When a man ("dad") impregnates a woman ("mom"), should he have any rights over the unborn baby?
Assumptions:
Mom and dad are unmarried.
Sex was consensual.
Both living in the US.
Abortion is legal.
Questions:
Mom wants to have the child but dad doesn't want do. Should dad have any say in whether or not the baby gets aborted? If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?
Dad wants to have the child but mom doesn't want to. Should dad be able to prevent mom from getting an abortion? Why / why not?
Prompt: The pro-choice movement in the US is sometimes biased in such a way that only mom is supposed to have any 'choice' while dad doesn't get to do any choosing (beyond the fact that he chose to ejaculate inside mom, but in some cases it's not so clear that even this was actually a choice*). While it's perfectly acceptable for mom to exercise her choice in this matter and 'choose not to be a mother,' it's considered quite insensitive for dad to 'choose not to be a father.'
---
*One wouldn't call it a choice if it was a result of an accident (suppose the condom was faulty, or the pill didn't work). For a more extreme example, we might suppose it to have been a result of a deception on mom's part (for instance, she might have tricked dad into thinking she was on the pill when she actually wasn't).
PS: I don't really visit this sub-forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been covered.
--- TLDR: If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?
I actually do feel they should have = rights to the child. Here is the agreement........if Women are allowed to have an abortion without the men's consent then the men can (before the baby is born) have a right to refuse to pay child support.
I can't think of any other way for it to be fair because it is the woman's body but it is the Man's child.
EDIT: though I don't think the man should have any say TOWARDS an abortion. But I think that should be a two way street. Like....if the man wants it and will take care of it without the mother he should be able to keep it. But I don't think anyone should have a say towards an abortion other than the mother (actually I don't think she should have the option of an abortion unless it was rare/incest/life of the mother b/c using abortin as late minute contraseptive feels wrong to me)
The way I feel is that if a man has no say in whether or not the pregnancy is terminated, but I would leave a woman in a heartbeat who chose to abort my child against my wishes.
Mom wants to have the child but dad doesn't want do. Should dad have any say in whether or not the baby gets aborted? If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?
The father should have the option to opt out of child support, losing parental rights in the process. The choice to have the child is hers and hers alone (see next question) and so the father should not be held responsible for the decision of someone else. The mother has the right to opt out, and so it is only fair to give father the same right since it can be done without impinging on the mother's rights.
Dad wants to have the child but mom doesn't want to. Should dad be able to prevent mom from getting an abortion? Why / why not?
Absolutely not, for the same reason abortion should be legal in the first place. The mother should have the unilateral decision about what happens to her own body. You cannot give that right to another person without facing some incredibly unpleasant implications.
I've been here awhile, and I haven't seen this topic covered. I'm sure many of the usual liberals that I tend to agreement will have a problem with my position, so this should be interesting.
Abortion is quite the contentious issue in the States.
The rights of the father are based on the mutual bond between the mother and the father. The father has his say between the two on how to handle the pregnancy. The truth is the father has a lot of legal factors going for him to dodge responsibility over the child. You see a lot of deadbeat/absentee fathers around, not so much with mothers. Mothers of course have to go through the pregnancy to bring a child to term and then go through labor, which causes pain seldom experienced by men. This includes health risks, loss of job time, changes in insurance, financial, emotional, and legal responsibility not necessarily shouldered by the man. It is these issues in addition to the privacy issues of a woman undergoing the internal medical condition of pregnancy that abortion is legal in the United States. The woman has full legal control over the decision.
Unfortunately for men, the burdens taken on by the mother means women have more leverage over child custody cases. Biological fathers are also responsible for child support payments if they are found legally responsible for the pregnancy. Broken condoms and deceptive statements of birth control use are valid arguments against legal responsibility, but are even more difficult to prove than obtaining a paternity test from a father that stays around to be brought to court.
The man doesn't have to carry the baby to term - it's absolutely the woman's final choice. That said, I do believe that a man should not be forced to pay child support on a child that he did not want carried to term.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
My Moderator Helpdesk
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
I think the man should most definitely have to pay child support. A man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex.
I think the man should most definitely have to pay child support. A man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex.
If you're a pro-life conservative, then I see nothing wrong with your reasoning. But, in my example, I said that we are assuming abortion to be legal i.e. we are assuming a pro-choice society. In this case, it seems that 'choice' is quite unbalanced between mom and dad.
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
If you're a pro-life conservative, then I see nothing wrong with your reasoning. But, in my example, I said that we are assuming abortion to be legal i.e. we are assuming a pro-choice society. In this case, it seems that 'choice' is quite unbalanced between mom and dad.
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
Because the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
Because the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
I think its been pretty well uniform in the thread that no one thinks the father should have the ability to terminate the pregancy. Its also been slightly more gray but also uniform that the woman should be allowed to have the abortion even though the father wants the baby.
but the question now is rather should the father be able to shrink out of all responsiblity like say "oh your prego? Yeah I don't wanna have anything to do with the baby. Bye!" and leave.
At first glance most people wanna say no........until they realize thats exactly what women get to do in a totally pro-choice inviroment.
Because the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
Well, a moment ago you said that "If [dad] didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." Now, why can't I argue that if mom doesn't want to go through the traumatizing experience of bringing the child to term then she shouldn't have had sex?
My question is: Why is mom allowed to 'opt-out' while dad isn't? Given that the pregnancy is a result of a choice they both made.
Well, a moment ago you said that "If [dad] didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." Now, why can't I argue that if mom doesn't want to go through the traumatizing experience of bringing the child to term then she shouldn't have had sex?
Because you are not forcing the man to give up his body.
It is my belief that forcing a woman to give birth is worse than forcing a man to pay child support.
So your real question is why do we as society allow the government to force males to pay child support for a child they did not want.
I beleive it is to unburden the state. If fathers could shirk the responsibility of their actions you would definitely see a rise in orphans, abortions, and government assistance. It would create a huge increase in the welfare state.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
Because you are not forcing the man to give up his body.
It is my belief that forcing a woman to give birth is worse than forcing a man to pay child support.
I completely agree (as does everybody else in this thread, I think). Forcing a woman to give birth is completely unreasonable.
So your real question is why do we as society all the government to force males to pay child support for a child they did not want.
Yes! That is my real question.
I beleive it is to unburden the state. If fathers could shirk the responsibility of their actions you would definitely see a rise in orphans, abortions, and government assistance. It would create a huge increase in the welfare state.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
It is exactly this line of reasoning that I am trying to call into question. Why do you say that the burden on the state is caused by the father's irresponsibility? The burden on the state is caused equally by the father and the mother.
I completely agree (as does everybody else in this thread, I think). Forcing a woman to give birth is completely unreasonable.
Yes! That is my real question.
It is exactly this line of reasoning that I am trying to call into question. Why do you say that the burden on the state is caused by the father's irresponsibility? The burden on the state is caused equally by the father and the mother.
You can call it the mother's and the father's irresponsibility if you want. Either way which is better for society
1.) Parents that must be responsible for their children.
Or
2.) Parents that can be responsible for their children
If you agree with number one then you would have a hard time arguing that men can get out of child support by saying "I don't want too," in the whiniest voice possible.
If you believe in number two then you believe in placing a burden on the state to take of children that the state had no part in creating. What gives us the right to burden the taxpayers.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
Child support is a civil matter that varies from state to state. It is negotiated in the favor of the new child born a US citizen dependent on legal guardians. In many cases, the mother is the care provider as well as the financial provider and the father is only obliged to financially provide through child support as they are found to be legally responsible for the child. It can and does go the other way, with the father being the care and financial provider while the mother (or the state if the mother is institutionalized) is on the line for child support payments.
If the woman was raped or has a medical condition that would kill her if she went through with it, I don't think that the man should have the legal binding right to make her go through with it.
Really, though, I think it is up to the man to sit his girl down, talk to her face to face, and convince her that he wants the child and will take care of it. If he can't do that, what's the point of legally forcing an irrational woman to have a 9 month pregnancy followed by a painful childbirth? Women give themselves emergency abortions all the time. It's not legal... but they do.
I believe the woman controls what happens to her body and when, this goes for sex, abortion, or having a baby. A man can suggest his desires, but that doesnt mean the woman has to follow what the man wants. Now once the baby is born and the woman expects child support from the father, that father should have equal say in that childs life. That means what schools and what activities that child joins. The father should also have the right to know (and be shown proof) the money being sent is being used on the child in some way. Rent, food, clothes, etc. Something that benefits the child. If the woman doesnt want to have the man have any say or prove to him what the money is going for, she can always absolve him of his parental rights and in doing so child support. The woman should not be able to hold a man hostage for 18 years with the man getting no say in any aspect of the child. That to me is just as criminal as the man not paying child support.
On a side note, I have always been dumb founded how the American court system handles dead beat dads. If a dad doesnt pay, he gets thrown in jail and in most cases loses what gainful employment they had. If they are not making enough out of jail, I never understood how they can make enough while in jail. Just baffling.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
I dont know where you live, but I find this to be the opposite. The more responsibility piled on someone, leads to less desire to work. Especially when it comes to children. A single person will work 60-70 hours a week. A family man doesnt/cant work those hours and still be an attentive father/spouse. A single person wont walk away from overtime, a family man will. Just to spend time with his children.
You can call it the mother's and the father's irresponsibility if you want. Either way which is better for society
1.) Parents that must be responsible for their children.
Or
2.) Parents that can be responsible for their children
If you agree with number one then you would have a hard time arguing that men can get out of child support by saying "I don't want too," in the whiniest voice possible.
If you believe in number two then you believe in placing a burden on the state to take of children that the state had no part in creating. What gives us the right to burden the taxpayers.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
There are two other options: 1. Abortion, and 2. Adoption.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
You can't under the idealogy that abortion is open to anyone for the simple reason of "I don't wanna baby". In that line of the sense its just as whiny. "Oh no I go through 9 months of pregancy and end up with a loose ******." Don't have sex! if that is the exact same argument that "Men need to pay child support b/c they were irresponsible" then I wanna hear the same people say "women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions b/c they were irresponsible".
Under what reason is a woman's pregnacy worse than 18 years of child support for an un-wanted baby when both people were in on the act?
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
Getting an abortion isn't as easy as signing a document and going on your merry way. The woman bears the physical cost whatever her choice is, and the man does not.
So I don't think those situations are totally equivalent.
There is always going to be some inequality for a few reasons:
1. The woman physically bears the child or undergoes a procedure. It is not a painless or easy decision for a woman either way.
2. The woman cannot shirk responsibility in the way a man can. A woman is always associated with her baby. She can't have a baby and then pretend it isn't hers.
She can't skip town once she discovers she's pregnant and hope it just never catches up with her. She cannot get a man pregnant who doesn't know her name and leave him with the baby and no way to find her.
The choice whether to get an abortion should be the woman's alone.
Also, the "sperm burglar" type case is exceedingly rare. There are not many women who lie about being on birth control, and far fewer who would do something crazy like impregnating herself with the results of oral sex.
That said, I'm not sure whether the current child support mechanism works the way it ought to. On the one hand, I do see some merit to the idea that it encourages couples to stay together and that this is good for children. And that children should get support from somewhere - and it doesn't seem right that a man is able to go around impregnating woman without bearing any cost and that society should pay to raise his children.
Once or twice can be a mistake, but if a man has 5 children by different women it's not because he's getting unlucky with birth control. And I think he should share the cost of raising them with those women and with society.
On the other hand, if a pregnancy is an accident (broken condom or what have you) and the man would want the woman to get an abortion and she doesn't want to, it doesn't seem entirely fair that he should be on the hook for child support.
I think an ideal solution would weigh those varying considerations rather than simply giving men the ability to shirk child support totally or always be on the hook for the full amount. Perhaps a man should not have the ability to completely avoid child support, or the amount he's able to avoid should be limited in some way (i.e. a man with five children would have to pay more per child than a man who only has one).
Of course, this would also be a situation where the social safety net is stronger so that a working class woman who doesn't get child support isn't screwed.
Due to innate structural and functional differences between the male and the female, there are differences, inequalities even, in the role in which the male and female in the birthing and rearing of children.
I think men do have rights, but not to the extent that women do; but, likewise, both men and women have responsibilities as to the whole baby making process, with women having more responsibilities as well.
I don't believe you should be avoiding the consequences of your actions or not owning up to your stuff. I do, however, hold that sex, while it has functions other than procreation and I'm all for it, should be within a framework that is stable, such as a loving, trusting, all-enduring relationship.
Quote from beast89 »
TLDR: If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?
Well, I think this would be obviated by not having sex or at least by having sex within particular frameworks, including established legal ones.
For mum not wanting the baby but the father does, according to my understanding of the laws (by which I mean more than legislation) in the US, the bun is considered a part of the mum. She may terminate the pregnancy should she wish to.
For dad not wanting that baby but the mother does, again, the law is very much in favor of the mother. She can sue the pronucleus donor for stuff.
If this is about abortion (which it isn't), I'm all for it, though I'd rather not see or know it happen. It's been documented that, even in accidental pregnancies, as opposed to pregnancies involving crime, there's a massive element of shame or guilt.
@ermir You must really live in fairy tale land. Fathers can have their paychecks stripped to the point of getting 65$ left to survive off of. And you can get incarcerated for not paying child support.
Im sorry but in the real world child support payments can ruin you financially or get you in put in jail. The women doesnt bear a harsher burden then a man who is hit with child support.
As far as the issue at topic, I believe the father should have to be notified before an abortion can take place, and he should have to consent to the abortion and if the abortion happens with out this, he should be able to sue the women.
The very issue of child support throws out the whole idea of privacy, the government has their hands in the matter by the very fact that the father is financially responsible for the baby.
Edit: I also think whatever institution provided the abortion should also be liable to legal damages as well.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
@ermir You must really live in fairy tale land. Fathers can have their paychecks stripped to the point of getting 65$ left to survive off of. And you can get incarcerated for not paying child support.
Im sorry but in the real world child support payments can ruin you financially or get you in put in jail. The women doesnt bear a harsher burden then a man who is hit with child support.
As much as I support dad's 'right to choice,' i.e. the right to opt-out of child-support, I'm not sure if you're portraying the facts accurately. As I understand the situation, although child-support payments vary from state to state, in most cases it is around 25% of dad's income.
As far as the issue at topic, I believe the father should have to be notified before an abortion can take place, and he should have to consent to the abortion and if the abortion happens with out this, he should be able to sue the women.
Well, you're the first person in this thread to support the idea that mom needs to have dad's consent before she can get an abortion. I think your's is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't agree with it. What exactly do you think he should be able to sue for?
As much as I support dad's 'right to choice,' i.e. the right to opt-out of child-support, I'm not sure if you're portraying the facts accurately. As I understand the situation, although child-support payments vary from state to state, in most cases it is around 25% of dad's income.
Well, you're the first person in this thread to support the idea that mom needs to have dad's consent before she can get an abortion. I think your's is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't agree with it. What exactly do you think he should be able to sue for?
The dads income is only part of the formula, the needs of the child are also part of the rubric.
Even at a low rate of 25% that's still devastating to someone, especially someone with a low income.
And yes my opinion is always in the minority on these forums, they arent exactly filled with a balanced number viewpoints.
Don't you see that the whole aim of Moderators is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make infractions literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Assumptions:
Questions:
Prompt: The pro-choice movement in the US is sometimes biased in such a way that only mom is supposed to have any 'choice' while dad doesn't get to do any choosing (beyond the fact that he chose to ejaculate inside mom, but in some cases it's not so clear that even this was actually a choice*). While it's perfectly acceptable for mom to exercise her choice in this matter and 'choose not to be a mother,' it's considered quite insensitive for dad to 'choose not to be a father.'
---
*One wouldn't call it a choice if it was a result of an accident (suppose the condom was faulty, or the pill didn't work). For a more extreme example, we might suppose it to have been a result of a deception on mom's part (for instance, she might have tricked dad into thinking she was on the pill when she actually wasn't).
PS: I don't really visit this sub-forum, so please forgive me if this topic has already been covered.
---
TLDR: If mom decides to have the baby agains dad's will, should he be forced to pay child support? Why / why not?
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
I can't think of any other way for it to be fair because it is the woman's body but it is the Man's child.
EDIT: though I don't think the man should have any say TOWARDS an abortion. But I think that should be a two way street. Like....if the man wants it and will take care of it without the mother he should be able to keep it. But I don't think anyone should have a say towards an abortion other than the mother (actually I don't think she should have the option of an abortion unless it was rare/incest/life of the mother b/c using abortin as late minute contraseptive feels wrong to me)
I've been here awhile, and I haven't seen this topic covered. I'm sure many of the usual liberals that I tend to agreement will have a problem with my position, so this should be interesting.
The rights of the father are based on the mutual bond between the mother and the father. The father has his say between the two on how to handle the pregnancy. The truth is the father has a lot of legal factors going for him to dodge responsibility over the child. You see a lot of deadbeat/absentee fathers around, not so much with mothers. Mothers of course have to go through the pregnancy to bring a child to term and then go through labor, which causes pain seldom experienced by men. This includes health risks, loss of job time, changes in insurance, financial, emotional, and legal responsibility not necessarily shouldered by the man. It is these issues in addition to the privacy issues of a woman undergoing the internal medical condition of pregnancy that abortion is legal in the United States. The woman has full legal control over the decision.
Unfortunately for men, the burdens taken on by the mother means women have more leverage over child custody cases. Biological fathers are also responsible for child support payments if they are found legally responsible for the pregnancy. Broken condoms and deceptive statements of birth control use are valid arguments against legal responsibility, but are even more difficult to prove than obtaining a paternity test from a father that stays around to be brought to court.
Currently Playing:
Legacy: Something U/W Controlish
EDH Cube
Hypercube! A New EDH Deck Every Week(ish)!
So far, nobody has argued against dad's right to deny child support. Any takers?
EDIT: I expected that pro-life conservaties and extreme pro-choice liberals would both argue against the dad's right to deny child support.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
If you're a pro-life conservative, then I see nothing wrong with your reasoning. But, in my example, I said that we are assuming abortion to be legal i.e. we are assuming a pro-choice society. In this case, it seems that 'choice' is quite unbalanced between mom and dad.
You say that "a man shouldn't just be able to get women pregnant and then shirk all responsibility. If he didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." But mom certainly has a choice to 'shirk all responsibility' by getting an abortion. Couldn't the same argument be made against mom i.e. that if she didn't want to have a kid then she shouldn't have had sex? Why is she allowed to choose to 'shirk all responsibility' while dad has no such choice?
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
Because the Dad doesn't have to go through a traumatizing experience to bring the child to term. To say that the father and mother are equal in a pregnancy is obviously untrue.
I think its been pretty well uniform in the thread that no one thinks the father should have the ability to terminate the pregancy. Its also been slightly more gray but also uniform that the woman should be allowed to have the abortion even though the father wants the baby.
but the question now is rather should the father be able to shrink out of all responsiblity like say "oh your prego? Yeah I don't wanna have anything to do with the baby. Bye!" and leave.
At first glance most people wanna say no........until they realize thats exactly what women get to do in a totally pro-choice inviroment.
Well, a moment ago you said that "If [dad] didn't want to have a kid, he could have most definitely refused to have sex." Now, why can't I argue that if mom doesn't want to go through the traumatizing experience of bringing the child to term then she shouldn't have had sex?
My question is: Why is mom allowed to 'opt-out' while dad isn't? Given that the pregnancy is a result of a choice they both made.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
Because you are not forcing the man to give up his body.
It is my belief that forcing a woman to give birth is worse than forcing a man to pay child support.
So your real question is why do we as society allow the government to force males to pay child support for a child they did not want.
I beleive it is to unburden the state. If fathers could shirk the responsibility of their actions you would definitely see a rise in orphans, abortions, and government assistance. It would create a huge increase in the welfare state.
Something that responsibility does create in a person is a drive to work.
I completely agree (as does everybody else in this thread, I think). Forcing a woman to give birth is completely unreasonable.
Yes! That is my real question.
It is exactly this line of reasoning that I am trying to call into question. Why do you say that the burden on the state is caused by the father's irresponsibility? The burden on the state is caused equally by the father and the mother.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
You can call it the mother's and the father's irresponsibility if you want. Either way which is better for society
1.) Parents that must be responsible for their children.
Or
2.) Parents that can be responsible for their children
If you agree with number one then you would have a hard time arguing that men can get out of child support by saying "I don't want too," in the whiniest voice possible.
If you believe in number two then you believe in placing a burden on the state to take of children that the state had no part in creating. What gives us the right to burden the taxpayers.
If you can give me another option i would gladly discuss that as well.
Really, though, I think it is up to the man to sit his girl down, talk to her face to face, and convince her that he wants the child and will take care of it. If he can't do that, what's the point of legally forcing an irrational woman to have a 9 month pregnancy followed by a painful childbirth? Women give themselves emergency abortions all the time. It's not legal... but they do.
On a side note, I have always been dumb founded how the American court system handles dead beat dads. If a dad doesnt pay, he gets thrown in jail and in most cases loses what gainful employment they had. If they are not making enough out of jail, I never understood how they can make enough while in jail. Just baffling.
I dont know where you live, but I find this to be the opposite. The more responsibility piled on someone, leads to less desire to work. Especially when it comes to children. A single person will work 60-70 hours a week. A family man doesnt/cant work those hours and still be an attentive father/spouse. A single person wont walk away from overtime, a family man will. Just to spend time with his children.
There are two other options: 1. Abortion, and 2. Adoption.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
You can't under the idealogy that abortion is open to anyone for the simple reason of "I don't wanna baby". In that line of the sense its just as whiny. "Oh no I go through 9 months of pregancy and end up with a loose ******." Don't have sex! if that is the exact same argument that "Men need to pay child support b/c they were irresponsible" then I wanna hear the same people say "women shouldn't be allowed to get abortions b/c they were irresponsible".
Under what reason is a woman's pregnacy worse than 18 years of child support for an un-wanted baby when both people were in on the act?
Getting an abortion isn't as easy as signing a document and going on your merry way. The woman bears the physical cost whatever her choice is, and the man does not.
So I don't think those situations are totally equivalent.
There is always going to be some inequality for a few reasons:
1. The woman physically bears the child or undergoes a procedure. It is not a painless or easy decision for a woman either way.
2. The woman cannot shirk responsibility in the way a man can. A woman is always associated with her baby. She can't have a baby and then pretend it isn't hers.
She can't skip town once she discovers she's pregnant and hope it just never catches up with her. She cannot get a man pregnant who doesn't know her name and leave him with the baby and no way to find her.
The choice whether to get an abortion should be the woman's alone.
Also, the "sperm burglar" type case is exceedingly rare. There are not many women who lie about being on birth control, and far fewer who would do something crazy like impregnating herself with the results of oral sex.
That said, I'm not sure whether the current child support mechanism works the way it ought to. On the one hand, I do see some merit to the idea that it encourages couples to stay together and that this is good for children. And that children should get support from somewhere - and it doesn't seem right that a man is able to go around impregnating woman without bearing any cost and that society should pay to raise his children.
Once or twice can be a mistake, but if a man has 5 children by different women it's not because he's getting unlucky with birth control. And I think he should share the cost of raising them with those women and with society.
On the other hand, if a pregnancy is an accident (broken condom or what have you) and the man would want the woman to get an abortion and she doesn't want to, it doesn't seem entirely fair that he should be on the hook for child support.
I think an ideal solution would weigh those varying considerations rather than simply giving men the ability to shirk child support totally or always be on the hook for the full amount. Perhaps a man should not have the ability to completely avoid child support, or the amount he's able to avoid should be limited in some way (i.e. a man with five children would have to pay more per child than a man who only has one).
Of course, this would also be a situation where the social safety net is stronger so that a working class woman who doesn't get child support isn't screwed.
I think men do have rights, but not to the extent that women do; but, likewise, both men and women have responsibilities as to the whole baby making process, with women having more responsibilities as well.
I don't believe you should be avoiding the consequences of your actions or not owning up to your stuff. I do, however, hold that sex, while it has functions other than procreation and I'm all for it, should be within a framework that is stable, such as a loving, trusting, all-enduring relationship.
Well, I think this would be obviated by not having sex or at least by having sex within particular frameworks, including established legal ones.
For mum not wanting the baby but the father does, according to my understanding of the laws (by which I mean more than legislation) in the US, the bun is considered a part of the mum. She may terminate the pregnancy should she wish to.
For dad not wanting that baby but the mother does, again, the law is very much in favor of the mother. She can sue the pronucleus donor for stuff.
If this is about abortion (which it isn't), I'm all for it, though I'd rather not see or know it happen. It's been documented that, even in accidental pregnancies, as opposed to pregnancies involving crime, there's a massive element of shame or guilt.
Im sorry but in the real world child support payments can ruin you financially or get you in put in jail. The women doesnt bear a harsher burden then a man who is hit with child support.
As far as the issue at topic, I believe the father should have to be notified before an abortion can take place, and he should have to consent to the abortion and if the abortion happens with out this, he should be able to sue the women.
The very issue of child support throws out the whole idea of privacy, the government has their hands in the matter by the very fact that the father is financially responsible for the baby.
Edit: I also think whatever institution provided the abortion should also be liable to legal damages as well.
As much as I support dad's 'right to choice,' i.e. the right to opt-out of child-support, I'm not sure if you're portraying the facts accurately. As I understand the situation, although child-support payments vary from state to state, in most cases it is around 25% of dad's income.
Well, you're the first person in this thread to support the idea that mom needs to have dad's consent before she can get an abortion. I think your's is very much a minority opinion and I certainly don't agree with it. What exactly do you think he should be able to sue for?
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
The dads income is only part of the formula, the needs of the child are also part of the rubric.
Even at a low rate of 25% that's still devastating to someone, especially someone with a low income.
And yes my opinion is always in the minority on these forums, they arent exactly filled with a balanced number viewpoints.
And what would they be hit with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrongful_death_claim