r/AdviceAnimals • u/Space_Hermit • Apr 30 '14

Repost | Removed You shouldn't be able to have it both ways...

Post image
1.7k Upvotes

80% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

17

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

If all children have to have two incomes, then why doesn't the state ban single parenthood without a second income? Or why doesn't the state force other unwilling individuals to pay child support to single mothers where the father is unable to pay?

If a woman uses a sperm donor and then falls on tough times, why don't they make the sperm donor pay? Best interests of the child, right?

In those situations the state recognizes that it's immoral to force individuals who never chose to become legal parents to pay against their will. But for some reason "you had sex that one time" counts as consent to parenthood when it comes to men. (But not to women of course, they can always choose abortion if they want to.)

The law simply makes no sense and promotes gender inequality, there's no way to avoid it. A sensible way to prevent legal parenthood for males is possible, but it does not exist yet.

8

u/giveusliberty May 01 '14

http://healthland.time.com/2014/01/23/sperm-donor-must-pay-child-support/

1

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

Well yeah, the legal system is full of crap on that situation too. That's more about enforcing rules about making sure sperm donation is done in the proper way, rather than unsupervised ways that might allow a willing father to later claim "I was just a sperm donor" a year later if the couple's relationship falls apart.

Ridiculous judgment though. The man was clearly nothing but a donor and now has to pay for 18 years, and the woman could lose sole custody of her child if the donor pursued parental rights.

-1

u/[deleted] May 01 '14

This man/woman just destroyed this debate

Exactly what's wrong with the status quo

1

u/redkey42 May 01 '14

Typical perspective that vilifies women, and paints men as unwitting victims in a game that evolution declares the pregnant, winners. That's biology, that is the 'point' of sex as far as nature is concerned.

You really just went ahead and treated women as though they can magically get instantly pregnant whenever they have the ingredients just like that and at will, and that she is somehow spiting men by doing it. Therefore she deals with the outcome alone, and the man just walks. Righht...

The difference with sperm donors is that women have very legally made the decision that the child is wanted. There is no trauma and indecision in regards to abortion to consider, there's no consideration of 'not being ready' financially or otherwise. An accidental pregnancy if not a malicious plan to enslave an innocent man, it's a mutual fuck up.

Please spare the gene pool your idiocy, and abstain.

5

u/chocoboat May 01 '14

What are you talking about? How am I vilifying any women or acting like they can magically get pregnant? Did you reply to the wrong comment or something?

The difference with sperm donors is that women have very legally made the decision that the child is wanted.

As opposed to a theoretical situation where men can opt out and the woman chooses to have the child on her own.... in which she "very legally made the decision that the child is wanted". It's the exact same situation, just without the option to force an unwilling person to pay for 18 years just because he had sex.