Hey Killarney,
You say 'Women give up their financial independence to bear children.'
So I got a 'comparative' for men...
Why is child support based on the parents income rather than a 'basic cost' of raising a child?

Centrelink doesn't pay you based on what you could've earned if you didn't have kids so why do men have to pay child support based on what they earn rather than the cost of raising a child?

The system is messed up in that it's connected to tax returns and if a man is earning good money in a previous year, and moves into a job or situation where he's earning less money the following year, he's still charged based on his previous higher income; when he isn't earning that anymore and can't afford to pay the higher amount and it causes all sorts of trouble.

Why shouldn't men just pay a standard rate per kid like Centrelink pays?

Now_not so soon

'Do you see the alternative to just not have sex before wanting children as unattainable?'

No. This may come as a shock to you, but women actually enjoy sex - that is, when it's done well (not the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am variety). Traditionally, the woman's sex drive has been straightjacketed into being the moral gatekeeper against men's lascivious desires.

Constantly having to say 'No, kind sir. Not until the ring is on the finger or until I'm ready to have children' gets a bit tedious and can ruin your day - especially when you're feeling horny.

phanto

'Nobody knows for sure when life begins and so they cannot know when killing starts.'

Exactly. Stopping a life before it is born is not the same as killing a life that has been lived. I often wonder whether an opinion poll that asks whether an individual would prefer not to have been born would reveal a startling result. Despite all the joys I've had in life, I for one would prefer not to have been born. Life itself should be good, but the system renders most people a life of financial struggle, wage slavery, little free time and an impoverished retirement. And that's only those living in countries not torn apart by war.

Armchair critic

As the childcare system is based on a man's last tax return, then subsequent tax returns will adjust for a man's decreased income.

'Centrelink doesn't pay you based on what you could've earned if you didn't have kids so why do men have to pay child support based on what they earn rather than the cost of raising a child?'

So who has to foot the bill for the shortfall between what men earn and the cost of raising a child? Oh, of course, the mother.

To Phanto and AJ Phillips. The debate that runs off of word games is worthless. Not just this issue but on any other, if an argument is strengthened only by a name or a rewording of a name, then assure something fishy is involved. Fetus is a medical term, but does not change the fact of what the baby is. Trying to dehumanize the fetus stage is a sham to justify the killing that is involved in abortions. The same is true with the philosophical word games of what counts as a person. Trying to rationalize death by confusing the matter into philosophy is the kind of thing I'd expect from con men. But instead it's a big topic in abortion.

[a woman is not obliged to go through a pregnancy in the same way that a no-one is obliged to donate, say, a kidney - not even if it were for one’s own child]

If she chose to have sex (it was not forced on her), then the potential of having children is on the table. The child dying before it's born should be looked at in the same way as the child's death after birth. It's a tragic event. Volunteerily killing the baby should not be counted as a right of a mother. It's her body that had sex. It's not her body that will get killed.

Killarney.

[This may come as a shock to you, but women actually enjoy sex.]

That makes as much sence as drinking is enjoyable and driving home drunk is convient. If it ends in death it's a crime with a large punishment, and a terrible cost of a life. Ruining the mood might be needed in this case. Very much so needed. Otherwise we have a prostitution society with the solution of abortion to kill of millions in the name of prostitute like lusts. It is a sickening thought. It is a sickness of society and of the indivual. Wait until marriage for the commited relationship.

//That makes as much sence as drinking is enjoyable//

Drinking is enjoyable. Christ, you're not a bloody Mormon are you?

//and driving home drunk is convient. If it ends in death it's a crime//

It's a crime even if it doesn't end in death. Not to mention stupid, dangerous and immoral.

But it doesn't follow from that that drinking is inherently sinful and wicked, unless you belong to a denomination where it is, in which case it is. This is one of the problems with basing your ethics on your faith: there are so many different denominations, all with their own arbitrary ideas about just what is and isn't sinful. But I digress...

As I was saying, there's nothing wrong with having a drink (or a root). It's just that when you do, you should take sensible precautions like making use of public transport or taxis. Same with sex... just take sensible precautions. Unless you belong to one of those weird bible-thumping denominations who preach that god hates fun in general and sex in particular. Which might fly in some parts of the US, but this is Australia where we don't have much sympathy for the views of joyless bloody puritans. What's next, Cromwell, banning Christmas?

//Otherwise we have a prostitution society with the solution of abortion to kill of millions in the name of prostitute like lusts.//

So people that enjoy sex are all whores, eh Cromwell? Filthy wicked whores that shall burn for all eternity in the pit of fire where there be wailing and gnashing of teeth, no doubt.

Keep digging there, buddy.

//It is a sickness of society and of the indivual.//

No, it's really not. Hominids have been enjoying sex for considerably longer than homo sapiens sapiens have existed as a species: sex for pleasure is older than the hills, and the annals of history are chocka-block full of people who did it outside of wedlock. Never heard of a 'shotgun wedding'? What about that famous figure of Italian literature, Giacomo Casanova?

Sex outside marriage isn't new, it isn't weird, and it's definitely not pathological. And suggesting that people who disagree with you are mentally ill is a cheap shot that trivialises genuine mental illness, which I consider reprehensible. Clearly your faith doesn't teach you as much about moral behaviour as you like to pretend it does.

Not_Now.Soon,

I don’t think there are any word games being played here. The semantical discussion is necessary and important if we are to consider the issue seriously. Simply stating that abortion is wrong because it's killing doesn’t cut it, because it completely ignores the rights of the woman, and there ARE rights there too. For some reason, you don’t acknowledge these at all.

I am happy enough to say that life begins at conception, I am even happy enough (for the sake of argument, at least), to say that the foetus has equal rights (although I think that’s silly and a mistake), because I don’t think it matters. The rights of the woman must come first because no-one has the right to use someone else’s body to sustain themselves.

According to your logic, apparently, foetuses have more rights than people who have already been born. Their rights are then downgraded once they are born. Do you think it would be alright to force a mother to donate a kidney to her child if it meant saving that child’s life? Should a court of law be able to order this, in your view?

<<If she chose to have sex …>>

I knew you’d go there, because this is precisely what I would have said when I was an anti-abortionist. The response to this is simple: consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. That an abortion due to carelessness is regrettable does not negate this.