Search Results: wanting someone for their money

Clearly there are no superheros out there with super powers protecting the population from bad people, instead we have laws and a police force for those things. However, the concept of someone taking the law in their own hands when the justice system fails is very believable and so the question is whether or not a vigilante would be a good thing for societies to have or would it lead to larger problems.

Clearly our justice system is not perfect, there are unfortunately people who are above the law, or simply people who have means to get around the wall with their money, influence and power. And there is the matter of the law failing entirely because they release dangerous people out into the world which are bound to do harm again and so forth.

On the other hand, would a single vigilante inspire others to take the law into their own hands? Clearly this can be an issue when you have crazy people wanting to be a superhero when they have a flawed sense of justice. Just look at Goege Zimmerman, the guy had good intentions but the way he went about protecting his community was idiotic, blowing the matter out of proportion.

I had a debate with my mother the other day about related topics as I was trying to explain to her that men can't choose when they become a parent but women can and can do so at any point, even after the child's birth. A lot of the reproductive rights debate seems to centre around giving women free abortions but that's slightly tangential to the core issue; the discrepancy in birth control between the sexes shouldn't mandate that men be held responsible by someone who would usurp their decision on fatherhood. This wouldn't be so pressing if men weren't forced to pay exorbitant amounts for a child they can't/refuse to support in the first place.

Forcing a woman to bring a child to term when she doesn't want to is inextricably and very obviously draconian. Having said that, why should a man - knowing that they cannot/will not be a father - ultimately pay for a child they begged the mother not to have in the first place? Even when you cast the would-be father's ability/intentions aside, parity in this area of law would at the very least dissuade "career mothers" from following through with their decision to use the law as a tool of wealth extraction.

Saying "well he should've just kept it in his pants" is a lazy and somewhat callous argument as it doesn't fully address the complexity of a situation for which the consequences are literally life-altering. Simply put; in an egalitarian society, if I can't force a woman to change her plans on motherhood and have an abortion then she can't force me to distort my own plans on fatherhood and just give her money because of that.

With today's women being strong and independent, throwing unearned money at them undercuts that notion alongside them only paying 30% of taxes but receiving 70% of benefits, them being the majority of graduates (with better grades on too) yet comprising 60%+ of student debt and women somehow making 85% of consumer decisions in spite of the supposed pay gap. Thoughts?