.e. sex) could produce another person totally dependent upon you, would you think it's fair? If we want to talk about fair, that's kind of the rough end of the stick right from the get-go. Yeah there's a bit of choice in a woman getting pregnant, but think about it in another way... Men have the privilege of being able to have sex without ever having to consider the fact they'll have a human life growing inside of them for 9 months and then dependent on them for 18 years or more...

 

So yeah, life isn't fair, and full of compromises. Women have to deal with their body wanting to reproduce naturally even if they don't want to, and we all know that things like abstinence or even "safe sex" are more or less guidelines and suggestions that don't really get followed all the time in the real world. I mean think about it, if they did, there would be no such thing as an accidental or unplanned pregnancy and the majority of us probably wouldn't be here. As much as society wants to contort and view sexual reproduction as a moral issue and matter of choices and preparedness, it is above and beyond all a natural human function, hormones surge, hormones cloud judgement, babby is formed.

 

If you don't believe me, talk to your girlfriend/boyfriend tonight and say "Let's stop using birth control," and watch them consider it for a second. People act like it's a matter of laziness or being irresponsible--nope, your genitals want to make babies, that's what they're there for. You probably feel wrong admitting to it, but it's f*cking biology. It's a natural, primal type of desire so this idea of making it a matter of will power is in my view fundamentally flawed--at some point couples will choose to forego the birth control. If you have sex, you have to consider the possibility of pregnancy for those reasons alone ( unless they're like infertile or something ) and that consideration is different from one gender to the next. No birth control is perfect, and that includes abstinence because it won't work if you don't use it.

 

Yeah, child support payments aren't fair... So is being able to have a baby just because a condom burst or your birth control stopped working and you were just trying to have sex--or hell you thought you were in love and wound up making a mistake. The bottom line, is that it takes two to tango and so as a man you can't just expect to be able to go around impregnating women without a care in the world, producing offspring left and right and then not be obliged to offer them support. That's kind of where as a society we actually can be one step above biology and nature and make it about a moral choice... We like to think we can avoid sexual activities by making it matter of morals, most of our existences prove this is false. The real difference is unlike animals, we structure laws and essentially social contracts to care and support our offspring because we realize how immoral and animalistic the other resort is, and know that it really is the one "moral" choice we really can make and stick to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
igotskiz

I personally don't feel sympathy for either side. If you decide to stick your john in a woman and she has your child, you are obligated to do something for that child. Same for the woman: if you spread the bread, and he doesn't want the kid, you should have picked them better.

 

This is a good reason why premarital sex was looked very down upon in olden days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

Thanks to abortion females are sexually liberated, they can have intercourse with whoever they want without the risk of a child,

 

I wanna make the case that you shouldn't consider this a 'good' thing, though. terminating your progeny is as far removed from reality as one could get. the point of life is to replicate our genes, after all. so, I ask, what does that do to the socialization of the person, especially as abortions become more cultural popular and less revered, as they are -- how far removed from reality are those people going to end up? Furthermore, as you say, the child is also the mans, so what does that also do to the socialization of a person when they can also terminate his progeny, his children, and their only justification for doing so is 'no one else gets a say'. How tyrannical and what else is that person going to be socialized to think they can get away with. It sets them up for failure in a reality based world.
My point, I'm not of the opinion that you should envy the women in this, or want the tables reversed so that's it socially acceptable for men to be irresponsible and set up for failure -- it's not a choice you should want. indeed this isn't a men vs women thing, it's just a way for society to control breeding -- by treating the women as the 'gatekeeper' and having men paying child support is just economically expedient-- so we don't have a lot of 'illegitimate' children running around.
it's a self serving system that benefits no one, and what's 'fair' takes a back seat, to economics, really.
Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Has it ever occurred to you that, even if we assume your opinion is correct and the sole purpose in life is to pass on genetic material, that maximising the number of children you have doesn't actually do that in many circumstances? Also, to extend your bizarre Social Darwinism, should we start withdrawing medical care too as that's clearly setting people up for a "real world" "fall" (I have no idea what the f*ck you're on about here and nor do you it seems)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity
Economic circumstances? -- you should be more willing to battle for a more fair economic climate and a more just wealth distribution system where you didn't have to kill your kids, at least, not as often. You should be more ready to take your political leaders out to task for providing you with the circumstance to begin with than you are ready to destroy your our own progeny.


But such good priorities are not taught -- to be more political aware and fight for a more fair rendering of your contribution to society so such decisions can be avoided. Instead these people are socialized to be "empowered" and revered for 'choosing' to unburden the social order with their unwanted genes all for economic expedience.


Complete out of sync with reality land and set up for failure in this big universal game of life - where passing your genes on to the next generation should be your utmost priorities.

Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity
and my case to 007_eleven, is that being able to f*ck without consequences is not 'liberating' thing. It doesn't instill any good values in to a person, only poor, and those poor values you carry on to other venues in life.


Men get the better deal here - where they're taught to be responsible and such- thus they carry over those good values in to other walks of life and are more successful in tackling the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Economic circumstances?

No, biological ones. Maximising the number of offspring you produce usually works fairly well for populations at the bottom end of a food chain but can have the exact opposite effect on animals that aren't subject to extensive attrition through predatory activity. Especially if you're capable of working your way around most of the factors that contribute to elevated death rates when population density gets higher- pathogens and competition for resources being chief amongst them. And limit the population toll created by deaths during childbirth and early infancy through non-natural means.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

This is something I've recently thought about lately, and I know it's controversial but hear me out, follow along, and correct me if I'm wrong.

 

Two people don't consent to having children just by having sex.

 

When women have sex with men, they have a choice to have the child or not and weigh in the consequenses/benefits of doing so.

 

Imagine if women were forced to have kids and take care of them until they were 18. Isn't this forcing men to have kids, then?

 

When two people have sex they are not consenting to having children, but they are consenting to accept the possibility that a child may be the outcome of their activity. They must be accepting of the possibility or they wouldn't be having sex. Whether or not they accept it on a conscious level and whether or not they care about it until it happens is debatable, but by participating in consensual sex with each other gives them both equal responsibility for whatever the outcome may be. If they end up with a child, they are both responsible for the care taking of said child. If they were to get a divorce then whoever loses custody of the child is still responsible for taking care of it just as much as the person who has custody. They always have equal responsibility no matter who is the legal guardian of the child. Child support may not be necessary in all cases and that is a subject of a different debate. But no, even if women were forced to keep the child that they bore and take care of it until it is of legal age, it is not any type of forced situation on the man because he accepted the possibility of this outcome just as the woman did when they had consensual sex.

 

I couldn't be bothered with reading all the posts on page 1 and 2 so I responded to the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

 

Economic circumstances?

No, biological ones. Maximising the number of offspring you produce usually works fairly well for populations at the bottom end of a food chain but can have the exact opposite effect on animals that aren't subject to extensive attrition through predatory activity. Especially if you're capable of working your way around most of the factors that contribute to elevated death rates when population density gets higher- pathogens and competition for resources being chief amongst them. And limit the population toll created by deaths during childbirth and early infancy through non-natural means.

 

 

biologically speaking you would kill your competitors offspring should competition of resources occur -- this is what we see throughout nature and most poignantly in species facing extinction as they kill off the young of their species not of their own lineage decreasing their numbers even more. see the 'mountain gorilla'.
we don't work for the species as if it were a single unit, we work for the good of our families and what is best to pass on our genes-- which comes back to what i was saying earlier-- you would be more ready to take issue with your political leaders for producing an environment that couldnt accommodate you.
Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

We only work for our families because coherent family units are biologically beneficial given our position in nature. Many species have absolutely no regard for genetically similar social groupings.

 

Also I'd argue that humans are a special case in this instance precisely because our family units are so interdependent. Whilst the basic crux of the argument that humans treat family first and foremost is generally true, we also have a far higher degree of interdependence than most other species. Unless of course you're suggesting we revert to a pre-neolithic image of ourselves?

 

Given your comments about abortion, are you actually advocating that we go out and murder each other's children, give up on society also interdependence and actually start living like there's no purpose other than reproduction? On that latter note, how are you personally getting on?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

So like a 24/7 f*ckfest then? I mean I could go for that but then again I don't want to have to pay the child support bill that'd result from it.

 

 

Seriously though, as I said earlier on there's no viable way to change this even though it's pretty clear men don't get a fair shake here. There's next to nothing that can be adjusted short of having the man and the girl go to a lawyer or notary and have a documented form saying that the girl wants to continue the pregnancy to term and the guy doesn't and thus he's absolved of paying for it. Which is just unworkable in itself..

Edited by Irviding

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

Given your comments about abortion, are you actually advocating that we go out and murder each other's children, give up on society also interdependence and actually start living like there's no purpose other than reproduction?

 

I'm advocating the reverse -- as this is what abortion is -- it's the society or the social order killing other peoples children because we cannot provide to them a society that allows for them to have and to take care of their children. I'm advocating these people fight for more fairness in economic matters and to have their contributions more fairly rewarded so as they don't have to have abortion as the forefront 'solution'.
This doesn't lead on to a 24 hour f*ckfest, Irviding, there are such things as responsibility and good values, which a society also has an obligation to provide and instill to those among it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

You seem to ignore the fact that many people who have abortions do so simply because they simply don't want children, not because they can't afford to have them. Or, for that matter, that others are medically necessary, or a response to things like rape.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

as i'm more inclined to begin with a good starting principle -- such as 'terminating ones progeny shouldn't be a solution' and then come up with better solutions such as a more fair wealth distribution for the people who can't afford kids. the more individual exceptions you mention are fine, but such exceptions shouldn't change overreaching responsibility the society has not to promote abortion as a liberation but as failing to provide and to meet that loss with a due reverence.

Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Personally I think that freedom to choose is far more valuable a starting principle than something as arbitrary as 'terminating ones progeny shouldn't be a solution' but that's the joy of subjective morality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

Personally I think that freedom to choose is far more valuable a starting principle

 

Yup, I thought as much and personally you can feel what you wish, but those who erroneously value the right to choose hedonism over the right of their childrens life, will by design die out. Because, you know, reality.
Put it this way -- if we all operated from the stance that we shouldn't kill kids then we'd all have to find more creative solutions to these problems. I've already offered one - which is a more fair wealth distribution system which would eliminate a huge cause for abortion.
People who just want to kill their kids? Because they want to remain slim and childless? OK do that. You won't be around for long so society doesn't need to give much concern for these people. But for the rest- there should be far more revolutionary thinking before we resort to devaluing the next generation of society.
Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

but those who erroneously value the right to choose hedonism over the right of their childrens life, will by design die out. Because, you know, reality.

Except the continued survival of one's genetic material has much more to do with economic and social status- hence, in societies both old and new, those already in positions of power maintaining social and economic monopolies through generations despite having far lower birth rates than the peasantry. Also, I'm not sure I quite see how the choice to have an abortion under a certain set of circumstances inhibits one's ability to continue their genetic line. Unless of course you're also suggesting that anyone who doesn't have a child systematically every 9-12 months from their first period to the menopause is also destined to die out, anyway. Which I assume you're not, because it's ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

Except the continued survival of one's genetic material has much more to do with economic and social status- hence, in societies both old and new, those already in positions of power maintaining social and economic monopolies through generations despite having far lower birth rates than the peasantry.

 

 

And this is what people should be prioritizing -- to gain better 'economic and social status'-- so that the need to have a "right to choose" becomes less of a necessity. In promoting abortions you're devaluing life and you cannot suppose to cull from such a culture of desensitization people sensitive to such abstractions as "social and economic policy".
The elites of the land didn't get to where they are by practicing what they preach to the peasants. They would scorn at the notion of having to abort kin. No, they only want the dregs to do that so you don't burden their status quo.
You got a bit fallacious at the end, what i would say on that though is that our fertility does significant drop as we get older and in contributing to this culture of devalued parenthood people are inevitably going to withhold on parenthood -- and often, find it too late -- as nature dictates the earlier adults have kids the healthier they and we will be.
Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chad Warden

Is it wrong to believe that the government is harsh on men because a single man is more likely to sustain an income than a single mother? So instead of living off government benefits, they can pay her with the fathers dime. Would anyone like to educate me further?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

And this is what people should be prioritizing -- to gain better 'economic and social status'-- so that the need to have a "right to choose" becomes less of a necessity.

But here you're simply continuing to insist that abortions are a necessity, which is certainly true in some circumstances but far from the case in many. You can't logically argue from the assumption that all abortions are seen as "necessity" by those having them when that simply isn't the case.

 

In promoting abortions you're devaluing life

Opinion, nothing more. I tend to be of the persuasions that life is only actually life once it reaches a point at which is is able to survive as something other than a parasite but horses for courses; if you want to amalgamate things that aren't living into the "life" group then good for you.

 

and you cannot suppose to cull from such a culture of desensitization people sensitive to such abstractions as "social and economic policy".

No idea what this is supposed to mean.

 

The elites of the land didn't get to where they are by practicing what they preach to the peasants.

I get the impression you've missed my point here.

 

You got a bit fallacious at the end

I think you've failed to grasp the parallel I was drawing. Your response certainly doesn't seem to relate to that point, anyway.

 

I'll try again:

 

By suggesting that abortion- that is, making a willing decision not to produce a child under a specific set of circumstances- devalues life and actively inhibits the furthering of the species (apparently thus meeting your criteria for "objectively bad"), it could also be reasonably inferred that any other voluntary decision not to produce a child would also be seen as such. You've not argued that abortion is a "special case" compared to, say, contraception, which also seems to meet your criteria, so presumably you see contraception in the same light? And from there, surely you can reasonably extrapolate that anyone who makes any other kind of voluntary choice not to have children at every physical opportunity is also committing the same social crime?

 

Or is abortion a special case? And if so, why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity

But here you're simply continuing to insist that abortions are a necessity, which is certainly true in some circumstances but far from the case in many. You can't logically argue from the assumption that all abortions are seen as "necessity" by those having them when that simply isn't the case.

 

 

 

For the overwhelming bulk they are, abortions are a "choice" made primarily by the least wealthy among us -- and your fantasy that life begins as soon as its able to survive "as something other than a parasite" is just that -- it's a fantasy -- and by this definition we could easily cull a few million more human lifes outside of the womb. Life begins as soon as it has an environment, as soon as you have to kill it for it not to be a life -- that;s how life works.
But my case isn't even that -- I simply think its a shame that the military get endless subsidies and spending to kill countless people overseas and the most pop culture does to counteract this spending spree is to teach and torment socially nonviable women to feel empowered by killing their socially unwanted children for economic expedience, and for the men to want to co sign these terrible priorities.
Meanwhile in reality land prioritizing the killing of ones progeny as empowerment is not a successful survive strategy nor will the removing of due reverence from the act of death produce a sustainable culture in the long run. For one we're not going to be able to successfully socially engineer enough well adjusted abortioneers who are willing to believe the party line "her body her choice" rationalizes them reaching in to the womb and snipping babies spines in half or sucking out the contents of their brains with a vacuum.
As such, these socially engineered psychopaths, hypocrites and people with terrible priorities will not live in vacuum. They will act out disobediently, disturbing everyone's fantasy that they can live without consequences and eventually we're going to have to come up with 'real' solutions to these types of problems anyways -- such as better wealth distribution to avoid nonviable pregnancies-- perhaps, arming more birth control options for males, or so on.
Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

For the overwhelming bulk they are, abortions are a "choice" made primarily by the least wealthy among us

A choice created of what, though? This is certainly true in the US, which as far as I'm aware is the only place to ever really put much emphasis on studying abortion demographics, but the primary driving factor according to most of the studies I've read is perceived to be a lack of access to contraception. Thst suggests to me that people want to be making voluntary choices to not have children through contraception but are unable to.

 

and your fantasy

Except viability is one of the primary factors used to determine abortion limits, so it's not a "fantasy" as you put it but reality. I'm amazed you don't know this fact.

 

Life begins as soon as it has an environment

In your opinion.

 

Meanwhile in reality

What "reality"? Nothing you've posted here even resembles actual "reality". Listen, I get that your views very much shape your interpretation of what's real and what isn't, but at this point you've basically descended into arguing that white is black or that the sky is green. I'm puzzled as to how you think anything you've said even resembles reality?

 

As such, these socially engineered psychopaths

Mmm, emotive. Shame you've failed to answer pretty much every point I've made or question I've asked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Xl anthrax lX

My thoughts on abortion would be that it is not the correct way to go about things in all situations, but certainly it is in other situations. Women should have the right to do as they wish with their bodies. They shouldn't be told what they can and can't do with their own bodies by some old men representing the government. If I was the one who decided on the laws regarding abortion I would make it like this: Any female in any situation is permitted to abort their child as long as the father of their child does not express the desire to take care of it, and as long as neither the mother or the father have no immediate family willing to take care of the child. I think that is a reasonable way of going about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Absurdity
The viability test is yet more fantasy to justify someone indefensible stance on when they can take a human life.


There are plenty people who wouldn't and didn't pass the viability test-- who couldn't survive outside the mother-- according to the viability test Adam Lanza was carrying out late term abortions at Sandyhook... I know, shoot the messenger the message is bulletproof, though.


Meanwhile life begins at conception and there's no mysticism or magical injection of a "soul". We are just 'alive' and when you no longer meet the extinguish of that life with reverence there you will find a whole culture primed to eat itself alive.


I'm just saying there should be more 'efforts' in to reforming our current social order before we readily accept maintaining it with knocking off a few of our kids.

Edited by Rusty Balls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

The viability test is yet more fantasy

In your opinion.

 

Meanwhile life begins at conception

In your opinion.

 

Sensing a pattern here, Mr Fictitious Moral Absolutism? I certainly am.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

My thoughts on abortion would be that it is not the correct way to go about things in all situations, but certainly it is in other situations. Women should have the right to do as they wish with their bodies. They shouldn't be told what they can and can't do with their own bodies by some old men representing the government. If I was the one who decided on the laws regarding abortion I would make it like this: Any female in any situation is permitted to abort their child as long as the father of their child does not express the desire to take care of it, and as long as neither the mother or the father have no immediate family willing to take care of the child. I think that is a reasonable way of going about it.

There are plenty of women in the government who don't want women to have abortions also. And furthermore if you're supportive of letting a woman do what she wants with her body, why would you say that she can't have an abortion if the man wants to take care of the kid? I mean that in itself is a more all encompassing prohibition on abortion than the blocks the republicans are trying to put into place in the South right now... Let the woman decide until viability then that's it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
G's Ah's

Boy, this is sure going to make sex less romantic. Forms to fill out, documents to sign.

 

That's a hot night out for a bureaucrat. First comes the disclaimer regarding contraception, then the approval form for sexual relations with the coworker followed by a nice fifty page report on their performance, including reactions to sexual innuendos, foreplay and advice for future sexual encounters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.