View Full Version : The Punishment for those men un-manly enough to abandon their kids.
Incongruous
08-01-2007, 12:11
Ok, so Goof started a thread about one half of the affair. Now for the other, just for balance.
I am not creating this thread as a p-take, I am seriuosly concerned by some of the submissions in that thread. Death penalty talk always makes by skin crawl.
So, I am not allowing a poll, simply leaving this open to variuos member's interpretations.
So, a man knocks a girls up, and the bounder ups and leaves her.
What coarse of action do you believe his actions to condone?
HoreTore
08-01-2007, 12:37
Nothing more than child support...
The death penalty.:beam:
Ok, not really. What HoreTore said, after all he didn't kill anyone in the process I hope.
KukriKhan
08-01-2007, 13:17
-Child support until the kid is 20.
-Health insurance coverage for the Mom throughout the pregnancy + 1 year.
-Purchase and insure the kid's first car.
-Tiny tattoo'd letter "B" on the right hand, to warn other women that, at least once, he's been a 'bounder'.
OK, I could live without the last one.
Public spanking by an old Midwife
...
uh.. Dejavu?
Ok, so Goof started a thread about one half of the affair. Now for the other, just for balance.
I am not creating this thread as a p-take, I am seriuosly concerned by some of the submissions in that thread. Death penalty talk always makes by skin crawl.
So, I am not allowing a poll, simply leaving this open to variuos member's interpretations.
So, a man knocks a girls up, and the bounder ups and leaves her.
What coarse of action do you believe his actions to condone?
Is it premeditated like abortion? If yes, then a severe penalty such as 18 years in jail until the minor is able to attain adult status in terms of law, and the mother is made whole by way of financial compensation via a valuation of her outlay for the care of the child.
The father should have his assets liquidated in order to finance the upbringing of the child, and in the case of no assets a work program that adds value to his incarceration that compensates the tax payer and the mother.
Why ruin his life is he is a lot more useful when he works for his money outside of a prison? It's not like he directly harmed anyone in the process, except for the woman, but she gets the money as compensation. And maybe he harmed the kid a bit because it lacks a father, but you could add that to the money the father pays.
Why ruin his life is he is a lot more useful when he works for his money outside of a prison?
since you didnt quote anyone, and your question pertains to prison I will answer.
If its premeditated, like abortion is, its a crime (perhaps not legally now, but Bopa is asking for opinion). A man that leaves a child behind to be cared for by the mother knowingly should be penalized and the penalty should be severe as both a deterrant, and a means by which to obtain remuneration for those harmed.
English assassin
08-01-2007, 14:07
A damn good thrashing from her father and brothers.
I also like the tattoo idea.
Ja'chyra
08-01-2007, 14:19
Lol at the tattoo idea, I take that goes both ways so a woman would get one if she ditched the father?
Support for the child until 16 and are able to support themselves or until the mother remarries or has a long term, live in partner. I say this as if the mother has a long term partner then they've obviously made a commiment and that commitment should include any children either of them may have.
I also think the support should be set at a reasonable level, I don't believe some skank from the local nightclub should be able to get more just cos she bedded a rich man, the money is for the child, not the mother.
Don Corleone
08-01-2007, 14:22
What if she has no fathers or brothers?
I think Odin and Husar both have a point. Instead of locking him in prison, where he can't earn any money, I say he joins the National Service Corps (King Corleone would be instituting that for all welfare indigents) where he actually works constantly on public works projects. His wages would be garnished and sent to the woman. He would also be sterilized and would be required to maintain electronic monitoring.
I know this is a huge departure from what we currently do, but you have to understand, in my mind, this really does rank right up there with murder. Of all the arguments radical feminists make against the male-oriented society, this one rings the most true. The fact that abandoning one's children is not a crime if you're a male (but is if you're a female) is abhorrent to me.
I like the tatoo idea too, but my forced-vasectomy would remove the need for it. :whip:
Ja'chyra
08-01-2007, 14:39
What if she has no fathers or brothers?
I think Odin and Husar both have a point. Instead of locking him in prison, where he can't earn any money, I say he joins the National Service Corps (King Corleone would be instituting that for all welfare indigents) where he actually works constantly on public works projects. His wages would be garnished and sent to the woman. He would also be sterilized and would be required to maintain electronic monitoring.
I know this is a huge departure from what we currently do, but you have to understand, in my mind, this really does rank right up there with murder. Of all the arguments radical feminists make against the male-oriented society, this one rings the most true. The fact that abandoning one's children is not a crime if you're a male (but is if you're a female) is abhorrent to me.
I like the tatoo idea too, but my forced-vasectomy would remove the need for it. :whip:
What do you mean by abandoning? If the father pays support is that still abandoning or would not staying with the mother for any reason at all be abandoning?
Don Corleone
08-01-2007, 15:05
What do you mean by abandoning? If the father pays support is that still abandoning or would not staying with the mother for any reason at all be abandoning?
Not paying support. One would hope any man with a soul would want to actually interact and visit with his own children, but that's a little tough to enforce, and frankly, if he really doesn't want to see them, perhaps the kids are better off without him.
But I don't just mean regular support. When (not if) emergencies involving the kids arise, he should bear an equal portion of the financial responsibility.
And I don't think child support should end just because your children's mother has entered into a new relationship. They're your kids, not his (or hers, as the case may be). You shouldn't have to pay alimony any more, but I don't think too much of that goes on anymore.
Wow Don, sterilizing him is a bit harsh, the kid may not have a father but some kids would happily trade their dad for 1000$ a month anyway(me not included, but there are other people).
Also keep in mind that a father who does not abandon his family but is almost never at home and doesn't really spend time with them gets no punishment either. Would you introduce compulsory family time of at least 10 hours per week for dads and have it checked by social workers or what?
I still think they should just pay a lot of money, maybe even more than a child costs. That gets rid of the economical reasons for abandoning(like wanting more time, money and fun for himself) the family and it is also a punishment for him since staying with his family would be a lot cheaper. He could keep his job but if he couldn't pay he should do compulsory work for the community or whatever since he needs to pay for the kid.
Big King Sanctaphrax
08-01-2007, 16:21
The fact that abandoning one's children is not a crime if you're a male (but is if you're a female) is abhorrent to me.
Erm, this isn't really true is it? You can get the child adopted, or you can skip out on the father. neither of those are crimes-well, the second isn't any more than it would be the other way around. Plus, you can have an abortion in the first place.
Don Corleone
08-01-2007, 16:51
Erm, this isn't really true is it? You can get the child adopted, or you can skip out on the father. neither of those are crimes-well, the second isn't any more than it would be the other way around. Plus, you can have an abortion in the first place.
If a guy wakes up one day and decides to skip town and his wife and kids, no further checks coming, he's not violating any laws.
If the woman turns around and abandons her kids, she's up on child abandonment charges.
Now,you can argue that the woman could have theoretically left first. Yes, in theory she'd be free to do it and the man would be on the hook. But in practice, it almost never works that way. But I'm open to that. If women decide to start skipping out on their families and leave their husbands with all the financial and child-rearing burden, then they ought to go through the same sort of punishment.
The sterilization solution is to prevent this from becoming a chronic problem. I don't know how it is in Europe, but in America, there's an element to many of the poorer sub-cultures that fathering children and abandoning them is a 'macho' thing to do. I believe sterilization would end this problem.
And Husar, as I said, I'm talking about financial support. But that also includes compensating the mother for time that you're NOT there taking care of your kids. I would presume a workaholic Dad would be sharing his paycheck with his wife, and SHOULD be taking care of the kids when he is home to give his wife a break. But we're talking about guys who listened to "Freebird" one too many times here, just decide one day to pack up and start over, doing whatever they feel like.
HoreTore
08-01-2007, 20:29
-Purchase and insure the kid's first car.
What the hell? That's something the brat should be able to do on his own, isn't it?
Don Corleone
08-01-2007, 20:43
What the hell? That's something the brat should be able to do on his own, isn't it?
Somebody ought to check the temperature in Hades..... HoreTore and I finally agree on something. ~:cheers:
The punishment?
Driving from your crappy apartment to go pick up your kids at a nicer house than you ever had with them and stumbling over the chainsaw left at the front door by the guy who lives there and outweighs you by fifty-pounds and who is always standing right beside your ex-woman, the one you used to yell at but curiously never do any more, the same woman who looks much happier than she ever was with you.
~:smoking:
Devastatin Dave
08-01-2007, 21:04
Genital removal and branding...
Incongruous
08-01-2007, 22:26
Genital removal and branding...
Ouch.
I rather like the tattoo idea.
I also agree with hussar, that the father would be much more productive outside prison. In a Don Corleone style public services unit. But without the err, well the nasty bit.
Tristuskhan
08-01-2007, 22:41
The punishment?
Driving from your crappy apartment to go pick up your kids at a nicer house than you ever had with them and stumbling over the chainsaw left at the front door by the guy who lives there and outweighs you by fifty-pounds and who is always standing right beside your ex-woman, the one you used to yell at but curiously never do any more, the same woman who looks much happier than she ever was with you.
~:smoking:
Beirut, you point it with a needle.... Seems that working in forestry stuff makes you wise! I'm proud, really proud to be from the same world!
Innocentius
08-02-2007, 00:07
Why should the man be punished at all? Why bother?
Uesugi Kenshin
08-02-2007, 00:16
The punishment?
Driving from your crappy apartment to go pick up your kids at a nicer house than you ever had with them and stumbling over the chainsaw left at the front door by the guy who lives there and outweighs you by fifty-pounds and who is always standing right beside your ex-woman, the one you used to yell at but curiously never do any more, the same woman who looks much happier than she ever was with you.
~:smoking:
Beirut you are a cruel cruel man. That being said he could very well deserve it.
Papewaio
08-02-2007, 01:06
The punishment?
Driving from your crappy apartment to go pick up your kids at a nicer house than you ever had with them and stumbling over the chainsaw left at the front door by the guy who lives there and outweighs you by fifty-pounds and who is always standing right beside your ex-woman, the one you used to yell at but curiously never do any more, the same woman who looks much happier than she ever was with you.
~:smoking:
:bow:
A true mans man :2thumbsup:
:bow:
And a ladies man too :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup: :2thumbsup:
A knight with shining chainsaw... methinks you won't have troubles when the zombie octasquids from outer space attack.
KukriKhan
08-02-2007, 01:28
What the hell? That's something the brat should be able to do on his own, isn't it?
Sure, just like I did. But for the abandoned brat, it's compensation for alienation of affection (of a male parental unit).
And I should have added: 2 years of post-high school education financing (the kid has to finish high school to get that, but 'dear, departed Daddy' should help give the kid a leg up in the economy; the kid/Mom can figure out the other 2 years worth of uni financing).
So, with my plan, one night of sin = about 20 years of payment. (+ the tattoo). Assuming the original abandoner was about 20 himself, hey, he's got another 40 years to do his own thing.
HoreTore
08-02-2007, 17:35
Somebody ought to check the temperature in Hades..... HoreTore and I finally agree on something. ~:cheers:
What do I see? Is that peace in the middle east?
Beirut you are a cruel cruel man. That being said he could very well deserve it.
Oh, but he does, he does. And I can only hope the same thing happens to him in the other city where he made another kid and left that one as well after he dumped the two he had here.
I've got zero sympathy for the idiot. None. Nada. He deserves everything he gets. I particularly enjoy it when he bring them home late at night and I welcome my girls home loudly, then close the door, lock it, and turn off the outside light while he's right on the other side of it.
My God but that feels good. :yes:
Uesugi Kenshin
08-03-2007, 02:45
Oh, but he does, he does. And I can only hope the same thing happens to him in the other city where he made another kid and left that one as well after he dumped the two he had here.
I've got zero sympathy for the idiot. None. Nada. He deserves everything he gets. I particularly enjoy it when he bring them home late at night and I welcome my girls home loudly, then close the door, lock it, and turn off the outside light while he's right on the other side of it.
My God but that feels good. :yes:
Yeah he definitely deserves that. I bet I'd do exactly the same thing, with at least as much enthusiasm.
Del Arroyo
08-03-2007, 21:38
I don't see how it's particularly unmanly. In fact, unmanly it isn't at all-- it is in a man's reproductive best interest to sire children with more than one woman, but it is not in his interest to split limited resources between too many offspring. If he finds a better mate to produce better offspring, it makes sense for him to abandon the old one.
And as far as blame, the woman too has a role in this. It is a game we all play, and she is not innocent just because she is losing. If she was married and he was faithful and she felt she could land a better mate, she would find one and leave him. Love is an emotion and it is also a competitive game.
So you can get as mad as you want at the absent dad, but the fact remains, she was the one who slept with him.
I agree with Kukri, except the purchase and insurance of a car.
I don't see how it's particularly unmanly. In fact, unmanly it isn't at all-- it is in a man's reproductive best interest to sire children with more than one woman, but it is not in his interest to split limited resources between too many offspring. If he finds a better mate to produce better offspring, it makes sense for him to abandon the old one.
It's not unmanly to make kids. It's unmanly to abandon kids.
"A man's reproductive best interests"? Except for going to the doctor to make sure his testicles don't blow up, a man has no reproductive best interests.
As for "abandoning the old for better offspring", that logic may apply in a country that drowns baby girls as a matter of course, but in a civilized country it may be an uphill battle to have that point of view shared by the majority. Or the minority. Or anyone for that matter except the guy who abandoned his child.
As for "not in his interest to split limited resources", too bad for him. Get a job. Get a better job. Get a second job. Stand on the corner and dance for quarters. He made the baby - he pays for the baby. The only way out of this for him is to stand in front of the mirror and admit he's a deadbeat, a loser, a man without conscience, morality, honour, or any sense of self-respect. That being true, and it is, whose best interests could it possibly be in for that "person" to procreate?
And as far as blame, the woman too has a role in this. It is a game we all play, and she is not innocent just because she is losing. If she was married and he was faithful and she felt she could land a better mate, she would find one and leave him. Love is an emotion and it is also a competitive game.
Agreed. But love for his woman is not the point here. Responsibility for his child is.
So you can get as mad as you want at the absent dad, but the fact remains, she was the one who slept with him.
As far as I understand it, procreation requires two participants. The woman might have slept with the man, but the man most assuredly also slept with the woman.
"A man's reproductive best interests"? Except for going to the doctor to make sure his testicles don't blow up, a man has no reproductive best interests.
He's talking primal caveman stuff. All men, you, me, that loser who fathered your kids are all driven by the urge to father as many babies as possible with as many women as possible. But women are driven by the urge to only have babies with a man who has the best resoruces to help raise them.
Innocentius
08-04-2007, 21:46
a man without conscience, morality, honour, or any sense of self-respect.
Luckily, that fits in with me, which means I should get away with anything:clown:
AntiochusIII
08-04-2007, 22:01
But women are driven by the urge to only have babies with a man who has the best resoruces to help raise them.Various studies (google) actually show that female animals tend to be more promiscuous than the traditional view thought. It's just that she's playing the adultery game while staying at home, while the men went to other people's homes. She stays with the richest man, sure, but Mrs. Robinson has her lovers to come visit.
At least, that's what birds do.
But I always thought that evolutionary psychology, whether valid or not, should never be used to justify a moral position or even legal position. In essence we're saying that we're just a bunch of scumbags who had not evolved a single step since the dawn of civilization, biologically or socially, and I don't like that statement. I'm racist. I think myself superior to dogs and cats and the rats of the world.
In any case, Bopa's OP is just an attempt to point out the potential hypocrisy of some who demands harsh punishment for the women who has/had/have abortion, a thread which I deliberately did not participate it because Goofball's intention is to seek an opinion of someone outside my category; or should I say I'm outside his category?
Various studies (google) actually show that female animals tend to be more promiscuous than the traditional view thought. It's just that she's playing the adultery game while staying at home, while the men went to other people's homes. She stays with the richest man, sure, but Mrs. Robinson has her lovers to come visit.
Well there are a plethora of different catergories that women judge. They want different things at different times. One anthropologist even said that when ovulating a woman wants mister bad boy rugged to father her kids, but the rest of the time wants mister nice guy.
But I always thought that evolutionary psychology, whether valid or not, should never be used to justify a moral position or even legal position. In essence we're saying that we're just a bunch of scumbags who had not evolved a single step since the dawn of civilization, biologically or socially, and I don't like that statement. I'm racist. I think myself superior to dogs and cats and the rats of the world.
Well in essence our basic instincts are still the same from when we were living in caves beating each other with clubs and pointy sticks.
Well in essence our basic instincts are still the same from when we were living in caves beating each other with clubs and pointy sticks.
That's the gap between those of us who evolved further and those of us who didn't. ~;)
I'm still not looking for blondes with blue eyes and huge breasts because my genes would tell me that they were better to look after my numerous offspring that shall once rule the world or something.:dizzy2:
Talking about genes, aren't all humans different anyway?
Where's that individualist movement when you need it. :inquisitive:
That's the gap between those of us who evolved further and those of us who didn't. ~;)
I guess. But our caveman brain is always there telling us to kill and screw.
I'm still not looking for blondes with blue eyes and huge breasts because my genes would tell me that they were better to look after my numerous offspring that shall once rule the world or something.:dizzy2:
Well except for the blonde hair part (I prefer brunettes) I'm down for that kind of girl. :2thumbsup:
Talking about genes, aren't all humans different anyway?
Where's that individualist movement when you need it. :inquisitive:
Yes and no. Some things are the same for all humans. Other are unique to you. Flash fact: Adult identical twins don't have identical DNA. About 1% of our DNA is written as we age, and is unique to every individual. Also identical twins don't have the same finger prints. They generally have the same pattern, just mirrored or reversed.
Ok, so the best solution seems to be to make clones of Beirut and then make the abandoning sod deal with them.
I am with Beirut on this one.
The cavmeman mentalities of some men are just disgusting.
If your mental capability is that of cheating and sleeping around, please make sure you do a vasectomy to hider the "spreading of oats"...
Ok maybe a little harsh... use a contraseption for goodness sakes.
And Husar, sometimes that busty, beautiful blond might be the right one. There are faithful versions of those you know.:beam:
doc_bean
08-06-2007, 10:33
Hmm there's a definite difference between abandoning your kids/pregnant wife and just getting a divorce. Sometimes the second is almost a necessity and while I'd say some people go for that route far too soon, it shouldn't be totally discarded. After all, women cheat as much as men and can be just as guilty of ruining a marriage or messing up the kids (I know some families where the dad is the one responsible for a 'decent' upbringing).
Divorced men often get hit pretty hard, at least around here. I know a guy who can barely afford the heating of his house yet his wife takes the kids on holidays with his money and tries to keep them away from him as much as possible, incl trying to prove that he's 'too poor' (actually that the house he now lives in is too small) to keep the kids, while she's the reason he doesn't have any money. He only gets the kids once every other weekend I believe, the older kids don't come by at all anymore since she's antagonized him so much.
FTR she's the one who left him.
And Husar, sometimes that busty, beautiful blond might be the right one. There are faithful versions of those you know.:beam:
And I've already told my parents that I'm not limiting myself only to "faithful versions". This whole "stick to our group" mentality is something I don't usually approve of.
What is so unmanly about leaving your kids? Spare me the emotional responses and the likes and just provide the cold hard facts.
What is so unmanly about leaving your kids? Spare me the emotional responses and the likes and just provide the cold hard facts.
Well there is leaving and leaving, divorce isn't the same as saying goodbye to any responsibility. At least till the 21th year you are responsible, by law, and that is enough if you ask me. Make sure it reaches that age and you have done your job.
ps, call me old fashioned (Veluwe he ~;)), dad should pay and mom should care.
What is so unmanly about leaving your kids? Spare me the emotional responses and the likes and just provide the cold hard facts.
That's not a fair question. You can't define manliness without getting into an ethereal, emotional, and very subjective discussion.
However, that said, if you do want to play with "cold hard facts", you could say that abandoning your kids puts the continuation of the species at risk as the protector is no longer there to protect and the young are left defenceless, or at least in a less defensible position.
Papewaio
08-07-2007, 03:58
What is so unmanly about leaving your kids? Spare me the emotional responses and the likes and just provide the cold hard facts.
Well using a dictionary it becomes obvious from the definitions.
unmanly: not manly; not characteristic of or befitting a man; weak, timid, or cowardly.
Dishonorable; degrading.
Lacking courage; cowardly.
Regarded as unbecoming to a man.
=][=
So a man who leaves his children is being weak, timid and cowardly.
A child is not mature of mind and body. Hence they are better off if there is a (mature) adult or two or more who look after them.
If you create a child you are responsible to them until they can look after themselves independently. To shirk that responsibility is timid at the least.
If you don't take responsibility for you actions you are not an adult, and as such you should lose all concessions provided by society to adults. I see the rights we have attached to responsibilities, those who are not responsible should not get the rights.
master of the puppets
08-07-2007, 04:56
2 weeks in a 'pound-em-in-the-ass' prison, so that when they are sold to the next guy for a pack of cigarettes then they will know how the mother feels.
plus child support, health insurance for the mother, and a wedding ring welded to his finger.
Well using a dictionary it becomes obvious from the definitions.
unmanly: not manly; not characteristic of or befitting a man; weak, timid, or cowardly.
Dishonorable; degrading.
Lacking courage; cowardly.
Regarded as unbecoming to a man.
=][=
I see. Going by what you put there (which might have been altered to fit your argument) it seems very subjective. And if that definition of the word is subjective, which it is, one could reverse meanings. Perhaps it is honourable to leave one's kids to some; perhaps it takes much courage to leave one's kids, to even think of leaving one's kids.
If you don't take responsibility for you actions you are not an adult,
That phrase is very subjective. What makes an adult? There are many varying degrees of what people think and which they set forth as if it's the ultimate truth regarding the matter.
I have found that there are enough "adults" who behave like simpleminded fools. They lack sound judgment, intellect, are driven by base instincts, irrationality. Is this to be called "adult?" If one goes by the typical subjectivity found in human behaviour, one could call this said behaviour unbefitting of an adult.
It's not like responsibility for your kids is the only thing to gauge regarding being adult or "mature." For instance I have seen many "adults" in real life whom I have engaged in debate. They could not stand being proved wrong and they acted emotionally,...... agitated. You could sense the anger in them (in whatever degree). Yet they are people who have kids and take the responsibility to care for them. Adult? Perhaps, but again responsibility is not all to consider. What I have seen is primitive in nature, and so they will be for probably a long time. Humanity is primitive; in the large picture man is immature, therefore many of humanity are immature.
What does the law say, by the way, regarding being adult?
Papewaio
08-07-2007, 23:49
I see. Going by what you put there (which might have been altered to fit your argument) it seems very subjective.
That statement that I was altering dictionary definitions to suit my argument is very rude.
Simply go to www.dictionary.com
type in: unmanly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unmanly
Look at the two top definitions and guess what, its exactly what I used as the definitions. You should not be so quick to insinuate someone is a liar. Next time get your facts straight before accusing someone of such.
As for the rest of you argument, until you can act civilly I will not give you the time of day let alone respond to your ideas.
Perhaps it is honourable to leave one's kids to some; perhaps it takes much courage to leave one's kids, to even think of leaving one's kids.
Uh... no.
We can pound the philosophy back and forth, we can cite the Hindu texts, wax existentially, and ponder just how many angels can tango on the head of a pin, but in no universe that matters can it be considered manly for a man to abandon his children.
It's not like responsibility for your kids is the only thing to gauge regarding being adult or "mature."
Agreed. Being responsible for your children is not the only gauge of being adult or mature since there are young people who are neither and who have children thelmselves and care for them.
What taking responsibility for your children means, is that you are taking responsibiltiy for your children, which means you are responsible. I'll put more stock in someone who's responsible over "adult or mature" any day.
I know many people, both adult and mature, who aren't worth a nickel.
What does the law say, by the way, regarding being adult?
In Canada, being adult means being eighteen years-old or older. It is a legal definition pertaining to personal rights and personal responsibilities.
That statement that I was altering dictionary definitions to suit my argument is very rude.
Simply go to www.dictionary.com
type in: unmanly
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unmanly
Look at the two top definitions and guess what, its exactly what I used as the definitions. You should not be so quick to insinuate someone is a liar. Next time get your facts straight before accusing someone of such.
As for the rest of you argument, until you can act civilly I will not give you the time of day let alone respond to your ideas.
No offence is meant: I simply stated there is a possibility you have altered the definition to fit your argument. If you would tell me there is a possibility I had changed a definition to suit my argument I would simply inform you that it is indeed a (logical) possibility. I have not implied at all you are a liar. In fact, it is you who are quick to insinuate I am accusing you of being a liar. I do not blame you nor sense the need to quarrel. But I am to point out the facts, and it is apparent your response is loaded with a pathos nature.
KukriKhan
08-08-2007, 00:18
time out.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.