Quote of the day
posted at 11:00 pm on November 14, 2007 by Allahpundit
“Since it’s the woman who gets a belly full of baby, maybe a woman who has casual sex and is unprepared, emotionally, financially, and logistically, to raise a child on her own, should be prepared to avail herself of the unpleasant alternatives.”










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Interesting case. Whattya think the law would say, A?
And, more important, what stance will committed feminists take on the legal action, so that I can take the opposite?
John from OPFOR on November 14, 2007 at 11:05 PM
What difference does it make whose fault the pregnancy is? The child deserves a proper upbringing from whatever adults were responsible for producing it.
pedestrian on November 14, 2007 at 11:10 PM
You play, you pay. Dat’s what my momma always say.
robblefarian on November 14, 2007 at 11:12 PM
Meh. The problem with this thinking is that it doesn’t address the idea of casual sex being wrong in the first place.
What about this: Keep it in your pants.
Jezla on November 14, 2007 at 11:12 PM
But how we will continue on as a species?
John from OPFOR on November 14, 2007 at 11:20 PM
A 14 year old. In the eyes of the law, statutorily a victim of rape.
Forced to pay child support. Because he has … wait for it … a penis.
The world has gone crazy.
——–
Then again, there is one obvious message for good fiscal conservative capitalists in all this: if you hear of somebody inventing a reliable birth control pill for men, you ought to consider investing. Somebody’s going to get very rich.
Professor Blather on November 14, 2007 at 11:27 PM
Nice in theory. But I think the author’s preemptive response to that suggestion sums it up pretty well:
“Keep it in your pants” ranks right up there with “just say no.”
Professor Blather on November 14, 2007 at 11:32 PM
It has already been invented. And I’m not talking about kankles or reno…well, stupid chicks.
or condoms…you choose
sunny on November 14, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Wasn’t Bill Clinton an ‘unwanted pregnancy’? No matter what you think of him or his politics, you have to agree he’s done well for himself. You can’t deny that given the opportunity in this country, how you start does not necessarily determine how you end up.
I know lots of single mothers who don’t get a dime for their kids. It is too bad for the kids, but no reason that they should not be given a chance to live in America.
ThackerAgency on November 14, 2007 at 11:50 PM
A man who abandons his unborn child against the wishes of the mother is a deadbeat dad.
A woman who aborts her unborn child against the wishes of the father is simply exercising her freedom of choice.
Hmmmmmmm…
D2Boston on November 14, 2007 at 11:50 PM
If women can abort without the consent of the father, how can any payment be expected to such an autonomous creature?
Until the father has a voice in the survival of the child, it would seem to make sense to say no way.
profitsbeard on November 15, 2007 at 12:23 AM
Some commenter at PJM brought up the fact that when some monster murders a pregnant woman the charge is almost always two counts of murder. But if the fetus isn’t human, how can that be? /not a real question
I wonder who is going to be the first defense lawyer to have the cojones bring this up in such a case.
baldilocks on November 15, 2007 at 12:28 AM
If I wrote the law, marriage would be the contracted agreement to create, support and share the any offspring. An unmarried father would have zero parental claim on uncontracted offspring and zero obligation to support offspring conceived outside of marriage.
Isn’t that what marriage was supposed to be: a public agreement on the consequences of union?
I get weary of the argument presented ‘the child comes first’. Yes, the child comes first to society.
If society wants more for a child than the independent mother wants to provide then society should support the child or take it out of the pocket of the mother who did not arrange with the man to provide for her before she had sex with him.
Of course today’s mother is married to society and she knows society will provide for her offspring by squeezing the sperm donor like a lemon until money comes out or he dies
entagor on November 15, 2007 at 2:09 AM
So, you are admitting you are an animal, with no ability to control your impulses?
Okay.
Reminds me of a story that Rabbi Daniel Lapin tells.
To adapt that lesson to the topic at hand, if you believe you descended from an ape, you will have little motivation to behave any better than an ape. If you believe you descended from God, you have great motivation to try to live up to his standards.
Those whose self-discipline is weaker than their impulses, will naturally defend their position. “You’re not being realistic,” for instance. “People are going to have sex. Deal with it. That’s the way we’re made. Nothing we can do about it.”
That’s a steaming pile of horsesh*t. Professor Blather (apt name), you’re the one the not wanting to deal with reality. Reality is that God created sex with specific purposes in mind. Reality is that when sex is used as God intended (one man, one woman, in a marriage relationship), it leads to a more intimate relationship, a smoothing of rough edges, and best of all, children. Reality is that physical and psychological harm will result from the misuse of sex; i.e., outside the parameters God specified. Reality is that it is, in fact, possible to control oneself until one gets married, then have all the sex you want with your wife, who has committed herself to your welfare, in and out of bed, just as you have committed to her. Reality is that Professor Blather and his philosophical compatriots are living in a pitiful fantasy world of their own creation, and don’t have the faintest clue how wonderful sex can be.
(Yes, I am speaking from experience. Virgin at my wedding, age 26; married to the same woman for 17 years; sex better now than ever (17 years of refining, and wifey offers more often than I want it); no diseases; no guilt; no regrets; no psycho ex-lovers; no alimony; no child support; no custody battles. Blather, tell me why anyone should respect your viewpoint?)
Splashman on November 15, 2007 at 3:14 AM
I do agree that there is a double-standard, but really, what sort of man does not support his child?
The answer: He is not a man at all.
Damian G. on November 15, 2007 at 3:24 AM
Sorry, splashman, but your view (correct I think) is not accepted in our secular world which deifies the self instead of worshiping the God.
docdave on November 15, 2007 at 5:28 AM
Bingo.
Buy Danish on November 15, 2007 at 6:20 AM
With all due respect sir, our secular world is full of *(&^.
They are wrong, and can be proven so by nearly every walking example of a functioning family. That is why they have made it their sole purpose to bring dysfunction into the family.
BKennedy on November 15, 2007 at 6:24 AM
My friend can’t get custody of his kid even though the mother is an alcoholic who spends all the child support money on booze. Where is the justice in that? It’s sharia through the looking glass.
aengus on November 15, 2007 at 6:58 AM
As H. Beam Piper would say, my utmost respect to, and admiration for, yourself and your lady wife, Sir.
And as for the idea that “keep it in your pants” is as “ineffective” as “just say no”, it is a verified fact that during Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” anti-drug campaign, illegal drug use in this country dropped to roughly a fourth of what it had been only four years before (i.e., during the Carter Administration, which repeatedly failed to articulate any sort of national policy on the subject).
But illegal drugs, ranging from marijuana to heroin to various forms of cocaine, came surging back with a vengeance during the Clinton years, when the White House was chock-a-block with people who thought drugs were fun, good for you, “edgy”, and “radically cool”. Notably the President himself. (Ref; Unlimited Access; An FBI Agent Inside The Clinton White House by Gary Aldrich.)
Never underestimate the power of “leading by example”. Or the damage a bad example can do.
cheers
eon
eon on November 15, 2007 at 7:16 AM
This kind of thinking has always bothered me, and is the same as the argument used by the school that wants to give birth control to 12 year-olds. Has anyone ever thought that maybe by speaking out, we can change what ‘the real world’ considers acceptable?
Great response!
Jezla on November 15, 2007 at 7:18 AM
Fathers should have rights to their children, which is a two way street. With all the social engineering they manage to squeeze into one day of public school, you would think “making boom-boom makes babies” could be part of the message?
Procreation is powerful Juju, and that’s the way God made it. ” I can’t get pregnant”, should be met with much skepticism. In that sense, I have four kids that were all miracles. (and was already married to their mother)
Hening on November 15, 2007 at 7:41 AM
My eldest daughter is passing through her adolescence and on the verge of womanhood. I think what you said is succinct, well-put, to the point, and loving. I’m going to share it with her. I myself learned everything the hard way. I hope to do better with her. Thanks.
JiangxiDad on November 15, 2007 at 9:31 AM
Splashman @ 3:14 AM
Awesome Man, just AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
;-) Pachyderm
Pachyderm on November 15, 2007 at 10:03 AM
Good point. I didn’t get custody. Despite the fact that the live-in boyfriend was an alcoholic, despite the fact that they moved and did not allow any contact with my children for months. Despite the fact that the previous time I visited, I found no food in the house but a fridge full of beer. Never mind the fact I’d been sending hundreds of dollars in support every month.
Why?
I was in the Navy, and could not get out of a 90 day trip to South America the next year. Though considering the circumstances, my CMC offered to fly me back after 45 days. The judge cited the potential 45 day trip as an “unacceptable disruption” to the family environment.
Justice my @ss.
Suihei Deloi on November 15, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Almost forgot. Good point Splashman. But nobody addressed the first part of Blather’s comment -
Obviously we don’t know all the facts of the case. However, it brings up an interesting point. What do you do about something like that? I’m sure someone can bring up the stats saying women molesting children is rare. But it does happen. There was a case in my hometown years ago where a kid was being molested by his mother. Crazy to think that could happen yes. But this is an area that simply hasn’t been addressed by the law yet.
Suihei Deloi on November 15, 2007 at 12:42 PM