That's the thing, it isn't a question of morality. The law isn't concerned with morality but rather ethics.
The law goes through a decision tree... it checks boxes. There are some gray areas where judges and juries are asked to make a gut decision on an issue but most of the law runs through these decision trees.
The problem is that quite a few of these decision trees were set up in a previous era where the status quo was a completely different thing. The majority of paternity law predates birth control for example.
Now, if you reexamine paternity law and assume for the sake of argument that birth control doesn't exist... then it actually makes a lot of sense. However, that's irrational because birth control does exist.
Look at the way people engage in sexual contact in the 21st century and compare it to the 19th century. There's no comparison. But the laws come from that previous era despite being applied to an environment that is alien to their assumptions.
Lets say a woman has had sex before you married her. Is she damaged goods in your opinion? No. That was how people saw women in the old days. The virgin bride was the ideal. Today no one cares because it doesn't matter. The realities of our society are completely alien to that paradigm and it is silly to keep pretending that it is reasonable.
As to your statement that laws different from state to state, I don't see the relevance of that point. Obviously laws change from one jurisdiction to another. You go to a different country and you can probably engage in behavior that most of us would regard as rape yet would be entirely legal there. So kindly stop clouding the issue. Statutory rape is still rape. And I don't especially care if the laws are not universal throughout the entire planet. I don't see how that matters.
Can you show me some evidence of a 20+ year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl and being not only not punished but rewarded by the state for it? You can cite any case with those variables... you can include a case where there was consent or not. Go for it.
My guess is that you're going to have a very hard time finding a single fucking one which puts you in the position that the young girls never consent which is completely impossible or admitting that the legal system doesn't give a shit... and being that you are going to be in the position of ultimately admitting that the legal system doesn't give a shit, you're going to have to admit that your interpretation of statutory rape contains a gender based double standard.
And once you've admitted that, we can conclude this tangent and get back to talking about the paternity issue.
Your move. Present a case where a 14 year old girl or less had sex with a 20 year old man or older and the man was not only not punished but was actually rewarded in some fashion by the state. Possibly awarded partial custody of her child against her will... that would be roughly equivalent to asking this man that was 14 at the time to pay for her child.
You're not going to find it because you're wrong. This is silly. You're basically sitting there telling me the world is flat. You can't win this...
I have to post my response on postbin because slashdot is being retarded again and citing me for triggering the "lameness filter". The filter triggers when you type in all caps or use the same character over and over again. I did neither of these things but it won't let me enter the post. So I'm putting it on postbin and then giving you the link to the post.
I tried removing paragraphs and adding them to find out what it was complaining about.
Apparently it is this paragraph: ""What is the difference here? What are you accomplishing with the sperm bank that is not accomplished with the napkin? The napkin is a record of the intent of the individuals at conception. So if you want intent... the napkin has it. What is the sperm bank giving you? Because frankly, your stipulation is sounding arbitrary and pedantic.""
But it only complains when the rest of the post is included with it. Remove the whole rest of the post except this paragraph and the lameness filter is not triggered. Remove just this paragraph and it is not triggered. Include both and it is triggered.
If you know what it is reacting to, I'd appreciate it. I can't figure it out so I just put my posts in pastebin when it seems to trigger for no reason.
I actually was quite clear in my observation that body building was not the healthiest thing. My point was that they understand nutrition better than almost anyone. The empirical science conducted in those communities is extremely good. They are unhealthy because their objective is not health but bulk or strength. They're not trying to be healthy. They're trying to be BIG. And there is no group on earth that knows better how to get big than the body builders. Not your nutrition experts. Not your doctors.
The meat heads at the gym are experimenting on their bodies all the time and sharing their observations with each other on an ongoing basis.
And I've talked to them about these issues because I long ago had the realization that if anyone understood this sort of thing it would be them.
And according the body builders, you shift the balance of PROTEIN versus carbs depending on activity. A certain amount of fat is good for health but if your objective is to build muscle mass or burn weight, they say you want protein. Their belief is that it is just easier for the body to process proteins into proteins rather than to make proteins from fat or sugars. According them, if you give the body fat, the easiest thing for the body to do is turn it into fat. That said, they say that fat, protein, sugar will get turned into fat if you don't do any exercise.
As to the japanese walking more than we do, that in no way contradicts anything I said because I said the CHANGE was a reduction in the amount Americans moved around. So your citation of the japanese moving around more doesn't undermine my position at all. NOT EVEN A LITTLE TINY BIT. If anything you're validating my position.
Frankly, I think you're replaying an argument you had with someone else some time ago and I'm just the hapless fellow that is being subjected to your replay.
I'm not defending the fucking food pyramid. I find the whole concept of an organized food paradigm to be asinine. You're not my mother and I am not a child. You don't get to tell me what I eat.
And as to your complaint about Americans being fat... So what? Oh heart diseases and various other obesity related illnesses? What does that actually mean? We all die of something. Do obese people die a little faster than other sorts? Usually they do. Same thing with smokers etc. But what does it matter? Are they cutting their productive years short? No they're not. Fat people tend to live to be 70 or so which might be statistically five to ten years less than their thin peers. But are you honestly getting this excited over trying to keep a 70 year old alive until 80? This is a not a great social problem if that is the effect of it.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, what is your problem? Pretend I'm the alien overlord running this world... Explain to me why I give a shit?
To the contrary, I said very clearly that the consent of the minor was utterly irrelevant. When you say "it doesn't mean it isn't willing" that is true. It doesn't in fact matter. Statutory rape means consent is irrelevant.
If you have sex with a ten year old, the fact as to whether the ten year old was willing or not is fucking irrelevant. Lets say you're her father... and she loves you. And you ask your 10 year old daughter to spread her legs for you. And she does willingly.
Is that rape?
Of course it is... because the consent of a minor in a statutory rape case is by definition fucking irrelevant.
The problem with men in these situations is that first men are DRAMATICALLY less likely to report such an incident than are women. Women are told from a young age that this is wrong when it happens to them. Men are socialized in a completely different way. Thus when a man or boy is sexually assaulted by a woman, we shrug it off or try to rationalize it as a positive thing. But if it came against our will or due to some sort of coercion that is considered rape when it happens to a woman.
If you're married to the status quo for men, then we could just apply that to women as well. That's the other way to get equality if you insist? So if a woman gets raped, we can just tell her to stop being such a baby or ask her if she got aroused at any point during the incident. That's what men get asked when they report this sort of thing.
I was reading a conversation between some women and a guy that was talking about this and the woman said "how could you have sex if you didn't want to have sex?"... which is roughly up there with a rapist noticing his female victim has gotten wet at some point and thus concluding that really she wanted it all along.
Literally.
The double standard on the issue is frankly pathetic.
And what point would any of that have on anything? Does advocating for fairness in maternity law make you an MRA? Or does citing anyone that disagrees with you as a member of some rival ideology make you a radical?
As to cars, who is guilty when one car runs into the rear of another?
Almost always the car behind because they have more control over the situation. You can't win comparing the situation to other aspects of law because I am quite right when I say that paternity law is treated differently than any other portion of law.
What we currently have is a situation where a party with MORE control than another is held to a lower standard of responsibility. That is unprecedented in any other context in the legal system of English common law, American law, or really any legal system I'm familiar with... Treating it differently is common throughout the world, however that difference in treatment does not a take birth control into consideration AT ALL. And as a result, it does view the situation as you say... like two people merging into the same lane. The 50/50 split. But the 50/50 split only holds valid if there is no birth control.
You wanted a right to choose. I support that right entirely. But in gaining that right you have control and in having control you have responsibility.
You do not gain power without gaining responsibility for that power.
Period.
As to your claim that this was tried in the 50s, can you give me some citation so I know what you're at least talking about? I have literally no idea to what you are presuming to refer. For one thing, birth control wasn't in widescale use in the 50s and for another I can find no indictation of a relaxation in the paternity laws during that period.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument, if I accepted your premise without any evidence or even clue that it was at all valid... if I just take it as a given... then I have to ask, what evidence is there that anything failed during that period of time? The demographics during that period were if anything superior to today in many respects. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Kindly furnish me with something so I can see what you are talking about. I don't need extensive citations to prove you right or wrong so much as some idea of what you're talking about. Your comment is so vague that I can't even really guess what you're talking about.
No, we don't need it twitter for any of that. We already have news sites that are better at handling all of this... event the tabloidy ones are better. I can't tell you how many people I've seen turn their noses up at some site or other because it doesn't have a good reputation and then read twitter as if any random jackass is credible or not just another fucking troll.
The male birth control pill is not long from being a reality. It will sort this issue to a great extent.
Out of curiosity, if a man is on a male birth control pill and the woman literally sticks a needle into his testicles to extract sperm... would you hold him liable for child support if all of that happened without his consent?
My understanding of the male birth control pill under development is that it blocks sperm from being released from the testies. They're still produced, they just don't go anywhere.
That runs contrary to English common law and the way contract law has worked in the US since always.
If two people make a consenting agreement between each other... write out their intent on the back of a napkin... each sign it and then do something together... that writing on the napkin can be used to establish the intent of the parties.
In this case, the actual person that should have been put on the hook was the other lesbian. SHE should have been been put on the hook. Not the man that donated his sperm on the understanding that there would be no liability and that those two women would raise the child as a couple.
Strip gender identifiers out of this entirely.
A couple can't have children with each other. So that couple seeks a third party to provide them with something that facilitates them having children. That party consents on the understanding that they will not be held accountable for raising the child. This party provides the good or service that permits the birth and then the couple subsequently break up.
Then the state rather than coming to the other member of the couple that consented to take care of the child during conception... instead goes after the third party that only consented on the understanding that they would not be held accountable.
This is indefensible and you won't find such barbaric anachronistic logic used anywhere in American law outside of paternity cases.
You're just defining injustice. In no other respect of the legal system will you find people defending fraud as legitimate... and saying to the victim of fraud "well you shouldn't do that with people you don't trust."
You bring up the STDs but that is a sad attempt to conflate a medical condition with the law. At no point is the law judging that someone should or not be infected with STDs. You are however determining that party A must be forced to pay for party B's choices even though party B was shown to be deceptive, manipulative, and effectively guilty of fraud were the subject anything but paternity.
Name any other situation where the law would so cavalierly say "sucks to be you" and then fuck you? None exists.
As to the risk, the risk is that she can decide if she wants to get pregnant and the man has less influence on the matter than she does.
That being a fact, she must bare responsibility for it. Especially since the vast majority of sexual contact in the 21st century society is inherently recreational with no presumed commitment.
Restrict liability to stated agreements and the culture will change for the better. Women will seek a commitment from men more ardently because they know they have to get it for him to be bound to support her. The hookup culture will polarize with those that want nothing but the hookup being quite happy to carry on and those that don't like it will focus instead of longer term relationships.
As to reforms in the parliamentary system, if you want to believe the parliamentary system has no means for the elites to manipulate it then you just keep believing that. There is no way that is true. They always have a way. If you don't know what it is that just means you don't know what it is... and frankly the elites tend to like it that way.
As to things not being illegal not being corruption, bullshit. Wallstreet for example is a master of legal corruption. Are you saying that if I just keep my corruption complicated and fresh enough that it is ethical? Give me a break. Are you saying that if I exploit loopholes in the law that I bribed politicians to put into the law that I am thereafter not breaking the law when I use those loopholes to continue to bribe politicians? The legality is not the issue.
Corruption is an ethical question and not a legal one unless you intend to prosecute. For example lets say we have a dictatorship and there are no laws against bribing public officials and it is if anything part of the culture and an accepted part of the the way things work. Is the bribery corrupt or not? It remains corrupt regardless of its legality. When the corrupt run a government than corruption becomes legal.
How can you note know this?
As to theology, I have cited the law to you. The law is as written. Don't like it, change it. I will hear you out as to why you want to change the law to reflect your own interpretations. However, if you don't change the law then the law is the law and those wishing to enforce the law are to be regarded as in the legal right and those not following the law are to be regarded as in the legal wrong.
As to corruption being morally loaded, no it is ethically loaded. Morality and ethics are different concepts. Being professional for example is ethical. Being professional has nothing to do with morality.
The issue with corruption is that it undermines law itself. Corruption is the process of getting things done through influence, money, and favors... typically secretly. The entire concept when applied to the government undermines the rule of law. And any society run by corruption ceases to be a Republic... Republic literally means "Rule by Law". Instead what you have in a corrupt society is the rule by those with the most influence. Typically this is results in an oligarchy.
That is my reason for opposing corruption. It is lawless, inherently unjust, and just puts us back in the pockets of the elites. That is not a moral objection.
Ah, now I see... you want a socialist/progressive agenda and you believe that won't happen unless you centralize power, dominate the power shutting out all opposition, and impose your will on everyone.
You're right. You do need to completely subvert democracy and the Republican governance (the legal concept, not the political affiliation) to do that. However, the ambitions of your ideology are not really justification for anything.
As to the last time I responded to a low level government official, I've gone to city council meetings and I vote on those people in office the same way I vote on the president or a Federal Senator. So... your comment makes no sense.
As to moderates, I didn't say anything about moderates. You're changing the subject again.:)
No one cares about the fucking FDA food pyramid besides the government.
In your mind, do you think people are sitting at home figuring out their diet and thinking "well, according the food pyramid I need X percentage more of Y?"... No one gives a shit.
If you have a restaurant and they are trying to figure out a good meal to put on the menu, do you think they're consulting the food pyramid while they do it?
Then lets just accept that government's opinion on the matter isn't actually that relevant because people don't consult the FDA tables prior to making dinner.
As to the US having a higher amount of carbs than other societies, the asians eat a lot of Rice and noodles my friend... as do the indians. They're not fat. The Italians eat a lot of noodles and bread and they're not fat.
And as I keep pointing out to you, the Egyptians were pounding liquid bread during the days of the Old Kingdom and they weren't fat.
Or I hate how people use it. It is a good service to share little nuggets of information amongst a lot of people. But it is often used to express political views or talk about current events and you can't make a rational contribution on complex issues with that character limit.
I am a big believer in emulators. Just have an emulator that can run android or ios apps sort of like wine emulates windows apps for linux.
Every OS should have a suite of emulators that can run any program from any other operating system.
Yes, you take a performance hit when you emulate but if your computer is speedy you don't notice.
I have a virtual OSX, Virtual linux, and a couple virtual flavors of windows on my PC. I can run pretty much anything. At top speed without a performance hit? No... OSX especially is a little bit slower because the optimization isn't great. I love my virtual machines.
I would sooner do that then compel the biological father BY LAW to provide for the child IN THE SITUATION where he was known to have NOT consented to take responsibility for the child.
You want to provide a mother with welfare. Fine. YOU get to pay for YOUR view points. That is only fair is it not? I will pay for what I believe in and you get to pay for what you believe in.
You want the state to keep the single mothers on welfare? I can't stop you from giving away other people's money.
As to your various issues revolving around why its hard to be a single mother... that is why it was not traditionally done. Human females and human males are dimorphic and they rely upon each other to provide given services beyond their rubbing their gentles together.
Men are unable to gestate young. However, men have an excess of labor. Men don't get pregnant which means they don't have to worry about spending months on their back unable to provide for themselves.
Women have had this problem since always. Which is why men and women pair bond with each other. It is a contract of sorts. The male provides protection, food, and whatever other assistance he can... and in return the female offers reproductive access. Often this extends to an exclusive contract such as marriage.
A married woman doesn't have these problems. Now am I saying a woman has to get married? No. Of course not. No one has to do anything. You don't have to breath if you don't want to. I certainly won't force you to.
But raising a child without being married is harder. It just is and even with all the welfare it is still a lot harder to raise a child solo than it is with a social safety net.
Now, what happens dynamically if follow my advice and start cutting the subsidies?
Women are going to feel increased pressure to form a marriage contract as a precursor to reproduction. Now, modern ideology and morality would say that is bad because often these marriages are loveless and simply marriages of convenience. However, if our interest is the CHILD what serves the interests of the child more? Getting a mother and father, with a social safety net... maybe the parents have lots of fights or are cold to each other but he or she has two sexes providing role models as well as a more consistent and stable household.
Or would you prefer the welfare mom option which is currently filling our prisons to the brim with angry, confused, and ultimately damaged people? And sure, some people only go on welfare for a little while but we have a lot of welfare queens in this country that were born on it, raised on it, bore their children on it, and are currently raising their children on it. You talk about putting limits on welfare and they say you're hurting people. So we have no limits. You can just get welfare forever.
I know I know... I'm a heretic. A witch. Burn me. Burn me... or as they say here, Flame me:D
I'm as easily wounded by flames as a noble gas is ignited by - anything. HaHA, chemistry boasts!:P
Seriously though, I'd love to hear a rational rebuttal. I don't expect one because all I get on this issue is fucking pesants crossing their fingers and screaming UNCLEAN!... No offense. Just what I expect these days.
But that won't stop me from expressing my opinion. If the pitchfork and torch crowd wants to add me to the bonfire, that's just part of the game.:)
Yep. I suppose he could take out an insurance policy for the potential liability. No clue if that would be a bargain or not. But maybe someone would be willing to take a bet on it.
I don't question whether he can multitask. I question the relevance of him taking a position on this at all.
First off, the developed world is cutting carbon emissions and really putting in a pretty good faith effort to cut back. Contrary to the extremists, we're doing as well at that as ca be expected.
The issue is the developing world and they are not going to listen to the likes of the Pope.
Does china care what the pope says? Not at all. If anything, he creeps them out and they might even be inclined to go the other way just to demonstrate how indifferent they are to him.
What about India? Same thing... Hindus don't give a shit.
What about South America? They'll give you lipservice. The economic and political pressures they're under are too great to even begin to take that seriously.
What about Africa? The parts of Africa that might listen have been busy killing each other for decades. I think I saw something about the civil war in the Congo costing something like 5 million lives and counting. And really I don't think the emissions from Africa are that great anyway.
Here's my point. If his holiness wants to accomplish something, he should focus on something that actually matters to people of his faith. Something that that he will focus on for more than two seconds.
I've been watching this pope and he flits around from one sappy progressive issue to the next. Which makes progressives happy but most Catholics are not progressives because most progressives are atheists. Is there any chance that his progressive pandering is going to make atheist progressives turn catholic? None.
So what does this accomplish for HIS faith? Nothing. He's wasting his time with one issue that is irrelevant to his faith after another.
The effective Popes, the ones that people remember, they each had a primary thing they wanted to do in office. Maybe that was expanding the faith. Maybe that was cleaning up corruption. Maybe that was correcting a pattern of injustice in the faith. Sometimes there is a great enemy that the church has to crusade against. Something.
This Pope though... he talks about everything and in talking about everything talks about nothing. There's no focus and with no focus there is no purpose... just aimlessness.
As to really versus not really... There was a lesbian couple that approuched a man and asked him to donate sperm so that they could have a child.
The man obliged and I believe had sex with one of the women until she got pregnant. It was an implicit understanding that he was not to be responsible for anything.
Then the lesbian couple broke up and the pregnant woman or woman with a child at that point went on welfare. When she told the welfare office who the biological father was, they sent him a bill for child support.
So yes. Really.
As to the donation laws being fairly current, yes if you go through that explicit process and use registered sperm/egg banks. However, as the lesbian situation reveals above, if you donate your seed but don't go through the official process, they will hit you up for child support.
So, no it isn't really updated. And the biggest issue is that it doesn't acknowledge that women now have a choice. And if they have a choice then they made a choice. Their choice.
Am I saying I want to see single mothers left without support? Nope. But neither do I want to see single men or fathers treated like second class citizens and made ultimately to pay for the decisions of women they might have only met once in what they thought of as a purely recreational activity.
Men assume in the 21st century in the Western world that women are going to get precisely as pregnant as they want to be. And are we wrong? If a woman wants to get pregnant, she can do it really easily. If she doesn't, then she can do that really easily too. She can also do that while having all the sex she wants or not at all.
And at no point does the woman risk being forced to raise a child or pay for a child if she doesn't want to do that.
Men under this system are routinely forced to participate if only financially in the raising of children they gave no consent to birthing. And now, sticking your penis in her vagina is not consent to make a baby and then make me pay for it. In the 1850s, sure... I see the logic there. But in 2015? Give me a fucking break.
Incorrect, I understand completely. I merely disagree with your solution to the problem being that the man must be fucked over because fuck him.
You're going out of your way to not put any consequences on the woman, you're ignoring the man's end of the matter entirely, and all things being equal, you have made the calculation that if a party is going to suffer, it should be the man.
Why? You say for the child? Who says we need a woman to raise a child? Children are raised all the time by their fathers.
If the woman is unable to support her child, then I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to for any family relation that can care for the child. The biological father, grand parents, uncles, aunts, anyone. And if they can't find anyone, then possibly foster care is the best solution.
Leaving the child with a mother that cannot support the child does not seem like a rational idea.
For one thing, the mother demonstrably doesn't know how to take care of herself or she wouldn't need someone to take care of her.
And that being the case, what kind of role model is that mother going to be to a child? How can she teach the child to be an adult if she is herself not mature?
Think about it.
Leaving the child with the mother is pretty much one of the worst possible ideas IF she can't take care of the child without assistance.
Now, I am not including divorces in this because the woman could make choices when the marriage is sound that don't make sense when the marriage breaks up. In that context she could make entirely rational choices at one point that don't make sense later and the man does have an obligation to see that children conceived during their marriage are cared for whether or the marriage is subsequently dissolved.
However, pregnancies that occur PRIOR to or AFTER the such a contract or agreement are the responsibility of the mother.
And a woman that doesn't recognize that is not behaving like a mature 21st century woman.
As to your rejection of my analogy, if you can't indulge in an analogy for the sake of argument then by your own admission you're not discussing this in good faith.
Either go through the thought experiment for the sake of argument or your position is little more that tautology.
If all you care about is the welfare of the child, then provide the child with welfare.
Compelling the man to pay for things that are not his responsibility and he had limited control over is not reasonable. What is more, you are effectively rewarding the woman despite her having more control over the situation than anyone else.
You could for example bill her social security. If what you care about is the child... then deduct the payments from her social security. That balances the accounts out and sees the child cared for.
Simply fucking over the man when he had less control over the situation is literally unjust. Your scales are not balanced.
You're just trying to justify an imbalanced relationship between rights and responsibilities.
You can't.
As to your notion of biology and your conflation of that with force and then conflating both of those again with society's legal response... no.
Biology is what it is... that is true. I grant that.
However what we deem to be moral or not moral is very flexible. I can morally justify dropping an atomic bomb on someone under the right circumstances. And so can you.
The issue is, what responsibilities do women have in this situation? If they have the ability to abort and we could even say the man is obligated to pay for the abortion if you like... though going havsies would be more fair.
If she chooses not to do that, then SHE chose to have that child. That was HER choice that SHE made for HERself.
I am not forcing her to do anything. She can do whatever she wants. And the resulting consequences are her responsibility.
Now, if she really didn't have any choice, then that changes things. With limited rights or options you have less responsibility. The more rights and options you get the more responsible you get.
As to the risk of ejaculating in women... you've created a situation where only men are responsible and where women can decide at any time what is going to happen and bind the man after the fact to the consequences.
That's textbook injustice.
What is more, if the man took steps to avoid pregnancy and she intentionally sabotaged those steps by say poking holes in his condom... the law as written would still make him responsible. Even if she intentionally deceived him.
Now you say "well you shouldn't have sex with people you don't trust" except for the law doesn't work that way in any other circumstance.
Lets say I enter into a business contract with someone and they lie to me, they falsify documents, they misrepresent things, and they do it intentionally to get some advantage or fuck me over in some manner... what is the law going to do if I can prove that? It is going to charge the other party with fraud. And possibly send them to jail.
A woman who does that however gets child support... because vagina.
Look, I'm only asking that the laws be balanced.
You want men to be on the hook for all this stuff? Fine. We can roll everything back to how it was in 1850 or something and men will of course be held accountable.
However, if you want to push this whole equality thing... which I fully support, it has a price.
The price of equality is equality.
Did you get that?
The price of equality is equality.
Which means all you have to do is reverse these situations by gender and then pose the question of whether that makes any sense. Lets say a man extracted an egg from a woman by some means. Then without her knowledge gestated it into a baby. So about 9 months after the fact and not seeing this guy since... he calls her up to say "you're a mommy and you owe me child support!"
Sound reasonable? That is basically what happens in many situations.
Sex in 21st century America is generally understood to just be SEX. It isn't baby making. It isn't a marriage proposal. It is two people rubbing their genitals against each other for an hour followed by some showers to clean the fluids off. That is what it is in the 21st century.
If you want more than that, then ask for it. Say "you seem like a person I'd like to a family with and I sure do like rubbing my genitals against your genitals." If you didn't do that, then I don't see why in the 21st century anyone should be held automatically liable because someone decides unilaterally to have a child.
You do it consensually or you don't have my consent.
The fun bit will be when the more reliable male birth control pills come out. There are already a few that are quite promising. They basically block the sperm from being added to the semen. I don't remember how it works mechanically but from what I understood, it doesn't change male hor
Slashdot Mirror
That's the thing, it isn't a question of morality. The law isn't concerned with morality but rather ethics.
The law goes through a decision tree... it checks boxes. There are some gray areas where judges and juries are asked to make a gut decision on an issue but most of the law runs through these decision trees.
The problem is that quite a few of these decision trees were set up in a previous era where the status quo was a completely different thing. The majority of paternity law predates birth control for example.
Now, if you reexamine paternity law and assume for the sake of argument that birth control doesn't exist... then it actually makes a lot of sense. However, that's irrational because birth control does exist.
Look at the way people engage in sexual contact in the 21st century and compare it to the 19th century. There's no comparison. But the laws come from that previous era despite being applied to an environment that is alien to their assumptions.
Lets say a woman has had sex before you married her. Is she damaged goods in your opinion? No. That was how people saw women in the old days. The virgin bride was the ideal. Today no one cares because it doesn't matter. The realities of our society are completely alien to that paradigm and it is silly to keep pretending that it is reasonable.
As to your statement that laws different from state to state, I don't see the relevance of that point. Obviously laws change from one jurisdiction to another. You go to a different country and you can probably engage in behavior that most of us would regard as rape yet would be entirely legal there. So kindly stop clouding the issue. Statutory rape is still rape. And I don't especially care if the laws are not universal throughout the entire planet. I don't see how that matters.
Can you show me some evidence of a 20+ year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl and being not only not punished but rewarded by the state for it? You can cite any case with those variables... you can include a case where there was consent or not. Go for it.
My guess is that you're going to have a very hard time finding a single fucking one which puts you in the position that the young girls never consent which is completely impossible or admitting that the legal system doesn't give a shit... and being that you are going to be in the position of ultimately admitting that the legal system doesn't give a shit, you're going to have to admit that your interpretation of statutory rape contains a gender based double standard.
And once you've admitted that, we can conclude this tangent and get back to talking about the paternity issue.
Your move. Present a case where a 14 year old girl or less had sex with a 20 year old man or older and the man was not only not punished but was actually rewarded in some fashion by the state. Possibly awarded partial custody of her child against her will... that would be roughly equivalent to asking this man that was 14 at the time to pay for her child.
You're not going to find it because you're wrong. This is silly. You're basically sitting there telling me the world is flat. You can't win this...
I have to post my response on postbin because slashdot is being retarded again and citing me for triggering the "lameness filter". The filter triggers when you type in all caps or use the same character over and over again. I did neither of these things but it won't let me enter the post. So I'm putting it on postbin and then giving you the link to the post.
Nothing I can do about it.
http://pastebin.com/eWNk9Yiq
I tried removing paragraphs and adding them to find out what it was complaining about.
Apparently it is this paragraph:
""What is the difference here? What are you accomplishing with the sperm bank that is not accomplished with the napkin? The napkin is a record of the intent of the individuals at conception. So if you want intent... the napkin has it. What is the sperm bank giving you? Because frankly, your stipulation is sounding arbitrary and pedantic.""
But it only complains when the rest of the post is included with it. Remove the whole rest of the post except this paragraph and the lameness filter is not triggered. Remove just this paragraph and it is not triggered. Include both and it is triggered.
If you know what it is reacting to, I'd appreciate it. I can't figure it out so I just put my posts in pastebin when it seems to trigger for no reason.
I actually was quite clear in my observation that body building was not the healthiest thing. My point was that they understand nutrition better than almost anyone. The empirical science conducted in those communities is extremely good. They are unhealthy because their objective is not health but bulk or strength. They're not trying to be healthy. They're trying to be BIG. And there is no group on earth that knows better how to get big than the body builders. Not your nutrition experts. Not your doctors.
The meat heads at the gym are experimenting on their bodies all the time and sharing their observations with each other on an ongoing basis.
And I've talked to them about these issues because I long ago had the realization that if anyone understood this sort of thing it would be them.
And according the body builders, you shift the balance of PROTEIN versus carbs depending on activity. A certain amount of fat is good for health but if your objective is to build muscle mass or burn weight, they say you want protein. Their belief is that it is just easier for the body to process proteins into proteins rather than to make proteins from fat or sugars. According them, if you give the body fat, the easiest thing for the body to do is turn it into fat. That said, they say that fat, protein, sugar will get turned into fat if you don't do any exercise.
As to the japanese walking more than we do, that in no way contradicts anything I said because I said the CHANGE was a reduction in the amount Americans moved around. So your citation of the japanese moving around more doesn't undermine my position at all. NOT EVEN A LITTLE TINY BIT. If anything you're validating my position.
Frankly, I think you're replaying an argument you had with someone else some time ago and I'm just the hapless fellow that is being subjected to your replay.
I'm not defending the fucking food pyramid. I find the whole concept of an organized food paradigm to be asinine. You're not my mother and I am not a child. You don't get to tell me what I eat.
And as to your complaint about Americans being fat... So what? Oh heart diseases and various other obesity related illnesses? What does that actually mean? We all die of something. Do obese people die a little faster than other sorts? Usually they do. Same thing with smokers etc. But what does it matter? Are they cutting their productive years short? No they're not. Fat people tend to live to be 70 or so which might be statistically five to ten years less than their thin peers. But are you honestly getting this excited over trying to keep a 70 year old alive until 80? This is a not a great social problem if that is the effect of it.
From a purely utilitarian perspective, what is your problem? Pretend I'm the alien overlord running this world... Explain to me why I give a shit?
To the contrary, I said very clearly that the consent of the minor was utterly irrelevant. When you say "it doesn't mean it isn't willing" that is true. It doesn't in fact matter. Statutory rape means consent is irrelevant.
If you have sex with a ten year old, the fact as to whether the ten year old was willing or not is fucking irrelevant. Lets say you're her father... and she loves you. And you ask your 10 year old daughter to spread her legs for you. And she does willingly.
Is that rape?
Of course it is... because the consent of a minor in a statutory rape case is by definition fucking irrelevant.
As to case of forcible rape... okay...
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/09/...
Its a real thing.
The problem with men in these situations is that first men are DRAMATICALLY less likely to report such an incident than are women. Women are told from a young age that this is wrong when it happens to them. Men are socialized in a completely different way. Thus when a man or boy is sexually assaulted by a woman, we shrug it off or try to rationalize it as a positive thing. But if it came against our will or due to some sort of coercion that is considered rape when it happens to a woman.
If you're married to the status quo for men, then we could just apply that to women as well. That's the other way to get equality if you insist? So if a woman gets raped, we can just tell her to stop being such a baby or ask her if she got aroused at any point during the incident. That's what men get asked when they report this sort of thing.
I was reading a conversation between some women and a guy that was talking about this and the woman said "how could you have sex if you didn't want to have sex?"... which is roughly up there with a rapist noticing his female victim has gotten wet at some point and thus concluding that really she wanted it all along.
Literally.
The double standard on the issue is frankly pathetic.
And what point would any of that have on anything? Does advocating for fairness in maternity law make you an MRA? Or does citing anyone that disagrees with you as a member of some rival ideology make you a radical?
Think about it.
As to cars, who is guilty when one car runs into the rear of another?
Almost always the car behind because they have more control over the situation. You can't win comparing the situation to other aspects of law because I am quite right when I say that paternity law is treated differently than any other portion of law.
What we currently have is a situation where a party with MORE control than another is held to a lower standard of responsibility. That is unprecedented in any other context in the legal system of English common law, American law, or really any legal system I'm familiar with... Treating it differently is common throughout the world, however that difference in treatment does not a take birth control into consideration AT ALL. And as a result, it does view the situation as you say... like two people merging into the same lane. The 50/50 split. But the 50/50 split only holds valid if there is no birth control.
You wanted a right to choose. I support that right entirely. But in gaining that right you have control and in having control you have responsibility.
You do not gain power without gaining responsibility for that power.
Period.
As to your claim that this was tried in the 50s, can you give me some citation so I know what you're at least talking about? I have literally no idea to what you are presuming to refer. For one thing, birth control wasn't in widescale use in the 50s and for another I can find no indictation of a relaxation in the paternity laws during that period.
Furthermore, for the sake of argument, if I accepted your premise without any evidence or even clue that it was at all valid... if I just take it as a given... then I have to ask, what evidence is there that anything failed during that period of time? The demographics during that period were if anything superior to today in many respects. So I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Kindly furnish me with something so I can see what you are talking about. I don't need extensive citations to prove you right or wrong so much as some idea of what you're talking about. Your comment is so vague that I can't even really guess what you're talking about.
No, we don't need it twitter for any of that. We already have news sites that are better at handling all of this... event the tabloidy ones are better. I can't tell you how many people I've seen turn their noses up at some site or other because it doesn't have a good reputation and then read twitter as if any random jackass is credible or not just another fucking troll.
The male birth control pill is not long from being a reality. It will sort this issue to a great extent.
Out of curiosity, if a man is on a male birth control pill and the woman literally sticks a needle into his testicles to extract sperm... would you hold him liable for child support if all of that happened without his consent?
My understanding of the male birth control pill under development is that it blocks sperm from being released from the testies. They're still produced, they just don't go anywhere.
what is an MRA?
A car is not a bus is not a train is not a boat is not a plane... but they all move people from one place to the next.
You don't like my terminology? Please give me one word that describes all clarification just as the world "transport" covers my other examples.
Absent that, I'm going to conflate things for the sake of brevity because the conflation doesn't impair my point.
That runs contrary to English common law and the way contract law has worked in the US since always.
If two people make a consenting agreement between each other... write out their intent on the back of a napkin... each sign it and then do something together... that writing on the napkin can be used to establish the intent of the parties.
In this case, the actual person that should have been put on the hook was the other lesbian. SHE should have been been put on the hook. Not the man that donated his sperm on the understanding that there would be no liability and that those two women would raise the child as a couple.
Strip gender identifiers out of this entirely.
A couple can't have children with each other. So that couple seeks a third party to provide them with something that facilitates them having children. That party consents on the understanding that they will not be held accountable for raising the child. This party provides the good or service that permits the birth and then the couple subsequently break up.
Then the state rather than coming to the other member of the couple that consented to take care of the child during conception... instead goes after the third party that only consented on the understanding that they would not be held accountable.
This is indefensible and you won't find such barbaric anachronistic logic used anywhere in American law outside of paternity cases.
So if I have sex with a 14 year old girl and she consented to it, then it isn't rape?
I don't think you understand what statutory rape means. It means the minor, by virtue of their immaturity, cannot consent.
It is a question that takes this long to determine "was party X under age Y?" Yes? Then its statutory rape.
If a man did that to a 14 year old girl, he would go to jail and then have to inform everyone he lived near for years that he was a sex offender.
This woman however is forcing the boy she effectively raped to pay child support.
You're just defining injustice. In no other respect of the legal system will you find people defending fraud as legitimate... and saying to the victim of fraud "well you shouldn't do that with people you don't trust."
You bring up the STDs but that is a sad attempt to conflate a medical condition with the law. At no point is the law judging that someone should or not be infected with STDs. You are however determining that party A must be forced to pay for party B's choices even though party B was shown to be deceptive, manipulative, and effectively guilty of fraud were the subject anything but paternity.
Name any other situation where the law would so cavalierly say "sucks to be you" and then fuck you? None exists.
As to the risk, the risk is that she can decide if she wants to get pregnant and the man has less influence on the matter than she does.
That being a fact, she must bare responsibility for it. Especially since the vast majority of sexual contact in the 21st century society is inherently recreational with no presumed commitment.
Restrict liability to stated agreements and the culture will change for the better. Women will seek a commitment from men more ardently because they know they have to get it for him to be bound to support her. The hookup culture will polarize with those that want nothing but the hookup being quite happy to carry on and those that don't like it will focus instead of longer term relationships.
As to reforms in the parliamentary system, if you want to believe the parliamentary system has no means for the elites to manipulate it then you just keep believing that. There is no way that is true. They always have a way. If you don't know what it is that just means you don't know what it is... and frankly the elites tend to like it that way.
As to things not being illegal not being corruption, bullshit. Wallstreet for example is a master of legal corruption. Are you saying that if I just keep my corruption complicated and fresh enough that it is ethical? Give me a break. Are you saying that if I exploit loopholes in the law that I bribed politicians to put into the law that I am thereafter not breaking the law when I use those loopholes to continue to bribe politicians? The legality is not the issue.
Corruption is an ethical question and not a legal one unless you intend to prosecute. For example lets say we have a dictatorship and there are no laws against bribing public officials and it is if anything part of the culture and an accepted part of the the way things work. Is the bribery corrupt or not? It remains corrupt regardless of its legality. When the corrupt run a government than corruption becomes legal.
How can you note know this?
As to theology, I have cited the law to you. The law is as written. Don't like it, change it. I will hear you out as to why you want to change the law to reflect your own interpretations. However, if you don't change the law then the law is the law and those wishing to enforce the law are to be regarded as in the legal right and those not following the law are to be regarded as in the legal wrong.
As to corruption being morally loaded, no it is ethically loaded. Morality and ethics are different concepts. Being professional for example is ethical. Being professional has nothing to do with morality.
The issue with corruption is that it undermines law itself. Corruption is the process of getting things done through influence, money, and favors... typically secretly. The entire concept when applied to the government undermines the rule of law. And any society run by corruption ceases to be a Republic... Republic literally means "Rule by Law". Instead what you have in a corrupt society is the rule by those with the most influence. Typically this is results in an oligarchy.
That is my reason for opposing corruption. It is lawless, inherently unjust, and just puts us back in the pockets of the elites. That is not a moral objection.
Ah, now I see... you want a socialist/progressive agenda and you believe that won't happen unless you centralize power, dominate the power shutting out all opposition, and impose your will on everyone.
You're right. You do need to completely subvert democracy and the Republican governance (the legal concept, not the political affiliation) to do that. However, the ambitions of your ideology are not really justification for anything.
As to the last time I responded to a low level government official, I've gone to city council meetings and I vote on those people in office the same way I vote on the president or a Federal Senator. So... your comment makes no sense.
As to moderates, I didn't say anything about moderates. You're changing the subject again. :)
No one cares about the fucking FDA food pyramid besides the government.
In your mind, do you think people are sitting at home figuring out their diet and thinking "well, according the food pyramid I need X percentage more of Y?"... No one gives a shit.
If you have a restaurant and they are trying to figure out a good meal to put on the menu, do you think they're consulting the food pyramid while they do it?
Then lets just accept that government's opinion on the matter isn't actually that relevant because people don't consult the FDA tables prior to making dinner.
As to the US having a higher amount of carbs than other societies, the asians eat a lot of Rice and noodles my friend... as do the indians. They're not fat. The Italians eat a lot of noodles and bread and they're not fat.
And as I keep pointing out to you, the Egyptians were pounding liquid bread during the days of the Old Kingdom and they weren't fat.
Or I hate how people use it. It is a good service to share little nuggets of information amongst a lot of people. But it is often used to express political views or talk about current events and you can't make a rational contribution on complex issues with that character limit.
Both twitter and facebook can go to hell.
I am a big believer in emulators. Just have an emulator that can run android or ios apps sort of like wine emulates windows apps for linux.
Every OS should have a suite of emulators that can run any program from any other operating system.
Yes, you take a performance hit when you emulate but if your computer is speedy you don't notice.
I have a virtual OSX, Virtual linux, and a couple virtual flavors of windows on my PC. I can run pretty much anything. At top speed without a performance hit? No... OSX especially is a little bit slower because the optimization isn't great. I love my virtual machines.
I would sooner do that then compel the biological father BY LAW to provide for the child IN THE SITUATION where he was known to have NOT consented to take responsibility for the child.
You want to provide a mother with welfare. Fine. YOU get to pay for YOUR view points. That is only fair is it not? I will pay for what I believe in and you get to pay for what you believe in.
You want the state to keep the single mothers on welfare? I can't stop you from giving away other people's money.
As to your various issues revolving around why its hard to be a single mother... that is why it was not traditionally done. Human females and human males are dimorphic and they rely upon each other to provide given services beyond their rubbing their gentles together.
Men are unable to gestate young. However, men have an excess of labor. Men don't get pregnant which means they don't have to worry about spending months on their back unable to provide for themselves.
Women have had this problem since always. Which is why men and women pair bond with each other. It is a contract of sorts. The male provides protection, food, and whatever other assistance he can... and in return the female offers reproductive access. Often this extends to an exclusive contract such as marriage.
A married woman doesn't have these problems. Now am I saying a woman has to get married? No. Of course not. No one has to do anything. You don't have to breath if you don't want to. I certainly won't force you to.
But raising a child without being married is harder. It just is and even with all the welfare it is still a lot harder to raise a child solo than it is with a social safety net.
Now, what happens dynamically if follow my advice and start cutting the subsidies?
Women are going to feel increased pressure to form a marriage contract as a precursor to reproduction. Now, modern ideology and morality would say that is bad because often these marriages are loveless and simply marriages of convenience. However, if our interest is the CHILD what serves the interests of the child more? Getting a mother and father, with a social safety net... maybe the parents have lots of fights or are cold to each other but he or she has two sexes providing role models as well as a more consistent and stable household.
Or would you prefer the welfare mom option which is currently filling our prisons to the brim with angry, confused, and ultimately damaged people? And sure, some people only go on welfare for a little while but we have a lot of welfare queens in this country that were born on it, raised on it, bore their children on it, and are currently raising their children on it. You talk about putting limits on welfare and they say you're hurting people. So we have no limits. You can just get welfare forever.
I know I know... I'm a heretic. A witch. Burn me. Burn me... or as they say here, Flame me :D
I'm as easily wounded by flames as a noble gas is ignited by - anything. HaHA, chemistry boasts! :P
Seriously though, I'd love to hear a rational rebuttal. I don't expect one because all I get on this issue is fucking pesants crossing their fingers and screaming UNCLEAN!... No offense. Just what I expect these days.
But that won't stop me from expressing my opinion. If the pitchfork and torch crowd wants to add me to the bonfire, that's just part of the game. :)
Yep. I suppose he could take out an insurance policy for the potential liability. No clue if that would be a bargain or not. But maybe someone would be willing to take a bet on it.
I don't question whether he can multitask. I question the relevance of him taking a position on this at all.
First off, the developed world is cutting carbon emissions and really putting in a pretty good faith effort to cut back. Contrary to the extremists, we're doing as well at that as ca be expected.
The issue is the developing world and they are not going to listen to the likes of the Pope.
Does china care what the pope says? Not at all. If anything, he creeps them out and they might even be inclined to go the other way just to demonstrate how indifferent they are to him.
What about India? Same thing... Hindus don't give a shit.
What about South America? They'll give you lipservice. The economic and political pressures they're under are too great to even begin to take that seriously.
What about Africa? The parts of Africa that might listen have been busy killing each other for decades. I think I saw something about the civil war in the Congo costing something like 5 million lives and counting. And really I don't think the emissions from Africa are that great anyway.
Here's my point. If his holiness wants to accomplish something, he should focus on something that actually matters to people of his faith. Something that that he will focus on for more than two seconds.
I've been watching this pope and he flits around from one sappy progressive issue to the next. Which makes progressives happy but most Catholics are not progressives because most progressives are atheists. Is there any chance that his progressive pandering is going to make atheist progressives turn catholic? None.
So what does this accomplish for HIS faith? Nothing. He's wasting his time with one issue that is irrelevant to his faith after another.
The effective Popes, the ones that people remember, they each had a primary thing they wanted to do in office. Maybe that was expanding the faith. Maybe that was cleaning up corruption. Maybe that was correcting a pattern of injustice in the faith. Sometimes there is a great enemy that the church has to crusade against. Something.
This Pope though... he talks about everything and in talking about everything talks about nothing. There's no focus and with no focus there is no purpose... just aimlessness.
As to really versus not really... There was a lesbian couple that approuched a man and asked him to donate sperm so that they could have a child.
The man obliged and I believe had sex with one of the women until she got pregnant. It was an implicit understanding that he was not to be responsible for anything.
Then the lesbian couple broke up and the pregnant woman or woman with a child at that point went on welfare. When she told the welfare office who the biological father was, they sent him a bill for child support.
So yes. Really.
As to the donation laws being fairly current, yes if you go through that explicit process and use registered sperm/egg banks. However, as the lesbian situation reveals above, if you donate your seed but don't go through the official process, they will hit you up for child support.
So, no it isn't really updated. And the biggest issue is that it doesn't acknowledge that women now have a choice. And if they have a choice then they made a choice. Their choice.
Am I saying I want to see single mothers left without support? Nope. But neither do I want to see single men or fathers treated like second class citizens and made ultimately to pay for the decisions of women they might have only met once in what they thought of as a purely recreational activity.
Men assume in the 21st century in the Western world that women are going to get precisely as pregnant as they want to be. And are we wrong? If a woman wants to get pregnant, she can do it really easily. If she doesn't, then she can do that really easily too. She can also do that while having all the sex she wants or not at all.
And at no point does the woman risk being forced to raise a child or pay for a child if she doesn't want to do that.
Men under this system are routinely forced to participate if only financially in the raising of children they gave no consent to birthing. And now, sticking your penis in her vagina is not consent to make a baby and then make me pay for it. In the 1850s, sure... I see the logic there. But in 2015? Give me a fucking break.
Incorrect, I understand completely. I merely disagree with your solution to the problem being that the man must be fucked over because fuck him.
You're going out of your way to not put any consequences on the woman, you're ignoring the man's end of the matter entirely, and all things being equal, you have made the calculation that if a party is going to suffer, it should be the man.
Why? You say for the child? Who says we need a woman to raise a child? Children are raised all the time by their fathers.
If the woman is unable to support her child, then I think it is entirely appropriate for the state to for any family relation that can care for the child. The biological father, grand parents, uncles, aunts, anyone. And if they can't find anyone, then possibly foster care is the best solution.
Leaving the child with a mother that cannot support the child does not seem like a rational idea.
For one thing, the mother demonstrably doesn't know how to take care of herself or she wouldn't need someone to take care of her.
And that being the case, what kind of role model is that mother going to be to a child? How can she teach the child to be an adult if she is herself not mature?
Think about it.
Leaving the child with the mother is pretty much one of the worst possible ideas IF she can't take care of the child without assistance.
Now, I am not including divorces in this because the woman could make choices when the marriage is sound that don't make sense when the marriage breaks up. In that context she could make entirely rational choices at one point that don't make sense later and the man does have an obligation to see that children conceived during their marriage are cared for whether or the marriage is subsequently dissolved.
However, pregnancies that occur PRIOR to or AFTER the such a contract or agreement are the responsibility of the mother.
And a woman that doesn't recognize that is not behaving like a mature 21st century woman.
As to your rejection of my analogy, if you can't indulge in an analogy for the sake of argument then by your own admission you're not discussing this in good faith.
Either go through the thought experiment for the sake of argument or your position is little more that tautology.
If all you care about is the welfare of the child, then provide the child with welfare.
Compelling the man to pay for things that are not his responsibility and he had limited control over is not reasonable. What is more, you are effectively rewarding the woman despite her having more control over the situation than anyone else.
You could for example bill her social security. If what you care about is the child... then deduct the payments from her social security. That balances the accounts out and sees the child cared for.
Simply fucking over the man when he had less control over the situation is literally unjust. Your scales are not balanced.
Balance them.
You're just trying to justify an imbalanced relationship between rights and responsibilities.
You can't.
As to your notion of biology and your conflation of that with force and then conflating both of those again with society's legal response... no.
Biology is what it is... that is true. I grant that.
However what we deem to be moral or not moral is very flexible. I can morally justify dropping an atomic bomb on someone under the right circumstances. And so can you.
The issue is, what responsibilities do women have in this situation? If they have the ability to abort and we could even say the man is obligated to pay for the abortion if you like... though going havsies would be more fair.
If she chooses not to do that, then SHE chose to have that child. That was HER choice that SHE made for HERself.
I am not forcing her to do anything. She can do whatever she wants. And the resulting consequences are her responsibility.
Now, if she really didn't have any choice, then that changes things. With limited rights or options you have less responsibility. The more rights and options you get the more responsible you get.
As to the risk of ejaculating in women... you've created a situation where only men are responsible and where women can decide at any time what is going to happen and bind the man after the fact to the consequences.
That's textbook injustice.
What is more, if the man took steps to avoid pregnancy and she intentionally sabotaged those steps by say poking holes in his condom... the law as written would still make him responsible. Even if she intentionally deceived him.
Now you say "well you shouldn't have sex with people you don't trust" except for the law doesn't work that way in any other circumstance.
Lets say I enter into a business contract with someone and they lie to me, they falsify documents, they misrepresent things, and they do it intentionally to get some advantage or fuck me over in some manner... what is the law going to do if I can prove that? It is going to charge the other party with fraud. And possibly send them to jail.
A woman who does that however gets child support... because vagina.
Look, I'm only asking that the laws be balanced.
You want men to be on the hook for all this stuff? Fine. We can roll everything back to how it was in 1850 or something and men will of course be held accountable.
However, if you want to push this whole equality thing... which I fully support, it has a price.
The price of equality is equality.
Did you get that?
The price of equality is equality.
Which means all you have to do is reverse these situations by gender and then pose the question of whether that makes any sense. Lets say a man extracted an egg from a woman by some means. Then without her knowledge gestated it into a baby. So about 9 months after the fact and not seeing this guy since... he calls her up to say "you're a mommy and you owe me child support!"
Sound reasonable? That is basically what happens in many situations.
Sex in 21st century America is generally understood to just be SEX. It isn't baby making. It isn't a marriage proposal. It is two people rubbing their genitals against each other for an hour followed by some showers to clean the fluids off. That is what it is in the 21st century.
If you want more than that, then ask for it. Say "you seem like a person I'd like to a family with and I sure do like rubbing my genitals against your genitals." If you didn't do that, then I don't see why in the 21st century anyone should be held automatically liable because someone decides unilaterally to have a child.
You do it consensually or you don't have my consent.
The fun bit will be when the more reliable male birth control pills come out. There are already a few that are quite promising. They basically block the sperm from being added to the semen. I don't remember how it works mechanically but from what I understood, it doesn't change male hor