Remember the men going to court to "take back their rights"? Yeah, well, the suit got thrown out, thankfully.
But MaxedOutMama perfectly summarizes the situation and the social horizon:
I'm amazed at how many people believe that that two adults should be able to have sex without the worry of having to deal with any potential pregnancy. I'd like to get to work without having to drive. I think the state should rent a helicopter and airlift me over. It's only fair.Emphasis in the last two paragraphs, mine. Yup. The ultimate outcome for "fairness" (not to the child) will be to make the state responsible for everyone's kids.
Here's a brilliant idea:132. My suggestion to make the system more fairThat last provision is added because there would be even less incentive for "potential fathers" to decide to "accept" the rights and responsibilities of fatherhood if they were going to be paying for everyone else's children as well as their own. There would be very, very few men who would take that deal, and many of them would often be institutionalized, so I doubt they would be contributing much financially overall.
When a woman finds out she is pregnant, she must make a reasonable attempt to notify the potential father (father's) within a specific amount of time.
The potential father must then file a form with the local courthouse either accepting responsibilities and rights of fatherhood or declining them.
The potential mother is then given a copy of the potential father's form and then makes her decision as to whether the baby is birthed or not, knowing whether she will have a father participating in parenthood with her or not.
The reasons I like this plan are ...
The woman has absolute decision making authority on whether she births the baby or not.
The woman is not forced into parenthood without her permission.
The man is not forced into parenthood without his permission either.
But what about the baby?
All participating parents should put a fixed percentage of their income into a state child support pool and each eligible child should recieve the exact same check each month from the pool. To me it's ridiculous that one child gets 200 times more support than another child just because one woman bedded a rich guy and the other a poor guy. Each child is equally valuable.
What if there's not enough in the pool?
Then general state funds should make up the difference because a hungry child is the responsibility of all of us, whether our condoms broke or not.
What a brilliant plan to make every child everyone's responsibility. We'll never change. The problem really is that some one has to be responsible, and so those who want irresponsibility plan to make everyone responsible. I really don't see how that's an improvement. Obviously marriage wouldn't last long under this scheme. Given voting coalitions, the funding for the "fatherless" kids would keep outstripping the funding that the average married man could provide to his own children, especially given the high taxation rates he'd be paying for the children of irresponsible losers such as this poster.
Marxism has reached its summit. The first post (which I do believe) is a female sort of marxist paradise, and the second is a male sort of marxist wonderland. However they show ominous signs of meeting at the pass and joining forces, so I think all the sane people had better be alert and ready.
Both plans are, of course, injurious to the child. But hey, this entire debate has never, ever, been about the children, has it? Not in the least. It's always about avoiding responsibility rather than taking it. Whether you pick a father at random out of the phone book, or whether you decide to hand out cigars to the entire population, the people advocating these schemes are always, always, always trying to avoid basic human responsibility - their own.
You can choose to not have sex. Men, women, it is called abstinance. You don't have to pay child support for abstaining. No sirreee bob. There are no "mistakes" that way.
That babies are stuck with such miserable, selfish, scumbag parents is the real crime. Men whining about money, when they didn't think past the end of their penis. Women whining about responsibility, when they thought creating a baby would "get the guy" or didn't have enough self-respect to demand a condom or, they bought the hype that condoms actually make sex safe.
It's called marriage. The chief beneficiary of this archaic and supposedly out-dated social institution is the child. Two is better than one--stronger. If one is wacky, the other one takes over. If one is sick, the other one works to support the family. That the parents enjoy security, companionship, and support is also a benefit. Remember: To love and to honor. To have and to hold, for richer or for poorer, in sickness and in health, so help you GOD. Remember those vows?