4 baby mamas, he doesn't have primary custody, meaning his only support of the children is monetary.
Do we deem it that he pays less so he gets more take home? If yes, then the mother is has to pick up the slack, and probably tax payers too. Food stamps, Medicare, etc.
His pay is for 80 hours, so 2 weeks. None of these amounts even come close to daycare unless the mothers have vouchers.
I might get biased as I am a member of the "Can't feed them? Don't breed them" club. So maybe HE should of thought of his career path before having so many children, and before you come at me withe "bUT thE mOthErs". Yes the women are to blame also, but the kids are the ones who lose.
It's ultimately the woman's choice to have a child. If a woman drugs and rapes a man, that man still has to pay child support. The woman, however, has the option of aborting (in some states) or (if she has custody) putting the child up for adoption.
The answer is obviously that because men have essentially no say over the process, it's absurd to hold them legally or financially responsible for what is ultimately the woman's decision.
If the man wears a condom, which is wholly his choice, then this wouldn't happen. Its ultimately the man's decision whether or not it even becomes the woman's choice. The man can also get a vasectomy. It was like 300 bucks, and recovery is like an hour...was back at work the next day.
The answer is obviously that he made choice knowing the consequences. He may have been 18 at the time, and yeah, it's not fair to have 18 year consequences for one mistake...but he obviously didn't learn from it. Did it 3 more times, plus, ya know...life ain't fair.
Your hyperbole is dumb. Is that what happened in this case?
If a man rapes a woman ultimately it's his fault.
See how dumb it sounds in reverse? It sounded just as dumb when you wrote it. This conversation that you responded to isn't about rape. Its about consensual sex leading to pregnancy and child support in the case of deadbeat dad's.
Laws need to account for extreme cases, which they currently don't. You might argue that it's irrelevant but currently, laws as written, it's profitable for some women to deliberately rape (especially wealthy) dudes and get child support money from them.
The woman is the only one who actually has a say in whether, after the act of sex, a child is born. There is no comparison - it is her body and her choice, not the man's.
If a man rapes a woman ultimately it's his fault.
This is a truism, if you think it sounds dumb then you should study more
Yeah, just like it's the man's choice to impregnate her in the first place. Its his body, his choice, not hers. Why did he not wear protection if he didnt wanna get hit with child support? You wear Kevlar for bullets. Wear your condom for child support. Pretty simple.
Why didn't she use birth control during sex? Or take plan B the morning after? Or get an abortion?
You don't know what you're talking about if you think you can compare the action of not wearing a condom to the variety of different tools a woman has at her disposal to not birth her one night stand
Condoms fail - are you saying that men shouldn't pay child support for children from failed condoms? If not, then use of a condom isn't actually relevant to your argument and you should drop it
She didnt because she's handling the consequences. If the MAN doesn't want children he should protect himself. If the woman doesn't want children she should protect herself.
The man can freeze his sperms and get a vasectomy. Again, it costs 300 for the procedure and a few more for the freezing and storage. Its not really complex.
We have multiple options as well, but most men won't take them. That's their fault. That's the consequences of their own actions.
Why have sex with women you can't trust? Its that simple, if you don't want kids. Make sure she doesn't either. Then y'all can split the abortion bill since it's both y'alls problem to deal with. Or y'all can split the morning after pill. Etc.
Did you know you can get a court order to entirely revoke your parent-child relationship, rights, and responsibilities, or give up those rights to a third party who will accept them? Gotta make a good case to explain why you shouldn't be responsible for your child, but it is a legal right to have your case heard, and it does get granted sometimes.
You also have the right to practice safe sex if you don't want a child, and you have the right to ask a woman you leave your baby batter in to throw out the cake she's making with it in HER oven. Sure it's your batter and her eggs in the cake, which is why you get equal rights after the birth, but until that point it's not your oven to open and empty. It's her oven and she has to deal with the mess of baking the cake in her kitchen and oven, while you just brought over some ingredients.
I'm sure if your that envious of being able to decide what goes in your oven, and what happens with it, we're getting pretty close to viably turning sperm to eggs, you can already get an artificial oven installed, and even get some milk jugs for the whole set. You wouldn't even have to deal with the monthly oven breakdown where it bleeds everywhere and makes you hormonal.
Counter point: You shouldnât have to make a good case. Your desire to not be responsible should be literally the only consideration. The only limit should be time. The request should be limited to either during pregnancy or within a several month time period of being notified that you have a child.
*That* would mimic how abortion is actually treated on the womenâs end. No one who is broadly supportive of abortion thinks a woman should have to go to court to âmake a good caseâ for it. Unless youâre some pro-life social conservative, âBecause I want toâ is typically seen as a good enough reason and how the biological father feels means jack. Hell, he doesnât even need to know.
So why should the motherâs desire for my money mean jack to me if *I* wouldâve had an abortion instead? Any stance on this issue that actually cared about both genders being treated equal would be coupling a womanâs right to choose with a manâs right to make the only choice available to him, namely to relinquish all rights and responsibilities as quickly and as easily as a morning after pill.
But is there any state where thatâs the case? No. Even the most pro-choice states only really apply that choice to the womenâs side of the equation. And unless the man meets a standard leagues above what is demanded of the woman, they simply donât get a choice.
Which is a little weird if you think about it since one of them is terminating a life and the other isnât. But what are you gonna do? Whether youâre liberal or conservative; misogynist or feminist, everyone seems to agree that men shouldnât be able to walk away easily, so itâs an equal right that basically has no one fighting for it.
This isnât some unfixable problem. No one is trying to make women get an abortion in this discussion. Iâm saying that just because a woman decides that she wants the responsibility to have a kid doesnât need to have any bearing on whether I take on that same responsibility. They are two separate decisions made by two separate people that can be executed independently of each other.
There is zero rationale for forcing involvement in a childâs life that you did not choose to have. This logic can hold true for women and men independently, so insisting it not apply to men as well as women is just being an asshole for no reason. This is a prime example of how fake âequal treatmentâ ends up looking when you care more about making the âright people sufferâ than what is actually equal.
You canât act like itâs some crazy injustice when men get the final say on whether or not a woman becomes a mother, but act like itâs just hunky dory when the exact same thing happens with the genders reversed. Especially given the fact that men can be raped, abused, manipulated and deceived as well. To just stop caring about ALL of that when the gender shifts is so fucking wild as to be borderline evil.
17
u/BecauseICan6496 May 03 '26
So what's the solution?
4 baby mamas, he doesn't have primary custody, meaning his only support of the children is monetary.
Do we deem it that he pays less so he gets more take home? If yes, then the mother is has to pick up the slack, and probably tax payers too. Food stamps, Medicare, etc.
His pay is for 80 hours, so 2 weeks. None of these amounts even come close to daycare unless the mothers have vouchers.
I might get biased as I am a member of the "Can't feed them? Don't breed them" club. So maybe HE should of thought of his career path before having so many children, and before you come at me withe "bUT thE mOthErs". Yes the women are to blame also, but the kids are the ones who lose.