charlottegelin said:

Oh good lord, don't do that. They're even worse!

JustErin said:

brownsugar said:

but it's so easy! just turn up naked and bring beer

HereToRockYourWorld said:

I agree. I understand what Carrie is saying, but there's legality and there's morality. You can be as immoral and unethical as you want, but still find a way to live by the letter of the law while you're being a big jerk.

In this situation, I think it's up to the father to decide if he is morally responsible, and up to the mother to accept the man's offer of responsibility if he so chooses.

responsible birth control stops this conversation before it begins. If you, as a man, have no desire to have a child, there are simple ways for you to achieve that.

jerseykrs said:

i find being queer as a catfart has worked wonders for me in this area.

Anx said:

JustErin said:

So, they're both sloppy about the birth control, but she can choose whether or not she wants to terminate a pregnancy, and he is on the hook for 18 years of child support whether he agrees with her decision or not?

That's. Not. Fair. As Carrie said, there's some inherent unfairness in the whole thing, but this is not part of the inherent unfairness. This is something that is a matter of social policy, not biology.

And let me say a tad more about why this is a sex-positive issue.

This "if you don't like it have safe sex or none at all" line is all well and good, except HERE IN THE REAL WORLD, people sometimes make mistakes, and birth control sometimes fails. If we're going to have a mature, progressive, positive attitude about sexuality and a normal, healthy adult sex life, we're going to have to recognize reality.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

YOU'RE A GODDAMN SINNER!!!

HereToRockYourWorld said:

Using a condom lowers that risk to less than 1%. I just believe that you if you aren't looking to have a child, as a responsible man, put a rubber on. Yes they suck, but you know what else sucks? Having a child you didn't want.

jerseykrs said:

less than 1%??? certainly condoms lower the risk, but i think that estimate is a little, erm...hopeful. where'd you find that number?

Anx said:

Anx said:

If they are used exactly how they are supposed to be used, that's about right. When used properly, rubbers very rarely break. However, the real-world failure rate is more like 7-10%, last I heard.

jerseykrs, of COURSE people should use rubbers. I'm not arguing that people should be irresponsible. I'm arguing for a position that is as close to gender-equality as we are going to get.

Anx said:

oops, I forgot the 5. It's less than 15%. If spermicide is include also, it drops to just above 2%. My whole point is, if you don't want a child, take whatever precautions you can. No one is pointing a gun to your head to make your decisions.

jerseykrs said:

While I 100% agree with you, if it were that simple "we' would not be having this discussion.

jerseykrs said:

You ever heard of a "laced" condom?

jerseykrs said:

10 - 15% sounds a lot more realistic. i agree with taking precautions, and i also agree with the harm reduction/sex positive point of view that rockyerworld is offering. people should have some common sense, but at the same time, shit happens and you have to be prepared for the shit that does happen, because that's just how life is, whether you have common sense or not.

Anx said:

Yes, I agree Chris. I understand accidents happen. However, I can NOT subscribe to the idea that if a couple are using birth control, condoms and spermicide that a high percentage of them end up getting pregnant. I don't have any concrete numbers, but it has to be miniscule at most.

But don't listen to me, I had a child at 21.....LMFAO

jerseykrs said:

ya know, appropriate sex education would lend itself beautifully to the percentage-cinching numbers you'd expect precaution to create...but the same people who bark loudest about personal responsibility are the same ones who pooh pooh any sex education beyond showing film strips from the '70s about how to wash your balls.

HereToRockYourWorld said:

The position of everyone should have equal rights should then also apply to the child and that child should have the right to have both parents love and support it. As it stands now, the court system is in favour of the child ( and rightfully so). So once a child is here, it is up to both parents to support it - whether they wanted to or not.

What I think is really unfair is, a woman can walk away from responsibility if she chooses to do so but a man does not have this right. She gets to decide his fate as a father. This is what needs to be changed. You have a kid, you don't want it? The laws should be equal in the respect that anyone that has a child is at least in part responsible for financial support, whether it's in your care or not.

This is a radical stance, I know, but I bet you a law like this would make a hell of a lot of people more responsible in regards to birth control.

JustErin said:

so what about surrogate parenting situations? what about family planning arrangements that don't fit into the "normal" husband/wife model? i think that kind of a law would dictate what a family can and can't be, and i can't get with that.

people should stop asking for "laws" to solve their problems. there should be NO such law, things should NOT be ILLEGAL unless they directly endanger someones life. EVER! yes, this debate could go on in a direction to say that the child's life could possibly maybe be in danger if this and if that and but we CANNOT and SHOULD NOT make laws based on maybes and what ifs. We are voluntarily throwing our LIBERTY away.

Anx said:

Which is my point. If neither wants a child, use protection, and a woman ends up pregnant, yes, she ultimately gets to decide the future fate, but here is where I disagree. Should she choose to have a baby at this point, I think he should be held responsible. Again, I agree it's unfair. But too bad.

CarrieMpls said:

That's the part that makes me a bit peeved. There are way too many woman that basically live by this code.

CarrieMpls said:

what if she doesn't WANT to hold him responsible? what if she wants no part of ever seeing him again? and wouldn't this set a bad precedent for other arrangements for family planning?

Graycap23 said:

true, so men.....NEVER forget that. NEVER under estimate the power of a woman! proceed with caution. Only YOU can prevent forest fires.

Anx said:

It wouldn't dictate what a family can and can't be. All it would mean is biological parents would have some sort of financial obligation if they choose to terminate their parental rights. People could still adopt and create whatever family dynamic they wanted. Adoptive parents would simply receive child support.

This is talking about it very superficially, of course. Digging deeper would bring up lots of "what if" scenarios, but I think something like this would at least be a closer model to a law that is equal and fair to both sexes, while putting the best interest of the child first.

JustErin said:

WHAT?!?!

So you'd want the parent giving up the child to pay child support to the adoptive parents? The great majority of women who give their children up for adoption do so because they CAN'T AFFORD TO SUPPORT A CHILD. So you'd suggest these women be punished in the pocketbook for giving up a child to a better home? I'm really sorry, but in all due respect, I can't see the logic in that at all. In fact, I'm certain I'm misunderstanding you.

Anx said:

Nope, you got it right. It has nothing to do with punishment. It's called being responsible for your actions. Anyone can give some sort of financial support, it doesn't have to be a lot, but it should be something. Much like it already is for a man that has a child and has to pay child support, the amount should be determined by their income. Broke ass guys are forced to pay any amount they can. Why should it be any different for the mother??

By all means, give them a better home than they could give, but children should not be disposible. If you can't provide the best care possible, you give it up for adoption, but you should not be totally off the hook.

We are talking about gender equality here. The law should not apply for one party and not another. This would make it equal.