This is what Feminism has done to Child Support Laws

[Al Swearegen]

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.

In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.

I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.

Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.

Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use.  The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.

Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.

Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.

You are not asking Jack or I these questions are you?

[Al Swearegen]

I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.

Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.

You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?

[Semicolon]

I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.

Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.

You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?

I am saying that, right or wrong, the state of Kansas would not recognize the relationship of these two lesbians as being a marriage in any sense of the word.

[Al Swearegen]

I like to know where the non-biological parent (the ex-partner) figures in this. I think that things being "equal" they ought to have gone after her and not him. He was no part of the relationship or parenting. It is batshit crazy.

Same-sex marriage is banned by the Kansas state constitution.

You do not have to be married to have a child. That was not your argument was it?

I am saying that, right or wrong, the state of Kansas would not recognize the relationship of these two lesbians as being a marriage in any sense of the word.

But if they were an unmarried male and female, rather than female and femmale, the male partner of that couple (regardless of marital status) would be sought for child support whereas the non-married female partner wouldn't.
That is my point. marriage is a nonissue.

[Jack]

Sex will become very complicated. Condoms will be the easiest part. There have to be negotiations and legal documents signed. What to do, in cases of unwanted, unplanned pregnancies. Will there be an abortion or not? Will there be a baby or not? Will it be given up for adoption or not? Who will pay?
Don't think it will bring down teenage pregnancies. Nor that it will improve the fun in sex. 

Just read this again and realized I missed the part here that's responding to something I said; females being responsible about their bodies. As to teen pregnancy specifically, yes, I think men's rights would change the mental mindset of young girls on a sociological level. Those young girls with dreamy ideals of baby and boyfriend forever might not be so common if it cam with the knowledge that the young boy can just say no thanks. It would change the mindset of some parents too.

[Jack]

Condoms will be the easiest part.

Condoms should only be insisted on for prevention of disease. Ghastly images of venereal disease is an important part of this process. Female contraception is much more effective; condoms are a big gamble against pregnancy in terms of odds. It's the female's body, and they have a larger variety of most effective contraception.

['andersom']

Yes, it is due to feminism. Men have no say about anything concerning legal/financial matters of their sperm. Have always believed there would be fewer unwanted/unprepared pregnancies if single men were legally able to 'choose' not to be a parent like women do. Equality is not.

In the case of sperm donorship, I think the father chose not to be a parent, just helping someone out who wanted a kid.

In other cases, it's complicated. Can a man tell a woman to have an abortion, because he doesn't want to be a parent? Can a man tell a woman, who, unplanned, fell pregnant tell her to get the baby, because he wants to be a parent?
Ideally, there would be communication on this. But if the final say would be with the man, rape could become the way to get offspring.

I don't know. Feminism comes in many forms, as does socialism, capitalism and what not. If it can be used for benefit, every ideology will be bent to get that.

Feminist influence in my country means shared custody, by default, after a divorce. It means the richest of the two partners, after a divorce, will have to take financial care of the ex partner, no matter what gender. And, alimony for a partner will never be longer than 12 years. If the marriage hasn't lasted 5 years, alimony for a partner will not exceed the number of years the couple was married.
The maximum of 12 years will probably be brought back to 5 years.
Alimony for an ex partner makes sense. I know couples where there was the agreement they would study in succession, while the other provided the income. If after 6 years one partner got a degree, and a good job, and the time had come for the former provider to quit a job and get a degree, and divorce happened, the one with the degree better pay for the then unemployed and studying ex-partner. The degree had been paid for by the ex-partner.

Trying to pluck money from a sperm donor, well, a state who wants that done can use all kinds of ideologies to get that. Interest of the child, to know it's biological father, and the right of the child to know it's father cares, at least in a financial way, is a nice one to use.  The "it isn't how god/nature intended children to be begotten" is another one.

Disagree with the idea about men having any legal say about whether or not a woman gives birth. It creates sad circumstances for some men, but the alternative is just too much. Though if it's legal in society for a woman to terminate her own fetus, then can't see the problem with allowing men to legally sign away parental rights and obligation. It's just an opinion, but in my country birthcontrol is accessible and effective for the vast majority. Therefore can't help but believe, women would be more responsible about their bodies if they weren't able to legally force men to financially support their choices.

Look I agree. I would not use the abortion solely as an indicator of women having greater rights or greater say but combined with all of the above examples is a compelling argument.
I don't think that there ought to be a demand for women to give birth to kids they don't want either. Unfortunately there has to be a loser an the women ought not be that loser in that instance.
I just think that laws ought to be fair and equitable and not favour a gender.

You are not asking Jack or I these questions are you?

No, I was not asking Jack or you the bolded part.
I was extrapolating. If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing. Because when responsibility comes, there also should be the right to have a say about it. If the state manages to sue the man, having men having a say about abortion or not becomes an option to extrapolate on. Very anti-feminist position, suing the man to pay for his biological offspring, in this case. Very dangerous, for both men and women.

[Jack]

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

[Jack]

The only way this guy is going to get out of this, is if she committed fraud. If she lied to the state about not knowing who he is, then the whole thing is her crime. She wasn't legally pursuing him for support, so outside of the realm of state finances, there was nothing wrong with their personal agreement.

[McGiver]

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

anal!   

[Jack]

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

anal!   

I know I am, but what are you?

['andersom']

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. 

[Al Swearegen]

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. 

Really? Will predominately men or women have a say in whether they become parents? When men and women become parents what is accepted parental leave? If they split up, who is favoured in the court system? Does the State tend to financially favour men or women?

The questions keep popping up and in each instance, the favoritism is with Women against men. In many, many areas the favouritism is obscenely skewed in favour of the women and ripe for women to (without censor) to abuse.

That said there are exceptions. In some instances there is 50% custody and all amicable and smiles. In some instances, the mother is screwed. These though are the exceptions. In general terms, Jack is dead right.

I really hope you were joking, Hyke. I really hope it was a joke I did not get.

[Jack]

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. 

'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.

['andersom']

If the state manages to sue the man, for his sperm is responsible for the conception of the child, then sex becomes a really dangerous thing.

Legally and financilly, sex has been a really dangerous thing for men for quite some time.

For women too, so, now the sexes are both burdened by the consequences of the sins of the flesh. 

'My body, my choice' this is the cry of the feminist, and they're absolutely right about that. It's the woman's body and they're the only ones who can or should be in control of it, but women aren't expected to be responsible for their bodies at the same time. Power without accountability is a dangerous thing, even when it's power over ones own body.

Why do you think women are not expected to be responsible for their bodies? It's part of sex-education to teach responsibility for their own bodies.