VA: How to Save the World from Idiocracy
May 21st, 2008
(20 votes, average: 3.2 out of 5)
Loading ...By: BC Woods
We live in an era where the decision to have a child is considered by many to be of less importance than the decision to get married. Given […]
Original post: How to Save the World from Idiocracy
I’d support that law.
That law totally wouldn’t work. It assumes that women would think about the consequences of their actions upon having sex with men for every single “dalliance”. As if she would say “He may disown this child, so I won’t have sex with him”. Its the same as assuming a murdered would think “I may get the death penalty, so I won’t kill this person”. And we all know how effective a deterrent the death penalty is.
The reason men are held responsible for their children via child support is because the state reasons that men have sex with the full knowledge that a child may result. No matter how much birth control, there is still a chance a child may result. Period. Because he chooses to have sex, he chooses to be responsible for that possible child. Thats the state’s reasoning. Furthermore, while child support is totally abused by unwed mother’s/divorcees all over the country, the courts and the state will always see that money as the child’s money. No way are they allowing fathers to disown the child and therefore, rob the child of their money. Its an interesting theory, but I really doubt it would ever work (if it were even considered by our governments, which it never would be).
way to phone it in V.
I read an “interesting” blog post this morning http://universalplum.blogspot.com/2008/05/this-was-supposed-to-be-mdc-post.html that I’m sure BC would like to take a look at because it sort of drills home the need for someone to PUT THE CHILD FIRST. I am so sick of reading about these whiny, self-involved nutjobs having kids that they claim they love so much during the 20 seconds a day that they are not swimming in self pity and victimhood. Priorities should change when you have kids and some people never get that clue. It’s sickening and so sad for the children.
Idiocracy was a pretty good movie. Could have been a lot better, but it was decent.
1. There is no such word as “irregardless”.
2. Just because you write “This cannot be disputed.” does not make it so. Could you back that up with evidence?
3. I agree with some of what you have to say. However, your writing it pretty bad. Many logical fallacies. You might want to read the following article to try to avoid such things in the future. Given what I have read in the response area, I don’t think your readers will notice.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html
Have a nice day.
There is a discussion thread on the Freak Safari forum also, if you’d like to talk to BC directly.
http://freaksafari.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3725
anon14: before you start correcting other people, perhaps you should learn the correct usage of your and you’re.
Above you wrote: 3. I agree with some of what you have to say. However, your writing it pretty bad. Many logical fallacies.
The YOUR after however should be YOU’RE.
Time to jump down off that high horse.
Kim-
Unless Anon14 was going for, “However your writing iS pretty bad.” Besides, it makes much more sense grammatically that way. If you are going to switch “your” to “you’re”, you will need to switch “bad” to “badly” also. You should think about things before you comment. So far, you haven’t proven that anyone needs to get off the high horse but you.
Also, people who use non-words like “irregardless” can shampoo my crotch.
I have a major criticism with this line of reasoning (that hasn’t been brought up yet). What about in the instance of rape? Many women are severely traumatized by rape and either do not or cannot seek immediate counseling or obtain the morning after pill when it happens. Would we allow men who do this the chance to rape a woman, and then disown the child scot free? Sure, they could make an allowance for this circumstance, but proving rape can be difficult and traumatic for the woman, and this possibility could allow some of society’s worst individuals to not only commit a crime but escape consequence. Imagine a situation where a 30 year old man rapes an 18 year old girl, who is pro-life (I myself am pro-choice, but I think it’s a personal decision). He can ruin her life by simply disowning the child and refusing to pay support.
Kim-
Unless Anon14 was going for, “However your writing iS pretty bad.” Besides, it makes much more sense grammatically that way. If you are going to switch “your” to “you’re”, you will need to switch “bad” to “badly” also. You should think about things before you comment. So far, you haven’t proven that anyone needs to get off the high horse but you.
Except he/she DIDN’T write IS, he/she wrote IT, which makes my criticism valid so STFU.
on 21 May 2008 at 10:37 pm10illadia
Also, people who use non-words like “irregardless” can shampoo my crotch.
Obviously you won’t be falling from a high horse any time soon.
@11
Pay support with what, their prison wages?
Sue’s whining assumes women are mindless idiots incapable of making the most basic moral decisions, but men are highly superior creatures who are capable of being held responsible for their actions. Gosh, what would she have called me if I had said that?
But, the entire 45 year history of feminism is based on feminist belief that women are mindless idiots incapable of being held responsible for their actions but men are highly superior creatures who are capable of being held responsible for their actions.
As an FRA in the 80’s, we proposed exactly this sort of law. It’s called ‘paper abortions.’ It’s also called ‘equality.’ No one would be forced to harm a hair on a baby’s head, but the man could completely reject any financial responsibility by signing a paper, and would need no more permission than women need to kill the tyke. In spite of your negative view, all it does is give men the same exact rights women have had since 1973.
Women of quality don’t fear equality. But, Sue and millions of women do fear equality.
I am reminded here of my high school English teacher. She knew a lot of grammar and stuff. But, she did not understand that languages are living things that constantly change. She wanted English frozen forever. That’s now how it works.
Ain’t is, too, a word, and everyone understands it.
Irregardless is, too, a word, and almost everyone understands it.
When a little kids says, “Can I go to the bathroom?” and a teacher sarcastically says, “I don’t know, can you?” and lets the kid wet herself, that teacher needs her rear end kicked over her head. (In my generation, this sort of thing actually happened.) She knew exactly what that kid meant.
Several years ago, in McAllen, a local talk show host had an expert on grammar on the show one morning. She explained why we are told not to use a preposition to end a sentence or clause WITH.
It seems this was not possible in Latin, and in a time when supposedly educated people still believed it was best to communicate in Latin certain smart-alecks decreed since it was not possible to do it in Latin, it was going to be unacceptable in English as well.
Since then, I make a major effort to use prepositions to end all clauses and sentences WITH.
Winston Churchill allegedly once said, “This is the sort of nonsense up with which I will not put.” He was my kind of guy.
A few years ago, I referred to my beloved niece in Mexico City my Corazoncita, little heart, which roughly translates to sweetheart. I got a response from a reader who informed me corazon is masculine, therefore I should have called her corazoncito.
More idiocracy. Actual usage is indeed corazoncita, no matter what the grammar experts claim.
It’s not that I object to good writing. But, when two people on a blog board insult each other over writing they understand perfectly, there are worse problems than grammar errors.
‘With rights come responsibility’ is something many people lack understanding (or acceptance) of. I absolutely agree that a woman should never have the opportunity to entrap a man by making the choice to have a child to him without his consent EVER. Nor should she expect to be given government financial support, since it is her (or her and her partner’s) personal right to choose, and, therefore, her/their personal responsibility. In the instance of rape, lives have inevitably been ruined by the act itself, but if the victim chooses not to terminate a resultant pregnancy, it becomes her choice, and, therefore, her responsibility.
Taking away a safety net will not force people to become good parents, but it will most certainly cut down the number of people relying on that safety net as validation for their actions. There are any number ways of removing the incentive or the opportunity for people to mindlessly procreate, but nothing compares to education.
People in the western world are, generally speaking, well aware of their rights (including the right to choose). Somewhere along the way, though, the responsibilities for the consequences of actioning those rights have been forgotten.
I can’t help but to think that this won’t help at all. Stupid women will still get pregnant, but without the support they won’t be able to feed themselves. Welfare cases won’t stop popping out babies anytime soon. So if a women has a kid and can’t get child support or welfare, what then? Do people just shrug and walk by with their eyes averted? Nobody’s ever going to agree to a law where millions of babies end up on the street.
In five hundred years the average IQ will be less than seventy
That’s logically impossible, without changing the meaning of IQ.
@19
I think they mean by today’s definition. Sure 100 will be a lot more retarded in the future, but it’ll be equivalent to 70 today.
Also, I forgot to mention before, but this guy was a lot easier to read than the other guest blogger.
Anonymous age 66 needs to read more closely. I’ve said nothing coming close to what they are arguing. I don’t think women are mindless idiots (duh, I am one you douche). I also don’t believe men are superior in any way. I’m simply arguing that in the moment of sexual intercourse, I don’t believe that a woman will be thinking “Gee, he might disown any possible child that could result, so I won’t have sex with him after all”. I don’t think it would happen in the same way that a murderer won’t think “Gee, I could get the death penalty if I kill this person”. Deterrents of that kind usually just don’t work.
As for the whole nonsense that I don’t want equality, give me a break. I simply stated why I didn’t believe a law like that would pass (which it obviously didn’t, if it was proposed in the 80’s). I think Jenny @18 says it best.
PS - maybe it can be argued that men of quality take responsibility for their own actions, and don’t just sign away their children.
So Sue: How do you feel about women who have abortions or give their newborn baby up for adoption? Are those women not of quality?
How come women can opt out of motherhood, but a man can’t opt out of fatherhood?
Because its biology. I didn’t make people the way that they are, its just the way that it is in nature. A man can opt out of fatherhood by not having sex. Thats how the State sees it. I’m not saying its always fair, but life isn’t about always being fair. Also, if a woman wants to give a child up for adoption but the man doesn’t then it doesn’t happen. He can take care of the child and get child support from her. The system is fully aware that it isn’t fair. Sitting in Family Law class I would often get irritated about how fathers/men get the shaft in most occasions. Bottom line, though, is that once there’s a child involved the State’s main concern is taking care of that child. (insert argument about poor child welfare system here). A law allowing men to disown their chidren solely to get out of a financial obligation would never pass. Thats all I was trying to say in the first place.
Also, I’m not the one who started with that “quality” nonsense. I was just being glib. I don’t, by any means. call any person a “man/woman of quality”.
I don’t understand how ‘abortion or adoption’ is ‘biology.’
My theory is if a man can’t opt out of parenthood, then neither should a woman be able to opt out of parenthood.
If men who don’t want children should have to abstain from sex, then women who don’t want children should have to abstain from sex.
Calling women martyrs because they don’t feel like taking care of children so they kill it or dump it at the hospital while simultaneously calling men dead beats for simply not wanting to hand over their paycheck for a child is incredibly hypocritical. And if something is unfair to THAT degree, I don’t think the appropriate response is ‘Oh well.’ I think the we instead need to see how we can do our very bests to even it out a little. After all, we didn’t say ‘Oh well, life isn’t fair!’ to the women who demanded the right to abort their children, did we?
I’m saying that human biology gives women more abilities to choose with regard to reproduction than it gives to men. Human biology automatically separates men from women in that area of life. There is no way that men and women are ever going to be 100% equal, because we aren’t the same. We can fight for equal pay, equal voting right and things of that nature. The right to an abortion was the fight for a woman to have control over her own body. It would be innapropriate (sp?) for a man to ask a woman to have an invasive procedure done because he regrets getting her pregnant. However, once a child is born it is his child, a product of his actions as well as hers, and while it may not seem so, the payment of child support is a right of THE CHILD, not the mother. To allow him to opt out of it would be a disservice to the child. The State is pretty much saying “Have sex, but accept the consequences of that act.” Not a perfect system. Maybe someone should come up with a birth control pill for men. Or maybe they should just start dating cougars who have already gone through menopause, and can’t have children anymore.
PS - I never called anyone a martyr. I think women who use abortion as a form of birth control are abhorrent. Nor did I call anyone a deadbeat. I think the Family Law system has a lot of flaws that need to be worked out. Allowing men to opt out of their responsibilities isn’t likely to help.
Was V’s post about grammar. No, I don’t think so.
Go check out this site if you want to see what happens to kids when their parents are self-absorbed idiots:
http://letaspeaks.blogspot.com
I found the link at http://commentsareopen.blogspot.com
Both site are pretty funny.
And about the subject at hand, men should not have sex if they aren’t prepared to be a parent. That means spending as much time with the child as the mother and being able to provide for half of that child’s financial support.
It’s posts like this that make me think that V is a man who’s a wanna be deadbeat.
No one forces a man to have multiple children with a woman.
If V is a woman who is married to a man who’s got kids to support with another woman, she should just get over it. She knew before she married him.
Anyone who would even think twice about whether men should be forced to support their kids is trash through and through. No amount of therapy will help.
“Anyone who would even think twice about whether men should be forced to support their kids is trash through and through. No amount of therapy will help.”
Amen!
Crimony, you guys really have crappy reading comprehension skills, don’t you? V didn’t even write this post!
But she obviously endorses it, or else she wouldn’t have re-posted it on her page. Besides, she’s previously spoken out on her site about such topics before, in the same vain.
Oh please. I’ve seen her post or link to plenty of things she claims she doesn’t endorse. For all you know, her motivation behind posting that was to get a good discussion going.
Either way, I’m not going to assume someone else’s opinion for them. Only assholes do that.
Don’t worry. There’s plenty of other ways for you to be an asshole.
That is, truly, one of the best ideas I’ve heard in a long while. Actually, the fact that this permits such a vile and despicable manipulation of men is horrifying, and I didn’t realize it until today.
I do, however, think that “mandatory abortions” are wrong and impractical on many levels. Rather, I’d suggest that if you have another kid while on welfare, no additional benefits (at least, economically wise) should be given to that mother.
Actually, I think one thing that would help enormously with this problem and is pathetically simpler is to stop funding “abstinence only” sex ed programs and teach kids something that actually works, like the full consequences and obligations of parenthood, birth control, etc.
@28 and 30: You’re pretty damned obvious.
Okay, I totally admit that I didn’t even read the post. I just wanted to link to the funny sites I found.
But, I did go back and read the post by whoeverthefuck Woods. Same thing that V. is always going on about - men shouldn’t have to be responsible for their kids and women shouldn’t have kids, blah, blah.
Life is what it is. If there is sex, there will be babies. Both parents should take care of them.
I’ll say it again, though redundant, V. is either a man who doesn’t want to pay child support or V. is who she says she is and her husband has several kids with ex-wife who she obviously doesn’t want her husband to pay child support for.
Since so many of her posts, even this one written by someone else, seem to say the same thing about the responsibility of parents for their kids, she just seems angry, very very angry that someone in her household has to pay child support.
I’ve got a trampoline and an above ground pool. If that makes me white trash, so be it, but anyone who can’t get over their responsibilities that they have to their living breathing deserving-of-love-and-care children just should have their balls chopped off. Pay the god-damned child support and move on to another topic.
Blog about how baby seals should be beaten with a baseball bat or something. This “controversy” about who is responsible for a child, conceived by TWO people, is just showing V. idiocy, as well as her guest bloggers.
My apologies. Next time I’ll actually read the post before commenting but this truly is a “phone-in” subject, as someone else has already said here.
I agree #32: Santiago, with your last paragraph; “Abstinence only” sex-ed is obviously the least effective kind. Teaching kids what parenthood is like, and teaching kids what can happen after they have sex might not stop them from having it, but hopefully would make them more prepared for the consequences.
Also, I believe that whoever decides they want to have the child should take care of it, whether that’s one parent or both. ABORTION NOW.
There actually is a law like that in Oregon. Basically, if the guy isn’t involved in the woman’s life at all (one-night-stand etc) and doesn’t want the kid or he’s washed his hands of the whole situation — he has no rights to the child. Of course, he doesn’t pay child support either, but the woman can freely put the child up for adoption or make other parental decisions without some random guy interfering.
The law’s a bit more complicated than that, but the law has been a raving success and overall has simplified adoption and family law. In every other state, the “father” or any “alleged father” can contest a child being put up for adoption, after stating in court that he won’t raise them or help in any way.
I wish they could do that in every state, there would be fewer women trying to ‘trap’ men in soul-crushing relationships (or certainly fewer accusations of such). Men would be forced to decide if they *really* want to be a dad or give up a child forever.
I know a lot of guys who would parent in a heart beat if they had a kid, but the kid’s mother wanted to put them up for adoption. Then again, I also know a lot of men and women who are a disgrace to parenting and want all the rights of a prent without the effort involved in raising the children (my mother included in this).
Just my $0.02.
Fake material. As usual. OMG, so like, I know this retarded girl and she has like, three kids, and every1 applauded and I was so, like, mortified, and guys shouldn’t pay for kids they father lolzomgbbq!!1! And the idea of a law like that is so idiotic that it doesn’t deserve a response– just me posting something to make fun of you.
And by the way, brainiac, there is no such word a “irregardless.” It’s just “regardless.”
One more thing– someone emailed me this link today and I scoffed at them. Violent Acres is for people who need other people to spoon feed them things to feel outraged about because they lack the actual thought process to form their own opionions about what to be outraged about.
This site is the prime example of why blogging is a ridiculous waste of time and bandwidth. You know that old saying about a million monkeys banging on a million typewriters and eventually churing out a passable piece of literature? My money is on the monkeys, not this site.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=irregardless
Mark is your typical unix user who somehow ventured outside of Slashdot. He’s very, very scared so don’t agitate him and eventually he’ll find the urine trail back to the pre-1995 internet.
Save the world from Idiocracy? ummmm… TOO LATE. We’re already there.
Good idea. This possibility to disown the unborn child, accompanied with good sex education, availability of contraceptions and cheap/free abortions would reduce the number of unwanted children. Unlike the death penalty which has failed to prevent homicides.
In 1973 Jane Roe won the case Roe vs. Wade and made the way for legalizing abortion in USA. In mid-90’s there was a huge drop in crime rate. For example, New York, which had a murder rate about 2300 had dropped to almost 1/5 in 2003.
Gun politics hasn’t really changed. Show me an American President who dares to take the guns away from Americans and I show you a president who is begging to be assasinated.
But this possibility of abortion has made it possible to have less unwanted children. May sound horrible, but in more poor areas where overpopulation drives the families even deeper into poverty this is a blessing. And now, 35 years after Roe vs. Wade we start to see that there is not that much violence, much because of less stress on the poor.
I know some may say a birth is always a miracle, but what kind of miracle it is when a single mother of 8, who works 1.5 hour bus ride away cleaning some rich guy’s house during the days and yet another job as a clerk in a gasoline station, helps out on the fish market on sundays, and her 9th child pops out? It means that her daughter has to drop out from school and take care of that baby while waiting for her own. They were poor already, and can barely pay their bills, but now they have even less money to spend, the daughter won’t get education, and they still can barely pay the rent.
In essence, what will improve everyone’s quality of life is:
- Sex education
- Contraceptives
- Abortion
- Possibility for the father to disown an unborn baby
“Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.” - Check. Done that. Let’s move on.
I got knocked up at 15 and now have a beautiful 12-year-old daughter who I have raised on my own WITHOUT A DIME OF CHILD SUPPORT FROM THE FATHER, EVER.
From my own experience, and from meeting other young girls who were pregnant at the time I was, I would agree that taking away the guarantee of child support would reduce the number of unwanted children.
The other young moms-to-be that I met were already smugly fantazising about how cute their babies would be, and about how thier own personal prince charming, the baby’s father, would forever provide a picturesque life of love and luxury for them both. To suggest they consider going to college after high school or *gasp* getting a job themselves would earn looks of confusion and/or disgust.
If we allow women the choice to have a baby or to abort it, then we should allow a similar choice to the father. Men should have the choice to abort as well - though financially instead of physically.
Kittens are so much easier than children. You can have a batch of kittens irresponsibly (please say that’s a word, people) and in a mere 6 weeks, there’s a ton of people bending over backwards to grab them out of a cardboard box. Plus, having 8 nipples helps. Where is the father cat? No one knows. Probably out drinking beer with the other male cats. Not paying a dime of child support, for certain.
Bob Barker, I really hope you’re not reading this.
Perhaps it’s time to point out that the author of this article, BC, is a virgin, as is well documented on his site. That doesn’t disqualify him from having an opinion, and I’d discard his sexual status if the opinion were reasoned. However, what we have here is someone with no experience in reproduction or even sexual management on the one hand, posting on the site of a woman who clearly resents her husband’s obligations to his children on the other. I can’t think of two better people to be dictating policy on this issue. Very levelheaded and lacking in personal bias, for sure.
AMEN V!!!
“Allow men the right to legally disown their unborn children. In cases where the father is never told of the child, he should have no legal obligation to assist in the child’s upbringing except by free choice.”
I would add the cases when she tells her sexual partner she is on birth control and she “FORGETS” to take it.
Bringing a child to this world SHOULD BE a mutual consent. Sex without consent is defined as raping. Pregnancy without consent should be defined as gold digging and PENALIZED just as hard as raping.
And by the way, I’m a woman! One who wears an IUD to avoid unwanted pregnancies because although I’m happily married I’ve always thought that the world is full of idiots, I don’t need to add one or two more!!! And when I tell this to American women most don’t even know what an IUD is… of course, pregnancy is their path to economic stability without hard work so why would they know about IUD’s?
The writer of this article and V are both incredibly misogynistic people. They are both basing their opinions on their assumptions that women are too stupid to make reproductive choices on their own. They think that the only reason women want to continue an unplanned pregnancy is because they are all secretly money grubbing whores, who want to trap a man into supporting them.
If we turn the tables, and men were promised that they wouldn’t be financially obligated to help take care of a child they helped create, we could assume that they would become careless about their sex life. Without the consequence of taking responsibility for their children, they would stop concerning themselves with contraceptions and have more sexual partners. All of the responsibility for preventing pregnancy would fall on the woman, and men would care less if they had put a woman in the position where she had to make the decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.
The concept of removing child support and government assistance from women with children is misogynistic because it suggests that women should be punished for having sex, while simultaneously suggesting that men should be able to enjoy sex without having to consider the outcome.
Alli is right. V is a stepmother who is pissed off that her husband had kids from a previous relationship and is having to pay child support.
Sarah, it’s because women are money grubbing whores, duh.
This is stupid. Everyone should have been aborted.
#48: This must be one of the dumbest things I’ve heard this year. What kind of men do you date? Of course some men would care less about contraceptives, as do some women at the moment because of the current responsibility laws. It is impossible to get 100% uncomplicated. But we’re not talking about uneducated countries here, are we? Everyone in western countries know why contraceptives are there.
Although it takes two to tango, still if one night in the toilet you would flush the pill, I would have no possibility to see that immediately. In couple of months when unexpectedy your belly starts to grow, but it is too late then.
Are you able to see if a man is wearing a condom? It’s not like one can “forget” it. If you have no condom, and a man has no condom and you say no, will there be sex? If there is going to be any unwilling penetration that is called something else than sex. I hope you are able to decide when, where, how and with whom you want to have sex. Doggy style and slipping the condom out without you noticing is not honest and that kind of guy would do it regardless of the law.
How the heck would it be possible for me to not care about contraception and you would get pregnant against your knowledge?
I’m married. I was not saying that all men are that stupid. If you’ll read what I said, rather than getting all emotional about it, I said that if we were to turn the tables we could make all sorts of stupid assumptions about men and their intentions.
The suggestions I made about how men would react to not being held financially responsible for the children they create are just as sexist and ridiculous as the assumption that women are incapable of making their own reproductive choices without taking away the ‘incentive’ for them to keep their children. There aren’t a whole lot of women in this world who decide to carry a child to term and raise it for 18+ years for the sole purpose of getting a measly little child support check every month.
While BCW’s proposal, if implemented, can IMO escalate into a total mess, he has a point. While we women have reliable ways of preventing unwanted pregnancies, men do not, short of vasectomy. If a male birth control device were developed, similar to the IUD or pill, that would go a long way towards solving the problem.
That said, I do utilize IUDs and I’ve heard that they have a bum rap in the prolife community as “abortifacient devices”… rock on idiocracy.
@#32 and 35, my oldest son had to take an abstinence-based sex-ed course and I did read the handouts as well as their web site. Abstinence based sex-ed is not useless, it is straight out dangerous and whoever came up with the idea should not be allowed to procreate. The main concept of what I read was, “condoms are not reliable. therefore, kids, do not use condoms”. Distributed to 7th and 8th graders. WTF? You know they sure as heck are not going to abstain, but now they’re not sure about using condoms, since the handout says they are useless anyway, why bother? This drives me so mad. My youngest will be taking this course next year, I told him to ask as many questions in class as he can think of, and tell his friends to do the same - expose these fucktards for the illogical beings they are.
Hey, how bout ‘Dont stick your dick in a woman that you wouldnt be willing to impregnate’, or ‘Dont cum in, on or around a woman’s vagina that you wouldnt be willing to raise a child with’ or how about ‘If youre not going to wear a condom and are unsure of the birthcontrol method being used, just stick to oral or anal sodomy’. In pretty much every case of impregnation, the woman has the right to make the choice as to what happens next. This is mostly because its their body that the foreign growth resides in. Many of the people that think that childbirth will result in a magical transformation of their lives are young, or deluded.
I personally vote for methods 2 and 3, but I do have to admit that I havent had any form of intercourse that didnt fulfill method 1 as well, at least in the last 10 years or so.
God I am getting old….
“If you can’t find a partner you can be sure will stick around and raise your baby with you, you will not be able to have a child.”
My immediate response was that to choose the verb “to be able to” is quite inaccurate here. This assumes a degree of responsibility and that the woman would think “I shouldn’t have this baby because I won’t get child support.” I do not think that it is fair (obviously with exceptions) to credit the women in question with this degree of responsibility.
I have to admit, I didn’t really read the posts before mine. As I was writing this, I skimmed them and they seem to be in support of this idea. It’s an interesting proposal, but while it may lower this type of pregnancy, it will also lower child support to women who find themselves in this situation. And yes, it’s bad to have kids that you can’t support, but once the kid is there, it would be nice for him or her to have a place to live and food.
A lot of folks seem to assume that trapping a man with a baby just isn’t done anymore. Or they assume that it wouldn’t work anyway. It worked just fine for my mother. She hasn’t worked a day in 24 years now, and she put no real effort into raising us. I’m not assuming anything about her, she flat out told me she had me to trap my dad.
My first issue with this is that women can’t exactly free themselves of the legal responsibilty for an unborn child in the same carefree manner in which men would be able. Both parties should be responsible for ensuring that they are using contraception, but accidents do happen. Saying “Oh, hey, yeah, that whole baby thing–I’m not really into that,” is not exactly on par with getting an abortion or putting a child up for adoption. It does not have the same emotional, societal, or physical consequences. I am not stating that there would be no consequences for the man in that circumstance, but I feel the burden would be placed on the woman.
True, some people would be more careful knowing that they go forward without a safety net, but I am going to make a stab in the dark and say that most people who would be concerned enough about losing a safety net are the very people who are concerned enough to use contraception.
The original post implies that women who have “casual dalliances” should be taken to task for enjoying sex as much as men do. It strikes me that under the proposed ability to legally disown an unborn child, men would have no incentive to be more discerning when choosing their sex partners and would just continue to have all the “casual dalliances” they like, because they can simply decide retroactively that they don’t want a child. The onus is then placed on women to vet every single person with which they choose to have sex.
I’m not going to knock on men or women who have casual sex, because it is their choice to live how they choose, and it is also the responsibility of both parties to make sure they use protection, and it is also the responsibility of both parties to be prepared to face the possibility of having a child with the other person involved. The concept of “trapping” is reprehensible, but it seems that many people here have forgotten that men have also “trapped” women by poking holes in condoms, for reasons as absurd as “saving” or “extending” their relationship. I even once saw a video in which a man poked holes in his roomate’s condoms so the girlfriend would get pregnant just because he hated his roomate–absolutely despicable. I can completely sympathize with men who feel they have been trapped, however the pure vitriol leveled at women here is disturbing to me; it is as if people feel this trait of using children as pawns and child support as leverage is endemic in the female population.
I think you are maybe missing the point. If a woman becomes pregnant, she has a myriad of options. Depending on your background, personal or moral beliefs, financial state etc, some are of more or less interest. The male, while having ‘equal’ responsibility, has no options, he is held hostage solely by the options of the female. So the question becomes one of fairness, perhaps, if the male has no options, why should he be forced into responsibility.
I dont think that anyone argues that there is an inherent difference between the experiences of a male and a female during pregnancy, abortion or other choice. If the female wants the child and the male doesnt, the male is on the hook to the female, if the male wants the child and the female doesnt, tough luck. With ‘emergency’ contraception being so commonly available, it seems little different to any other medication, although often times there isnt an initial indication that there was a problem.
I somewhat agree with the idea that males should be able to absolve themselves from responsibility, say, in the first trimester, pending positive identification of the male as the father of the child. And no, I dont mean what the woman says or swears, I mean through independant forensic analysis. Women lie. So do men, thats a given, but in something like determining responsibility for a life, well…
But my real point is, women make some really piss poor choices about fuckbuddies on most days. If you are going to have casual serial sex, get used to the idea of dealing with the fertilization of an egg. If you have beliefs that dont make this an option, you shouldnt be fucking anyhow, at least not casually. Select a better quality of man, train them properly and go on with your life. Since women seem to think sleeping with punks with popped collars and spray-on tans is cool, they get what they deserve. A real man supports his family, a real man gets a job and/or an education and as it turns out, real men often dont do the casual hook-up thing.
Noone is taking women to task for enjoying sex. I personally loathe sex unless the female in question is enjoying multiple orgasms, repeatedly. Sure, for many, it requires a fair bit of work, but if you arent willing to put the work into it, why bother? But if you do enjoy sex, you have to be aware of what that implies and be prepared to deal with it. If he buys the dinner and wine, you get to pick up the tab for the morning after pill, etc. Nothing wrong with enjoying sex and I dont think anyone is taking women to task for enjoying it, but women do have a responsibility to themselves if no one else, to be heads up about it.
Maybe there could be a ‘casual sex’ endorsement on women’s driver’s license, meaning that if you impregnate this woman, you have no legal responsibility for the offspring. That way, a guy could check the womans ID, know that his ass was covered and not worry. The female could opt or not opt and by not electing the casual sex stamp, could make it clear to the male that sexual activity has childbirth as a potential consequence. This would give some males pause about entering into a casual dalliance and perhaps make them think twice. If the young lady decided to carry the child to term and raise the offspring, the male would have noone to blame but himself and suffer accordingly (or, marry the woman, become a father in a real sense and live his life, etc).
I do molecular genetics and am very comfortable with the process of genetic identification. Any father of a child can be found and proven, almost without exception. But what protection do males have, and, do they even merit protection?
Last but not least, also remember that both oral and anal sodomy exist as forms of sex that dont tend to produce progeny. This encompasses both homo- and heterosexual relationships, another way to get your ya-yas (and orgasms) without risking issue.