Right, that would be the honorable thing to do. However, it isn't right that the state should force him to pay. In fact, the only way he can make enough money, he has said, is to join the Navy. Does that seem right to you?
Job prospects for his skill set are so shitty that he's enlisting because she made a choice to keep the baby. Granted, they both should have foreseen this when they decided to not use protection, but it's making a shitty situation even shittier.
Not everyone believes in honor. The reason the government steps in and forces people to do the honorable thing in these instances is because most people would try to get away with it and leave the girl with all the expenses if they could. That's how it used to be, you know, only also with the social stigma of being an unwed mother and the inability to get any sort of job at all.
They are both in for a hard time because of this. But in someways the girl's will be worse.
Not everyone believes in honor. The reason the government steps in and forces people to do the honorable thing in these instances is because most people would try to get away with it and leave the girl with all the expenses if they could. That's how it used to be, you know, only also with the social stigma of being an unwed mother and the inability to get any sort of job at all.
They are both in for a hard time because of this. But in someways the girl's will be worse.
Except that the girl chose to keep it. It's all on her. Her choice.
I believe that's number 1 in the book '101 Ways to Ensure That You Never Have Sex' by Johro, right?:p
Hey, I never said it was a GOOD idea. Those cost extra. Besides, I think any such documentation would still be considered void by a court if the mother was deemed unfit, either as a parent herself or financially, to care for the child and the mother didn't file for full custody beforehand. They potentially could still just drop the child on the father's doorstep.
It probably would cut down one night stands, severely though. "So.... what are your views on abortion?" "hey where are you going?" "I'm serious" "aw c'mon"
If a guy could make a woman pregnant with no consequences to himself, what would stop him from just continuing to do that? He doesn't care, after all. Every baby who isn't well supported by a single parent becomes a burden to society in general. That's another reason why government wants to discourage this behavior.
Sorry he has to get a better job. Lots of people have to make sacrifices for their children.
Except that the girl chose to keep it. It's all on her. Her choice.
She couldn't have done this by herself. Have a baby, I mean. Like it or not, he helped. I reiterate that "pro choice" means that she has a choice. It's her body that is going to suffer for her decision and it's her choice what to do with it. I don't know if you'd be complaining so much if he had been willing/excited to support a baby and she had decided to abort instead.
And when it comes down to it, this is a person we're talking about here, this baby. She's decided to have him/her and this little person is going to grow up without a dad. That's the real tragedy of this situation.
A person should never be forced into doing something that they did not choose. I'd say nine times out of ten, or likely even more, people don't have sex to have a baby. Having and enjoying sex is an integral part of being human for the vast majority of people in the world. It's a basic right as a human being. Not everyone who has sex is ready or wanting to be a parent.
Some might say that everyone who decides to have sex should be prepared to be a parent. That is some major unrealistic bullshit and all you guys should know that. The comparison used is that the average person has as much sex with the intent of having a baby as a person will eat food for the intent of pooping. Though babies cannot be compared to fecal matter, the actions leading to it can.
The government should have no legal right in forcing a biological father into paying child support as a biological father has no legal right into choosing the fate of a woman's pregnancy. (It's pretty shitty in general that it's all based of biological links, but I digress.)
That said, the person, if they are decent enough, should attempt to help the mother out of the goodness of their heart just as if the pregnant is decent enough, she would at least hear out the father's thoughts. Ultimately, the choice should be with the individual to do what is best for them.
With the consequences unfurled, all either party can do now learn from the past and act accordingly in the future.
Sad situation, really.
Yes it should, because historically men left women high and dry in these situations. And yes, if you're going to have sex, you need to be prepared to shoulder the consequences.
She couldn't have done this by herself. Have a baby, I mean. Like it or not, he helped. I reiterate that "pro choice" means that she has a choice. It's her body that is going to suffer for her decision and it's her choice what to do with it. I don't know if you'd be complaining so much if he had been willing/excited to support a baby and she had decided to abort instead.
Actually, I would be. Yes. Why? Because it's his baby too. However, honorable or not, if he doesn't want to be involved, that's his choice as much as it's her choice to keep a baby she can't afford alone and burden my friend with the financial repercussions of her decision.
@Comrade Pants - It seems to me that it's a case of 'you versus the rest of the forum'. I suspect that you would feel differently if you were a woman.
I just really don't understand the logic behind this. The guy literally has no way but joining the military to pay for this kid that he can't afford or else he has to go to jail. I can't be the only one who thinks it's fucked up that the woman choosing to keep a baby she can't afford is ruining my friend's life.
I'm not arguing that he's irresponsible and I'm not going to claim that he *shouldn't* help out. I'm just saying that this reverse sexist, state imposed extortion is unjust. How can you people not see that?
I just really don't understand the logic behind this. The guy literally has no way but joining the military to pay for this kid that he can't afford or else he has to go to jail. I can't be the only one who thinks it's fucked up that the woman choosing to keep a baby she can't afford is ruining my friend's life.
I'm not arguing that he's irresponsible and I'm not going to claim that he *shouldn't* help out. I'm just saying that this reverse sexist, state imposed extortion is unjust. How can you people not see that?
Yeah I can see that, society is pretty crappy that way. Hell, over here, they put gay rights over christians, (along with pretty much everything else).
I'm up for equality, thats for sure, but the couple had the right, under their property to have rules which force the gay couple to have seperate rooms.
They don't like it? Just go somewhere else!
In the end of the day, if you are in someone's house/property, then you should respectfully follow their rules, (unless they are really out of order or illegal), else go somewhere else.
After all, the Christians in the end of the day are just following the rules of their religion, their way of life.
(Whether they don't like them or their way of life is irrelevant. The rules of their religion should be respected, like a Sikh's right to carry a ceremonial sword)
EDIT: But! But in this case, its the kids interests that take priority here.
Since that child HAS to live now, that kid is entitled to support one way or another.
(And since he/she can't defend their case themselves, the state has to do it)
(I'd argue that if the mother can't afford to keep it, or can't get sufficient support from her family, then its equally as right in the kids best interests, to put the child into care as a last resort)
(Even the PSP bonus songs are pretty good as well.)
Now a Gitaroo Man 2, I would fund!
I love Gitaroo Man. There's even a nod to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon within the menu and one of the tracks is clearly inspired by Radiohead. Awesome!
I just really don't understand the logic behind this. The guy literally has no way but joining the military to pay for this kid that he can't afford or else he has to go to jail. I can't be the only one who thinks it's fucked up that the woman choosing to keep a baby she can't afford is ruining my friend's life.
I'm not arguing that he's irresponsible and I'm not going to claim that he *shouldn't* help out. I'm just saying that this reverse sexist, state imposed extortion is unjust. How can you people not see that?
The thing is that it's the woman's body. She is the one carrying the child, so ultimately the choice is hers. If a pregnant woman chooses to give birth, then it's only right that the Father should support the child financially; it's the very least he can do. Did your friend even use protection? If not, then he's a irresponsible jackass if he has no intention of being around as a role model, in my opinion.
The thing is that it's the woman's body. She is the one carrying the child, so ultimately the choice is hers. If a pregnant woman chooses to give birth, then it's only right that the Father should support the child financially; it's the very least he can do. Did your friend even use protection? If not, then he's a irresponsible jackass if he has no intention of being around as a role model, in my opinion.
That's not at issue, Davies, and it never was. What's at issue is state imposed child support. He can't afford it, so if he can't get into the military he will have no way of paying and thus be incarcerated. That he even has the law working against him in this is completely fucked up. He should pay what he can, obviously, because he should have wrapped up. However, he shouldn't be *forced* to pay for this woman keeping a child she can't afford.
want an interesting story regarding child support? Read about Dave Foley. He was court ordered last year to pay a percentage of what he made at his most profitable stage of his career and is unable to leave the USA because of this, even though he could make more money in Canada where he is more well known. He has been touring comedy clubs in the USA non-stop and taking every film role he can get just to pay child support. This is one of the few cases I disagreed with a support ruling. I do not remember how much he has to pay but it is WELL beyond what a family needs to live on.
Everybody in the case had a good point and Foley owes back support which he should have had revisited instead...which he didn't and IS his fault...but the ruling is pretty unreasonable at this stage of his career.
What's wrong with that?! Being a Christian is a choice, being gay is not; either you're born that way or you're not!
Well, many Christians/other religions, would argue that they are born that way too. Especially orthodox ones.
(Plus they are not being directly descriminative. They probably wouldn't have anyone else staying there if it was classed as a "sin" for doing so (like a murderer, adulterer, thief ect.))
The flaw is in the religion itself. Not the people.
EDIT: (Don't misinterpret me as being homophobic here, because I definately am not (I had a good friend back at school, who was gay, (no shocker there. He was so hilariously camp. Not flamboyant, just camp and girly), and I had no problem with it. He had a odd taste in men though O_o (I guess what a straight guy would find attractive in a dude would be completely different though.)))
That's not at issue, Davies, and it never was. What's at issue is state imposed child support. He can't afford it, so if he can't get into the military he will have no way of paying and thus be incarcerated. That he even has the law working against him in this is completely fucked up. He should pay what he can, obviously, because he should have wrapped up. However, he shouldn't be *forced* to pay for this woman keeping a child she can't afford.
If you can't afford to pay the child support that the Government dictates, then I guess he should have considered that before having unprotected sex. It's his own damn fault. Frankly, if he has to join the military to pay then maybe that's not such a bad thing, it might teach him about discipline and responsibility for ones actions; two virtues which he was clearly lacking when he decided to have unprotected sex.
If you can't afford to pay the child support that the Government dictates, then I guess he should have considered that before having unprotected sex. It's his own damn fault. Frankly, if he has to join the military to pay then maybe that's not such a bad thing, it might teach him about discipline and responsibility for ones actions; two virtues which he was clearly lacking when he decided to have unprotected sex.
Or maybe the woman could have used common sense and aborted the baby she couldn't care for on her own. I mean, really now. A pill? Anything? To put all the burden on the man is just as anti-feminist as expecting the woman to do everything. Unless you're just downright misandristic.
Or maybe the woman could have used common sense and aborted the baby she couldn't care for on her own. I mean, really now. A pill? Anything? To put all the burden on the man is just as anti-feminist as expecting the woman to do everything. Unless you're just downright misandristic.
I'm not in the least bit misandristic. Surely that would mean a form of self-hatred? The fact is that, a few years back, I actually did get a girlfriend pregnant (in spite of using protection), in the end we went through with an abortion but I still let her know before that mutual decision was made, that if she chose to go through with the birth, that I would support our child both financially and as a role model.
At the time I was barely able to look after myself and was pretty much broke but I knew that any potential child had to come first. They would be the priority. It's nothing to do with misandry, it's to do with responsibility and not being a self centered jerk!
I'm not in the least bit misandristic. Surely that would mean a form of self-hatred? The fact is that, a few years back, I actually did get a girlfriend pregnant (in spite of using protection), in the end we went through with an abortion but I still let her know before that mutual decision was made, that if she chose to go through with the birth, that I would support our child both financially and as a role model.
At the time I was barely able to look after myself and was pretty much broke but I knew that any potential child had to come first. They would be the priority. It's nothing to do with misandry, it's to do with responsibility and not being a self centered jerk!
Not everyone is so selfless. Why should someone be forced to be honorable? We call it honor, Davies, because it is encouraged. Not because it is coerced. If the man can't pay, it's regrettable, but the state shouldn't bleed him dry because the woman chose to keep it. She now has to own that decision because the man had no further baring in it.
Actually, I would be. Yes. Why? Because it's his baby too. However, honorable or not, if he doesn't want to be involved, that's his choice as much as it's her choice to keep a baby she can't afford alone and burden my friend with the financial repercussions of her decision.
I'm going to say this again until you listen. It's going to be harder for her. My dad's cousin was impregnated by her jerk abusive boyfriend (who, I might add, she had to move to frickin' Canada to get rid of) and she received absolutely no child support whatsoever. I don't think it was a law back then, or if it was, it was not enforced. He never paid a cent and left her high and dry with a baby.
But it didn't end there. Now, I'll take a moment to say that she was at this time fairly successful, highly educated (she had a PhD), etc. When she had her son, like she had given birth minutes before, her own fucking doctor came in and said that he had a couple waiting outside who wanted to adopt her son. Let me tell you, she told me that she has never been angrier in her entire life. To this day she hasn't spoken a word to her old doctor.
After this, it was difficult for her to get a job because she was a single mother, even though she was highly educated. When she did get one, she had to spend $10,000 a year to pay for a nanny to take care of her son while she went and worked to support them, which probably slowed her down considerably. She did it, but it was extremely hard. And you know, if she'd gotten a bit of child support, it would have been that just that little bit easier.
My second cousin (her son) turned out fine, has a successful career, all the girls love him, etc, but it's a credit to how hard his mother worked that he has done so well.
I'm sorry your friend has to pay for his indiscretion, but the girl is going to suffer more than he will. And depending on where he's posted, the army might not be such a bad thing. It's a steady, decent paying job which is more than most people are getting at the moment.
Not everyone is so selfless. Why should someone be forced to be honorable? We call it honor, Davies, because it is encouraged. Not because it is coerced. If the man can't pay, it's regrettable, but the state shouldn't bleed him dry because the woman chose to keep it. She now has to own that decision because the man had no further baring in it.
You're asking me to have sympathy for a "man" without honor. Not going to happen. Screw him! There's too many people in this world without a moral compass, which is exactly why laws regarding child support are required in the first place. Do you think that his son/daughter will be comforted by their Father's absence just because he's not a selfless person?! Send the guy to the military I say, that way at least the child will get a decent meal, clothing and an education.
I know this guy's your friend so I shall apologise if I'm offending you with my remarks but frankly, people with his attitude annoy me.
I'm going to say this again until you listen. It's going to be harder for her. My dad's cousin was impregnated by her jerk abusive boyfriend (who, I might add, she had to move to frickin' Canada to get rid of) and she received absolutely no child support whatsoever. I don't think it was a law back then, or if it was, it was not enforced. He never paid a cent and left her high and dry with a baby.
But it didn't end there. Now, I'll take a moment to say that she was at this time fairly successful, highly educated (she had a PhD), etc. When she had her son, like she had given birth minutes before, her own fucking doctor came in and said that he had a couple waiting outside who wanted to adopt her son. Let me tell you, she told me that she has never been angrier in her entire life. To this day she hasn't spoken a word to her old doctor.
After this, it was difficult for her to get a job because she was a single mother, even though she was highly educated. When she did get one, she had to spend $10,000 a year to pay for a nanny to take care of her son while she went and worked to support them, which probably slowed her down considerably. She did it, but it was extremely hard. And you know, if she'd gotten a bit of child support, it would have been that just that little bit easier.
My second cousin (her son) turned out fine, has a successful career, all the girls love him, etc, but it's a credit to how hard his mother worked that he has done so well.
I'm sorry your friend has to pay for his indiscretion, but the girl is going to suffer more than he will. And depending on where he's posted, the army might not be such a bad thing. It's a steady, decent paying job which is more than most people are getting at the moment.
Be that as it may, they both made a shitty choice by having sex unprotected but it was her shitty choice to keep the baby that she knows she hasn't the means to pay for. Why is it right to spread the misery around?
Well, this conversations been... interesting. However, now it's time for me to toke, drink and generally be a complete miscreant. Until tomorrows hangover; laters!
Be that as it may, they both made a shitty choice by having sex unprotected but it was her shitty choice to keep the baby that she knows she hasn't the means to pay for. Why is it right to spread the misery around?
The misery would be greater if the child went unsupported. She might have to go on wellfare and I believe we have both agreed in a separate conversation that having people hanging on wellfare is a bad deal all around.
The misery would be greater if the child went unsupported. She might have to go on wellfare and I believe we have both agreed in a separate conversation that having people hanging on wellfare is a bad deal all around.
We do agree there. However, you're talking about the mother, father AND child being miserable instead of just the mother and child. Is it right? No. But the mother chose to keep the kid so it's on her.
@Comrade Pants - It seems to me that it's a case of 'you versus the rest of the forum'. I suspect that you would feel differently if you were a woman.
I am a woman and I agree with him to an extent. I don't like being painted as being a victim's class that HONORABLE MEN should white knight around.
A man has absolutely no legal right to a pregnant woman's fate. Even if he wanted to bring the pregnancy to term, she can still get an abortion without his consent. This is good. No one should choose what someone else should do with their bodies and their lives.
This is great that we have come to a point in history where women can have this choice!
On the flip side, however, a man, no matter what he personally feels, is legally forced to raise a child depending on the mother's decision based simply on genetics. He has no right to say that he does not want the child or not.
This is not good. It's pro choice. But only for the woman.
That's incredibly fucked up and incredibly anti-choice.
While we managed to liberate women in a lot of ways, the rights of men have been largely ignored and antiquated because they were considered "privileged" and not needed of change. Not to say that there is no more sexism towards women, but we have gotten to the point that in certain areas, women do actually have more rights than men both on a legal and cultural level. And it really does disturb me that people outright ignore the fact that men get hurt by these old ways and when one speaks up about it, they're told that they should be emotionless robots and just deal with it. If a woman has the same kind of issue, it's considered an issue worth campaigning about.
If a woman wants to have a child, she should bear a child with an individual who would actually WANT to have children. She shouldn't have a child KNOWING that it would be with a guy who is either not ready to have children or does not want to have children then cry when the baby is raised without a father.
And again, those who say *FART FART PEOPLE SHOULD ONLY HAVE SEX IF THEY CAN FACE THE REALITY OF BEING PARENTS FART FART*, you're just frankly a simpleton and I have no words for you.
Many would call the father irresponsible and needing to pay for his consequences. I don't exactly see it that way.
In the end, he was irresponsible for not using protection when he did not have a child, but she was irresponsible for bearing the child and forcing someone, who will likely resent the child and vice versa, to pay for it because she wasn't ready herself.
"But Bri!" you may ask "How do you suggesting on changing it so that this wouldn't happen?" It's the same answer I give for how to lower abortion rates: More open discussions about sexual education for the nation. Teen pregnancy rates are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. This is good. There will always be situations that this happens. It's never easy. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't give the government a legal right to meddle into the lives of others.
Be that as it may, they both made a shitty choice by having sex unprotected but it was her shitty choice to keep the baby that she knows she hasn't the means to pay for. Why is it right to spread the misery around?
Why do you consider it a shitty choice for someone to make a decision to keep their baby based on a mother's unconditional love for her child or a person's general appreciation for the value of an individual human life? Certainly, a lack of financial stability can cause stress in one's life, but it's a small price to pay compared to the love a parent has for their child.
If you asked Mortis's dad's cousin whether she ever regretted having her child, I could bet you real money that her answer would be "not a day in my life." Obviously you have no concept that there is more to the decision to keep a baby than cold, unfeeling logic. If you had a friend who was financially struggling after having a baby, and you told said person "you should have killed it," I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were knocked flat on your ass for saying it.
EDIT: For the record, I am on the fence concerning the issue of abortion (except partial-birth abortion which I oppose; or otherwise in the cases of rape and/or danger to the life of the mother). I can see the arguments for and against the issue, but I don't think the answer is clear cut, thus it should be explored on a case-by-case basis. Further, though abortion may be morally wrong, for society to consider it criminal is a totally different issue with which I disagree.
It's a stupid decision because she can't care for the baby without burdening those around her and she's dumping a child on an already overburdened, overpopulated planet. That's why it's a shitty choice. The idea that abortion is wrong before the second trimester (when the brain isn't even active) should be discarded.
EDIT: Wow! Whitney Houston is dead? That's so shocking. I never expected that.
Please don't throw these words around as if they always stick together. I don't doubt that your wife is a loving mother. I wouldn't doubt that your mother was a loving mother. I wouldn't even doubt that most the mothers you know were very loving. That said, mothers are not automatically unconditionally loving creatures. My great grandmother on my mother's side abandoned my grandfather because a fortune teller told her to without much remorse.
After my experience with Job Corps, meeting hundreds of young adults from unfortunate situations, I can tell you that not all mothers are loving people to their children. In fact, my roommate's mother called my roommate not by name, but by "fucking bitch" "little bastard" "worthless speck" and so on. She would openly allow her later married husband to be a peeping tom while she showered and emotionally and physically battered her until she finally ran away. She had to change her name in order to hide from her mother.
This string of words is also often thrown around in child custody cases and keeps children from their fathers who are often viewed as "inferior" as parents. This really pisses me off.
So, again, don't throw these words around like peanut butter and jelly.
If you asked Mortis's dad's cousin whether she ever regretted having her child, I could bet you real money that her answer would be "not a day in my life." Obviously you have no concept that there is more to the decision to keep a baby than cold, unfeeling logic. If you had a friend who was financially struggling after having a baby, and you told said person "you should have killed it," I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were knocked flat on your ass for saying it.
Lots of putting words in other people's mouths here, bro.
No one is saying that "oh man, they should have kill the babby hurr durr". It's more like they should think more about the responsibilities of raising a human being. If one can't find the means necessary without leaching the unwilling, they really REALLY ought to consider adoption and the pregnancy shouldn't have ever happened in the first place.
Many women realize that they can't capably raise their child and have to come to the very difficult decision of abortion. People who shame women who do this don't realize how difficult the decision often is. Even people who are pro choice don't realize how difficult it may be. I can say that if I had an unwanted pregnancy I'd probably get an abortion, but I really don't know how I would handle the situation if I actually was in it. In that respect, I do all I can to be safe. However, telling a woman that she is a murderer for coming to this incredibly difficult decision is being a simple-minded asshole, if you ask me.
Its true. Women don't always take to children.
Hell, in nature, females can reject their young at pretty much anytime. Most of the time they don't, (at least, not until they can fend for themselves), but its not exactly unheard of.
and again, I'm saying that the issue of abortion is not clear cut.
I'm not saying every mother is loving. I'm saying that a mother can form an undeniable, irrational emotional bond with her child that supercedes logic or concern for the future burdening of others, and it is cold and unfeeling to expect such a woman to treat her child as though it is liability of which she should dispose.
'm not saying every mother is loving. I'm saying that a mother can form an undeniable, irrational emotional bond with her child that supercedes logic or concern for the future burdening of others, and it is cold and unfeeling to expect such a woman to treat her child as though it is liability of which she should dispose.
I remember back when people were discussing adoption and such here, I did a bit of research into the matter. I found that the mothers who came to the difficult decision to give their child to adoptive parents often had a better chance to succeed in their careers and their biological children were found to be happier in this situation. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a biological mother to keep in contact with their children and many find this a suitable option that satiates the need to be in their lives without completely ruining all the other aspects of their own lives.
*shrug*
I'm not saying that it's an easy decision to make, nor is it the only decision they should make, but it is often a wiser one for the sake of both mother and child.
Comments
Not everyone believes in honor. The reason the government steps in and forces people to do the honorable thing in these instances is because most people would try to get away with it and leave the girl with all the expenses if they could. That's how it used to be, you know, only also with the social stigma of being an unwed mother and the inability to get any sort of job at all.
They are both in for a hard time because of this. But in someways the girl's will be worse.
Except that the girl chose to keep it. It's all on her. Her choice.
Hey, I never said it was a GOOD idea. Those cost extra. Besides, I think any such documentation would still be considered void by a court if the mother was deemed unfit, either as a parent herself or financially, to care for the child and the mother didn't file for full custody beforehand. They potentially could still just drop the child on the father's doorstep.
It probably would cut down one night stands, severely though. "So.... what are your views on abortion?" "hey where are you going?" "I'm serious" "aw c'mon"
Sorry he has to get a better job. Lots of people have to make sacrifices for their children.
She couldn't have done this by herself. Have a baby, I mean. Like it or not, he helped. I reiterate that "pro choice" means that she has a choice. It's her body that is going to suffer for her decision and it's her choice what to do with it. I don't know if you'd be complaining so much if he had been willing/excited to support a baby and she had decided to abort instead.
And when it comes down to it, this is a person we're talking about here, this baby. She's decided to have him/her and this little person is going to grow up without a dad. That's the real tragedy of this situation.
Yes it should, because historically men left women high and dry in these situations. And yes, if you're going to have sex, you need to be prepared to shoulder the consequences.
Actually, I would be. Yes. Why? Because it's his baby too. However, honorable or not, if he doesn't want to be involved, that's his choice as much as it's her choice to keep a baby she can't afford alone and burden my friend with the financial repercussions of her decision.
(Even the PSP bonus songs are pretty good as well.)
Now a Gitaroo Man 2, I would fund!
I just really don't understand the logic behind this. The guy literally has no way but joining the military to pay for this kid that he can't afford or else he has to go to jail. I can't be the only one who thinks it's fucked up that the woman choosing to keep a baby she can't afford is ruining my friend's life.
I'm not arguing that he's irresponsible and I'm not going to claim that he *shouldn't* help out. I'm just saying that this reverse sexist, state imposed extortion is unjust. How can you people not see that?
Yeah I can see that, society is pretty crappy that way. Hell, over here, they put gay rights over christians, (along with pretty much everything else).
I'm up for equality, thats for sure, but the couple had the right, under their property to have rules which force the gay couple to have seperate rooms.
They don't like it? Just go somewhere else!
In the end of the day, if you are in someone's house/property, then you should respectfully follow their rules, (unless they are really out of order or illegal), else go somewhere else.
After all, the Christians in the end of the day are just following the rules of their religion, their way of life.
(Whether they don't like them or their way of life is irrelevant. The rules of their religion should be respected, like a Sikh's right to carry a ceremonial sword)
EDIT: But! But in this case, its the kids interests that take priority here.
Since that child HAS to live now, that kid is entitled to support one way or another.
(And since he/she can't defend their case themselves, the state has to do it)
(I'd argue that if the mother can't afford to keep it, or can't get sufficient support from her family, then its equally as right in the kids best interests, to put the child into care as a last resort)
I love Gitaroo Man. There's even a nod to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon within the menu and one of the tracks is clearly inspired by Radiohead. Awesome!
The thing is that it's the woman's body. She is the one carrying the child, so ultimately the choice is hers. If a pregnant woman chooses to give birth, then it's only right that the Father should support the child financially; it's the very least he can do. Did your friend even use protection? If not, then he's a irresponsible jackass if he has no intention of being around as a role model, in my opinion.
What's wrong with that?! Being a Christian is a choice, being gay is not; either you're born that way or you're not!
That's not at issue, Davies, and it never was. What's at issue is state imposed child support. He can't afford it, so if he can't get into the military he will have no way of paying and thus be incarcerated. That he even has the law working against him in this is completely fucked up. He should pay what he can, obviously, because he should have wrapped up. However, he shouldn't be *forced* to pay for this woman keeping a child she can't afford.
Everybody in the case had a good point and Foley owes back support which he should have had revisited instead...which he didn't and IS his fault...but the ruling is pretty unreasonable at this stage of his career.
Well, many Christians/other religions, would argue that they are born that way too. Especially orthodox ones.
(Plus they are not being directly descriminative. They probably wouldn't have anyone else staying there if it was classed as a "sin" for doing so (like a murderer, adulterer, thief ect.))
The flaw is in the religion itself. Not the people.
EDIT: (Don't misinterpret me as being homophobic here, because I definately am not (I had a good friend back at school, who was gay, (no shocker there. He was so hilariously camp. Not flamboyant, just camp and girly), and I had no problem with it. He had a odd taste in men though O_o (I guess what a straight guy would find attractive in a dude would be completely different though.)))
If you can't afford to pay the child support that the Government dictates, then I guess he should have considered that before having unprotected sex. It's his own damn fault. Frankly, if he has to join the military to pay then maybe that's not such a bad thing, it might teach him about discipline and responsibility for ones actions; two virtues which he was clearly lacking when he decided to have unprotected sex.
Or maybe the woman could have used common sense and aborted the baby she couldn't care for on her own. I mean, really now. A pill? Anything? To put all the burden on the man is just as anti-feminist as expecting the woman to do everything. Unless you're just downright misandristic.
This comic is just funny! XD
I'm not in the least bit misandristic. Surely that would mean a form of self-hatred? The fact is that, a few years back, I actually did get a girlfriend pregnant (in spite of using protection), in the end we went through with an abortion but I still let her know before that mutual decision was made, that if she chose to go through with the birth, that I would support our child both financially and as a role model.
At the time I was barely able to look after myself and was pretty much broke but I knew that any potential child had to come first. They would be the priority. It's nothing to do with misandry, it's to do with responsibility and not being a self centered jerk!
Not everyone is so selfless. Why should someone be forced to be honorable? We call it honor, Davies, because it is encouraged. Not because it is coerced. If the man can't pay, it's regrettable, but the state shouldn't bleed him dry because the woman chose to keep it. She now has to own that decision because the man had no further baring in it.
I'm going to say this again until you listen. It's going to be harder for her. My dad's cousin was impregnated by her jerk abusive boyfriend (who, I might add, she had to move to frickin' Canada to get rid of) and she received absolutely no child support whatsoever. I don't think it was a law back then, or if it was, it was not enforced. He never paid a cent and left her high and dry with a baby.
But it didn't end there. Now, I'll take a moment to say that she was at this time fairly successful, highly educated (she had a PhD), etc. When she had her son, like she had given birth minutes before, her own fucking doctor came in and said that he had a couple waiting outside who wanted to adopt her son. Let me tell you, she told me that she has never been angrier in her entire life. To this day she hasn't spoken a word to her old doctor.
After this, it was difficult for her to get a job because she was a single mother, even though she was highly educated. When she did get one, she had to spend $10,000 a year to pay for a nanny to take care of her son while she went and worked to support them, which probably slowed her down considerably. She did it, but it was extremely hard. And you know, if she'd gotten a bit of child support, it would have been that just that little bit easier.
My second cousin (her son) turned out fine, has a successful career, all the girls love him, etc, but it's a credit to how hard his mother worked that he has done so well.
I'm sorry your friend has to pay for his indiscretion, but the girl is going to suffer more than he will. And depending on where he's posted, the army might not be such a bad thing. It's a steady, decent paying job which is more than most people are getting at the moment.
You're asking me to have sympathy for a "man" without honor. Not going to happen. Screw him! There's too many people in this world without a moral compass, which is exactly why laws regarding child support are required in the first place. Do you think that his son/daughter will be comforted by their Father's absence just because he's not a selfless person?! Send the guy to the military I say, that way at least the child will get a decent meal, clothing and an education.
I know this guy's your friend so I shall apologise if I'm offending you with my remarks but frankly, people with his attitude annoy me.
Be that as it may, they both made a shitty choice by having sex unprotected but it was her shitty choice to keep the baby that she knows she hasn't the means to pay for. Why is it right to spread the misery around?
The misery would be greater if the child went unsupported. She might have to go on wellfare and I believe we have both agreed in a separate conversation that having people hanging on wellfare is a bad deal all around.
We do agree there. However, you're talking about the mother, father AND child being miserable instead of just the mother and child. Is it right? No. But the mother chose to keep the kid so it's on her.
(seriously who wants some music? I bought a game music bundle and paid the extra $5 for a giftable code)
Time to return to the batcave!
I am a woman and I agree with him to an extent. I don't like being painted as being a victim's class that HONORABLE MEN should white knight around.
A man has absolutely no legal right to a pregnant woman's fate. Even if he wanted to bring the pregnancy to term, she can still get an abortion without his consent. This is good. No one should choose what someone else should do with their bodies and their lives.
This is great that we have come to a point in history where women can have this choice!
On the flip side, however, a man, no matter what he personally feels, is legally forced to raise a child depending on the mother's decision based simply on genetics. He has no right to say that he does not want the child or not.
This is not good. It's pro choice. But only for the woman.
That's incredibly fucked up and incredibly anti-choice.
While we managed to liberate women in a lot of ways, the rights of men have been largely ignored and antiquated because they were considered "privileged" and not needed of change. Not to say that there is no more sexism towards women, but we have gotten to the point that in certain areas, women do actually have more rights than men both on a legal and cultural level. And it really does disturb me that people outright ignore the fact that men get hurt by these old ways and when one speaks up about it, they're told that they should be emotionless robots and just deal with it. If a woman has the same kind of issue, it's considered an issue worth campaigning about.
If a woman wants to have a child, she should bear a child with an individual who would actually WANT to have children. She shouldn't have a child KNOWING that it would be with a guy who is either not ready to have children or does not want to have children then cry when the baby is raised without a father.
And again, those who say *FART FART PEOPLE SHOULD ONLY HAVE SEX IF THEY CAN FACE THE REALITY OF BEING PARENTS FART FART*, you're just frankly a simpleton and I have no words for you.
Many would call the father irresponsible and needing to pay for his consequences. I don't exactly see it that way.
In the end, he was irresponsible for not using protection when he did not have a child, but she was irresponsible for bearing the child and forcing someone, who will likely resent the child and vice versa, to pay for it because she wasn't ready herself.
"But Bri!" you may ask "How do you suggesting on changing it so that this wouldn't happen?" It's the same answer I give for how to lower abortion rates: More open discussions about sexual education for the nation. Teen pregnancy rates are the lowest they've been since the 1950's. This is good. There will always be situations that this happens. It's never easy. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't give the government a legal right to meddle into the lives of others.
On another note! I got my first semi serious knife wound today! I don't need stitches, but it'll likely scar up something awful.
Why do you consider it a shitty choice for someone to make a decision to keep their baby based on a mother's unconditional love for her child or a person's general appreciation for the value of an individual human life? Certainly, a lack of financial stability can cause stress in one's life, but it's a small price to pay compared to the love a parent has for their child.
If you asked Mortis's dad's cousin whether she ever regretted having her child, I could bet you real money that her answer would be "not a day in my life." Obviously you have no concept that there is more to the decision to keep a baby than cold, unfeeling logic. If you had a friend who was financially struggling after having a baby, and you told said person "you should have killed it," I wouldn't be at all surprised if you were knocked flat on your ass for saying it.
EDIT: For the record, I am on the fence concerning the issue of abortion (except partial-birth abortion which I oppose; or otherwise in the cases of rape and/or danger to the life of the mother). I can see the arguments for and against the issue, but I don't think the answer is clear cut, thus it should be explored on a case-by-case basis. Further, though abortion may be morally wrong, for society to consider it criminal is a totally different issue with which I disagree.
EDIT: Wow! Whitney Houston is dead? That's so shocking. I never expected that.
Please don't throw these words around as if they always stick together. I don't doubt that your wife is a loving mother. I wouldn't doubt that your mother was a loving mother. I wouldn't even doubt that most the mothers you know were very loving. That said, mothers are not automatically unconditionally loving creatures. My great grandmother on my mother's side abandoned my grandfather because a fortune teller told her to without much remorse.
After my experience with Job Corps, meeting hundreds of young adults from unfortunate situations, I can tell you that not all mothers are loving people to their children. In fact, my roommate's mother called my roommate not by name, but by "fucking bitch" "little bastard" "worthless speck" and so on. She would openly allow her later married husband to be a peeping tom while she showered and emotionally and physically battered her until she finally ran away. She had to change her name in order to hide from her mother.
This string of words is also often thrown around in child custody cases and keeps children from their fathers who are often viewed as "inferior" as parents. This really pisses me off.
So, again, don't throw these words around like peanut butter and jelly.
Lots of putting words in other people's mouths here, bro.
No one is saying that "oh man, they should have kill the babby hurr durr". It's more like they should think more about the responsibilities of raising a human being. If one can't find the means necessary without leaching the unwilling, they really REALLY ought to consider adoption and the pregnancy shouldn't have ever happened in the first place.
Many women realize that they can't capably raise their child and have to come to the very difficult decision of abortion. People who shame women who do this don't realize how difficult the decision often is. Even people who are pro choice don't realize how difficult it may be. I can say that if I had an unwanted pregnancy I'd probably get an abortion, but I really don't know how I would handle the situation if I actually was in it. In that respect, I do all I can to be safe. However, telling a woman that she is a murderer for coming to this incredibly difficult decision is being a simple-minded asshole, if you ask me.
Hell, in nature, females can reject their young at pretty much anytime. Most of the time they don't, (at least, not until they can fend for themselves), but its not exactly unheard of.
I'm not saying every mother is loving. I'm saying that a mother can form an undeniable, irrational emotional bond with her child that supercedes logic or concern for the future burdening of others, and it is cold and unfeeling to expect such a woman to treat her child as though it is liability of which she should dispose.
I remember back when people were discussing adoption and such here, I did a bit of research into the matter. I found that the mothers who came to the difficult decision to give their child to adoptive parents often had a better chance to succeed in their careers and their biological children were found to be happier in this situation. Nowadays, it is not uncommon for a biological mother to keep in contact with their children and many find this a suitable option that satiates the need to be in their lives without completely ruining all the other aspects of their own lives.
*shrug*
I'm not saying that it's an easy decision to make, nor is it the only decision they should make, but it is often a wiser one for the sake of both mother and child.
also wow we're really talking about abortion