I know those type girls too. They wanted those children and either dont know who got them knocked up, or mom and dad said they were not taking care of it, or a combo of both.
I know girls I grew up with that gave babies up for adoption that do the same thing every year.
The bottom line is, abortion is the 'easy' way out of a potential bad situation. I would much rather see a girl get an abortion and have to live with heart ache once a year then bring another child into being that wont be taken care of and possibly become a burden to society.
I really object to the word easy in your description and i wish it wasn't so easy for you to dismiss the real pain that women feel when they are pressured to abort a child. Yes some women are pressured into having abortions. Did you know that the overwhelming reason why women get abortions is financial insecurity. A pregnant woman can and some do loose their jobs due to their pregnancies. If financial insecurity is the major factor in abortions then i know what we should do give women more economic uncertainty. What a great solution.
It's an economic cop out as compared to dealing with all the issues of a 9 month pregnancies, it's easy mode. Lazy=!easy.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
A man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
A man has the right to know what a woman will do in the case of a pregnancy prior to sex, and her upholding that part of the contract within reason prior to sex. A woman being able to make a reversal on a decision while being pregnant is hypocrisy in the instance of accidental pregnancy and gives a false sense of security to some men.
Formalizing the process also makes it so that the woman knows what kind of man she's sleeping with, meaning she knows for a fact under writing that the man will not take care of the child nor see it nor have any custody.
This is a good answer. I would accept a formalized agreement before sex as a way for a male to protect his intended parenting decisions.
But any male that does not sign the contract is financially responsible and must provide actual child rearing.
A man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
I really like your suggestion, but I think you've got it completely backwards. I think that a woman should be able to force the man to pay child support only if he previously signed a legally binding contract that he wants to have a child with this woman. In today's society, probably 99% of sex that is had outside of marriage is not with a goal to procreate.
In sum, I think that only in the presence of a contract should the man be forced to pay child support while in the absence of a contract the woman's options by default should be single mother, adoption or abortion. Unless you are in a marriage or a civil union or some such institution (legally defined), you should not presume that sex is for the purpose of procreation.
A man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
A man has the right to know what a woman will do in the case of a pregnancy prior to sex, and her upholding that part of the contract within reason prior to sex. A woman being able to make a reversal on a decision while being pregnant is hypocrisy in the instance of accidental pregnancy and gives a false sense of security to some men.
Formalizing the process also makes it so that the woman knows what kind of man she's sleeping with, meaning she knows for a fact under writing that the man will not take care of the child nor see it nor have any custody.
I like it but....in reality it won't work. No one is gonna do a bunch of paperwork before having sex. Reckless sex (which is what causes these unwatned pregancies more than simply failed contraception) is already reckless and will probably ignore all the legal jargan above.
I know those type girls too. They wanted those children and either dont know who got them knocked up, or mom and dad said they were not taking care of it, or a combo of both.
I know girls I grew up with that gave babies up for adoption that do the same thing every year.
The bottom line is, abortion is the 'easy' way out of a potential bad situation. I would much rather see a girl get an abortion and have to live with heart ache once a year then bring another child into being that wont be taken care of and possibly become a burden to society.
I really object to the word easy in your description and i wish it wasn't so easy for you to dismiss the real pain that women feel when they are pressured to abort a child. Yes some women are pressured into having abortions. Did you know that the overwhelming reason why women get abortions is financial insecurity. A pregnant woman can and some do loose their jobs due to their pregnancies. If financial insecurity is the major factor in abortions then i know what we should do give women more economic uncertainty. What a great solution.
You can object all you want. When the choices are abortion, have the child and rear it, and have the child and put it up for adoption, abortion is the easy way out. For as difficult as you seem to think abortion is, raising a child is much harder. Going thru the pain of having the child and then having to give it away, even more pain.
@ Captain Morgan, if the laws and rules for adoption were different in this country I would agree with you. For the most part, adoption in this country is a money making venture for everyone involved except for the parents gaining a child. Those people are raked over the coals, squeezed dry financially, and then asked to jump thru hoops in hopes to get the child they wish. There are so many kids in the system now that are unwanted or cant be placed for what ever reason. I wouldnt wish anyone to add to that.
There was a running joke in the late 80s, early 90s that you needed to bring your lawyer on dates to make sure everyone knows where everyone stands when it comes to sex.
25% at minimum is not a small amount, again I dont see how anyone who has fiscal responsibility for themselves can not understand this.
It depends entirely on how much money you make relative to the cost of living where you are, doesn't it?
Not every man paying child support is working a minimum wage (or near minimum wage) job making under $20,000/year. For those men, yes, 25% is more of a burden than on a wealthier man, because they have less discretionary income.
But at any rate, I never gave a specific figure. You're attributing 25% to me when I never said 25%, I just gave a framework for how they ought to work.
For me right now, yes, 25% would be quite a burden. But I know plenty of men who could easily afford that amount. And there are plenty of men who make more than enough money to provide child support for their children and live comfortably themselves and refuse to pay it, not because they're being impoverished by it, but just because they don't want to.
At any rate, I think there's plenty of room for adjusting the amounts that are required based on the number of children, the father's income and so forth. Like I said before, I don't know what the optimal scale of child support payments would be, nor do I think the current system is perfect.
I don't think, however, that just because a woman is able to choose to have an abortion that a man should have no obligation to share the cost of raising his children.
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?
I agree, with a few exceptions. Now I don't know about what kind of lawsuit that would be, but I definitely agree that the father should have a say in what happens to the baby.
Assuming that the pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, and carrying and having the baby would pose no threat to the mother's life, I absolutely agree that the mother should have the father's consent for an abortion.
Yes it's her body, but she's not the only one involved is she? He had a part in making it happen, and there's the baby's life at stake as well. What, she should just get to decide for all three people because she doesn't like being pregnant?
A buddy of mine got his girlfriend pregnant, but she didn't tell him at first. It was almost two months later that she told him was that she had gotten pregnant, but that she also had a miscarriage. That was hard enough for him to hear, but a few months later though we found out that the ***** lied, and had gotten an abortion.
A part of him, what would have been his child, was killed and he didn't even know about it until after the fact. It's insane to me that there are people who think that because it's her body, she has every right to make that choice without even telling the father.
I mean, if a woman was pregnant with your child, and she didn't want it, you don't think you should have any right to say what happens to it? Seriously?
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:
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?
In this instance I fully believe that the man should have the power to take legal action to stop an abortion. Both parties entered into this ack knowing that the possible outcome of this was being pregnant, regardless of which side is forced to shoulder the greater burden. In this instance it would be unjust to only way the mothers feelings in the equation when the baby is equally the fathers.
There would need to be limitations on this, such as being able to prove that the child were his along with not being able to stop the abortion if giving birth or carrying the baby to term would endanger the life of the mother.
Too much in this country the rights of the father are overlooked in favor of the mother. If you want to see one of the greatest cases of discrimination than you need to look no farther than the standard custody hearing in the US, where the mother will almost always win out over the father, even if she has no paying job at the time or no ability to take care of the child in question.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
The way I see it, after the pregnancy, both the man and the woman involved should discuss whether or not they want the child to be carried to term. Both parties involved would have to sign an agreement over how the pregnancy is to unfold. If the man is the one making the motion for a contract, then inaction from the woman involved leads to clause 3 or 2 is assumed depending on the man's wishes. If the woman is the one making the motion for the contract, inaction from the man leads to clause 1 or 4 to be assumed depending on the wishes of the woman. If nobody makes a contract, then clause 1 is assumed. This leads us to 4 different scenarios:
1. Neither wants the baby. In this case, the baby is aborted and both are required to pay half of the abortion costs.
2. The woman wants the baby but the man does not. In this scenario, both parties agree that the man revokes his rights as a father and subsequently does not have to pay child support for the kid. If there was a discussion about abortion within the first three months of the pregnancy and there was no agreement made and no abortion carried out, this is the assumed outcome of the treaty.
3. The man wants the child but the woman does not. In this scenario, both parties pay 50% of the abortion costs. It is unfortunate, but this is the only way to prevent men from pretending to want the kid so as to get out of paying the cost of an abortion.
4. Both want the child. No need to sign anything.
Because of this, only scenarios 1 & 2 need to be covered by a post-pregnancy agreement. I can't see a reason this would cause a problem with anybody, both parties get what they want and each pays the necessary fees as is fair to what is in their best interests. Men cannot get out of child support payments by not responding to a summons but they are able to initiate for a contract to discuss whether or not they will be paying child support.
The only issue this does not solve is a woman keeping a pregnancy hidden from the man in order to get him to pay child support for a child he did not want. There is no good way (from what I can see) to prevent this from being a burden on the mother to find a deadbeat father, but at the same time clause 1 or 4 is assumed if there is no action from the man. Perhaps we should require mothers to decide whether or not they want the father in their life. It's unfortunate there will be extra work and that means the woman will have to go out of their way to get the dads to decide what they want, but it would prevent fathers from being surprised by women coming to them with a baby and expecting him to pay child support when he never wanted it to be carried to term.
A man should have the right to enter a contract with a woman and denounce all children born to her by him if she signs the contract without duress and it be legally binding. It would really piss off social conservatives and liberals and probably never happen, but it's the only way to really "force" a woman into anything by making sure that if she engages in sex with the male she has to commit to raising it alone, adoption, or abortion. It gives males an ejaculation ejection seat for a failed contraceptive. Especially in the cases where women may say "Yea I'd abort or give it up for adoption," then get the warm fuzzies and want to keep the baby. It would send a message to young women to also be more responsible when choosing who to sleep with, and sends a clear signal to young girls who sleep with men because they "feel they'll be taken care of."
That contract would be unenforceable. The father's legal responsibilities are to the child and not to the mother. She can't sign away the child's rights preemptively like that.
You guys keep making the same mistake over and over in this discussion. You make this a father vs mother issue and forget that the legal framework is based about the rights of the child. You get sidetracked by the sociatal issue of the mother usually getting primary custody of the child and the unfortunate side effect of the parents too often using the child as a weapon against each other.
That contract would be unenforceable. The father's legal responsibilities are to the child and not to the mother. She can't sign away the child's rights preemptively like that.
You guys keep making the same mistake over and over in this discussion. You make this a father vs mother issue and forget that the legal framework is based about the rights of the child. You get sidetracked by the sociatal issue of the mother usually getting primary custody of the child and the unfortunate side effect of the parents too often using the child as a weapon against each other.
The problem is in America the father has essentially no rights to the child. All the male figure is seen as in the court system is a money machine.
The mother has all the power over the child. She can be a strung out crack whore turning tricks for hits and it will take an army of lawyers and a tall stack of cash to get that child away from her.
In my opinion this kind of conversation cant even take place until Child support laws have a major overhaul. I can think of 2 scenarios off the top of my head that happen frequently and are just plain wrong.
#1. Father loses his job. The way child support laws work is they set the monthly rate based on what the father is making at the time of court appearance. This is what happened to Terrel Owens (NFL wide receiver). Basically he had his child support set based on his multi-million dollar contract and now he doesnt play and therefore makes nothing. But every month he owes thousands of dollars in child support.
#2. Man turns out to not be the father after child support is set. It is becoming a common occurrence for men who know they are not the father of a child to still be forced to pay child support. If a couple has a child and the man assumes his partner was faithful he would most likely go along as the father. Now a few months/years later things go sour and they part. The court assigns some level of child support and then the mother says "by the way I cheated on you that might not even be your kid". In this case... too bad so sad for the man. It is extremely difficult to have another court appearance and have the child support removed.
That contract would be unenforceable. The father's legal responsibilities are to the child and not to the mother. She can't sign away the child's rights preemptively like that.
You guys keep making the same mistake over and over in this discussion. You make this a father vs mother issue and forget that the legal framework is based about the rights of the child. You get sidetracked by the sociatal issue of the mother usually getting primary custody of the child and the unfortunate side effect of the parents too often using the child as a weapon against each other.
The problem is in America the father has essentially no rights to the child. All the male figure is seen as in the court system is a money machine.
The mother has all the power over the child. She can be a strung out crack whore turning tricks for hits and it will take an army of lawyers and a tall stack of cash to get that child away from her.
That's a related but ultimately separate issue. This discussion is primarily about fathers who do not want to have anything to do with the child to begin with.
You guys keep making the same mistake over and over in this discussion. You make this a father vs mother issue and forget that the legal framework is based about the rights of the child.
The father's rights get hand waved away with "it's about the rights of the child," but the mother's rights don't get the same treatment.
Aborting your child is not "in the child's best interests." Adopting out your child to have it live in the foster care system is not "in the child's best interests." Abandoning your child at a hospital or at a church is not "in the child's best interests." Yet these are all things the mother has every right to do. Is it about the rights of the child or isn't it?
That's a related but ultimately separate issue. This discussion is primarily about fathers who do not want to have anything to do with the child to begin with.
Not going to deny there are males like that. But I would say those are the minority.
What surprises me are the woman who dont want anything to do with the children they carry.
Still, give the man a few more rights and you will see more men wanting to have something to do with their children.
Aborting your child is not "in the child's best interests." Adopting out your child to have it live in the foster care system is not "in the child's best interests." Abandoning your child at a hospital or at a church is not "in the child's best interests." Yet these are all things the mother has every right to do. Is it about the rights of the child or isn't it?
Abortion, no, but those other courses could be in the child's best interest, depending on how crappy the mother's situation is.
Of course, there's a bigger question of why the mother's situation is so crappy, but that's beyond the scope of this thread, I think.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That's a related but ultimately separate issue. This discussion is primarily about fathers who do not want to have anything to do with the child to begin with.
Not going to deny there are males like that. But I would say those are the minority.
What surprises me are the woman who dont want anything to do with the children they carry.
Still, give the man a few more rights and you will see more men wanting to have something to do with their children.
I thought this thread is about men who would prefer if the woman aborted the baby rather than having to pay child support.
Fathers who want to be part of a child's life but are denying custody rights is a seperate issue.
For the record, I had a direct hand in helping to partially-resolve this story I'm about to tell.
I have a friend who had a child with her ex-boyfriend. He wanted her to abort it because of the fact he was paying child support from a previous relationship in which he fathered two children. She refused and he became abusive. She left him, had the baby. She wanted nothing to do with him, so she opted not to go after him for child support.
"Tough times" hit the high school dropout. He can't hold down a job. So two years later, he decides to sue for custody of the child they had. By this time, he has a minimum wage job at Wal-Mart. He can't afford an attorney, though neither can she. The judge they get was appointed by the governor of the Commonwealth, and she made it clear she's impartial: she has nothing but contempt for teen mothers. Basically, the child support she'd be required to pay would have been substantial.
One of the things that happens in custody battles is mudslinging. We're talking the entire process is about who can sling the most mud at the other person. At least, as my uncle described it (he's a lawyer specializing in paternal rights during custody disputes) this is the norm in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The judge kept being lenient on him: he didn't have to file official paperwork or motions, and she even asked him, "Do you need an attorney?" She never gave my friend a chance to do anything, going so far as to claim that motions she filed were "improperly filed" or it was the "wrong venue". I witnessed this happen on two separate hearings. Impartiality went out the window, and I was one of the first to write to the Governor's Council about this judge.
As an example: one day after the child came back from her father's, he rmother looked her over. There were bruises on the child's ribs, as if she'd been picked up and shaken, or at least some type of battery had happened. I took pictures and we took the child to the ER (her fiance at the time accompanied us). The doctor on call wrote up a report, DYS came to interview everyone, but in the end, the DYS official said, "It's clear she's been coached and no one here is a reliable witness."
The judge even said, "The doctor who saw her is not a trained professional in pediatrics, and I believe the father when he says she fell". Despite the pictures taken by the doctor and police that showed that excuse was inconsistent with the evidence.
My uncle ended up taking the case close to pro bono. He's now paying child support, though he's claiming he shouldn't have to because he never wanted the child in the first place. I'm actually supposed to testify at a hearing concerning this judge and her improper treatment of several women, and I plan to do it in uniform, since she said, on the record, that I am not someone with "good character".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"The above post is the opinion of the poster and is not indicative of any stance taken by the President of the United States, Congress, the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, the Department of the Navy, or the United States Marine Corps."
What, she should just get to decide for all three people because she doesn't like being pregnant?
Yes. Of course. It's her body and her pregnancy. It's her choice.
Wow, I've heard some stories about how Sweden was one of, if not the most, feminist country in the world, but that's just mind-boggling.
First off, it's not just her body, it's the baby's body, which is also half from the father. And it's not just her pregnancy, it's his too.
You ever listen to pregnant women who want to keep the child? They always love to correct the father and say, "No, we're having a baby, we're in this together." When they want to keep it, it's a partnership and he has to be there for her.
But if she doesn't want the baby, then all of a sudden it's her pregnancy and her baby, her body and it doesn't matter that it's half his, she just gets to get an abortion no matter what the reason.
Just to be clear, if you were in that position I posed at the end of my other post, if you got a woman pregnant, and you wanted it but she didn't, you're saying you have no right to say whether your child lives or dies? It's 100% her decision and only her decision?
Abortion, no, but those other courses could be in the child's best interest, depending on how crappy the mother's situation is.
It could, but that's not a requirement for her to be able to do those things. She doesn't have to demonstrate that putting her child up for adoption will be better for the child, so I think it is fair to say that the welfare of the child is not the consideration here.
spectre-9, yes, it's her decision and her decision alone whether or not she wants to go through with a pregnancy. I might think forcing a father to pay for a child he didn't want is unjust, but forcing someone to give up their body because someone else wants it is even more unjust.
Abortion, no, but those other courses could be in the child's best interest, depending on how crappy the mother's situation is.
It could, but that's not a requirement for her to be able to do those things. She doesn't have to demonstrate that putting her child up for adoption will be better for the child, so I think it is fair to say that the welfare of the child is not the consideration here.
It might be more accurate for you to say that "the welfare of the child is not necessarily the consideration." As has been readily pointed pout there are, in fact, many instances where the welfare of the child is the consideration.
spectre-9, yes, it's her decision and her decision alone whether or not she wants to go through with a pregnancy. I might think forcing a father to pay for a child he didn't want is unjust, but forcing someone to give up their body because someone else wants it is even more unjust.
The problem with this logic is it's entirely possible to both not force a women to give up their body and not force a father to pay for a child he didn't want.
What, in your moral framework, is unjust about a father being able to say "It's your decision whether or not you have the child, but in making that decision consider that I will not provide support, financial or otherwise, for that child".
In this instance it would be unjust to only way the mothers feelings in the equation when the baby is equally the fathers.
No, because in your own words the woman shoulders the greater burden. She has more at stake. The man may state his feelings but in the end the woman decides.
But she did so willingly so that point is moot. She took the risk that she would end up with the larger burden in this agreement to procreate and decided to go ahead anyways.
If this were thought of in terms of a contract, she was handed a contract KNOWING that it could mess up her life but signed it anyways.
If she didnt want to get pregnant she should not have had sex to begin with or used better contraception at the very least.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Trolling can be defined as "A art, one specifically designed to misdirect, anger, or confuse others by reporting meaningful information in a clear, coherent way."
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
What, in your moral framework, is unjust about a father being able to say "It's your decision whether or not you have the child, but in making that decision consider that I will not provide support, financial or otherwise, for that child".
Does that even matter from a legal point? The child is not a possession of the mother but a third party to whatever arrangement is made between the mother and the father. It is after all called 'child' support and not 'mother' support. The money is supposed to go toward the needs of the child as decided by the legal guardian. Any agreement between the mother and the father cannot be binding on the child if it is not in the best interests of the child.
What, in your moral framework, is unjust about a father being able to say "It's your decision whether or not you have the child, but in making that decision consider that I will not provide support, financial or otherwise, for that child".
Does that even matter from a legal point? The child is not a possession of the mother but a third party to whatever arrangement is made between the mother and the father. It is after all called 'child' support and not 'mother' support. The money is supposed to go toward the needs of the child as decided by the legal guardian. Any agreement between the mother and the father cannot be binding on the child if it is not in the best interests of the child.
I don't believe I asked you that question. But, for what it's worth, we've already decided that "welfare of the child" is completely irrelevant once we put abortion as one of the possible options. There is literally no situation where abortion is in the interest of the child.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
It's an economic cop out as compared to dealing with all the issues of a 9 month pregnancies, it's easy mode. Lazy=!easy.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
This is a good answer. I would accept a formalized agreement before sex as a way for a male to protect his intended parenting decisions.
But any male that does not sign the contract is financially responsible and must provide actual child rearing.
I really like your suggestion, but I think you've got it completely backwards. I think that a woman should be able to force the man to pay child support only if he previously signed a legally binding contract that he wants to have a child with this woman. In today's society, probably 99% of sex that is had outside of marriage is not with a goal to procreate.
In sum, I think that only in the presence of a contract should the man be forced to pay child support while in the absence of a contract the woman's options by default should be single mother, adoption or abortion. Unless you are in a marriage or a civil union or some such institution (legally defined), you should not presume that sex is for the purpose of procreation.
BRG Loam Control (Assault - Loam) BRG
W Mono White Control (Martyr - Proc) W
I like it but....in reality it won't work. No one is gonna do a bunch of paperwork before having sex. Reckless sex (which is what causes these unwatned pregancies more than simply failed contraception) is already reckless and will probably ignore all the legal jargan above.
You can object all you want. When the choices are abortion, have the child and rear it, and have the child and put it up for adoption, abortion is the easy way out. For as difficult as you seem to think abortion is, raising a child is much harder. Going thru the pain of having the child and then having to give it away, even more pain.
@ Captain Morgan, if the laws and rules for adoption were different in this country I would agree with you. For the most part, adoption in this country is a money making venture for everyone involved except for the parents gaining a child. Those people are raked over the coals, squeezed dry financially, and then asked to jump thru hoops in hopes to get the child they wish. There are so many kids in the system now that are unwanted or cant be placed for what ever reason. I wouldnt wish anyone to add to that.
There was a running joke in the late 80s, early 90s that you needed to bring your lawyer on dates to make sure everyone knows where everyone stands when it comes to sex.
Not every man paying child support is working a minimum wage (or near minimum wage) job making under $20,000/year. For those men, yes, 25% is more of a burden than on a wealthier man, because they have less discretionary income.
But at any rate, I never gave a specific figure. You're attributing 25% to me when I never said 25%, I just gave a framework for how they ought to work.
For me right now, yes, 25% would be quite a burden. But I know plenty of men who could easily afford that amount. And there are plenty of men who make more than enough money to provide child support for their children and live comfortably themselves and refuse to pay it, not because they're being impoverished by it, but just because they don't want to.
At any rate, I think there's plenty of room for adjusting the amounts that are required based on the number of children, the father's income and so forth. Like I said before, I don't know what the optimal scale of child support payments would be, nor do I think the current system is perfect.
I don't think, however, that just because a woman is able to choose to have an abortion that a man should have no obligation to share the cost of raising his children.
I agree, with a few exceptions. Now I don't know about what kind of lawsuit that would be, but I definitely agree that the father should have a say in what happens to the baby.
Assuming that the pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, and carrying and having the baby would pose no threat to the mother's life, I absolutely agree that the mother should have the father's consent for an abortion.
Yes it's her body, but she's not the only one involved is she? He had a part in making it happen, and there's the baby's life at stake as well. What, she should just get to decide for all three people because she doesn't like being pregnant?
A buddy of mine got his girlfriend pregnant, but she didn't tell him at first. It was almost two months later that she told him was that she had gotten pregnant, but that she also had a miscarriage. That was hard enough for him to hear, but a few months later though we found out that the ***** lied, and had gotten an abortion.
A part of him, what would have been his child, was killed and he didn't even know about it until after the fact. It's insane to me that there are people who think that because it's her body, she has every right to make that choice without even telling the father.
I mean, if a woman was pregnant with your child, and she didn't want it, you don't think you should have any right to say what happens to it? Seriously?
In this instance I fully believe that the man should have the power to take legal action to stop an abortion. Both parties entered into this ack knowing that the possible outcome of this was being pregnant, regardless of which side is forced to shoulder the greater burden. In this instance it would be unjust to only way the mothers feelings in the equation when the baby is equally the fathers.
There would need to be limitations on this, such as being able to prove that the child were his along with not being able to stop the abortion if giving birth or carrying the baby to term would endanger the life of the mother.
Too much in this country the rights of the father are overlooked in favor of the mother. If you want to see one of the greatest cases of discrimination than you need to look no farther than the standard custody hearing in the US, where the mother will almost always win out over the father, even if she has no paying job at the time or no ability to take care of the child in question.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
1. Neither wants the baby. In this case, the baby is aborted and both are required to pay half of the abortion costs.
2. The woman wants the baby but the man does not. In this scenario, both parties agree that the man revokes his rights as a father and subsequently does not have to pay child support for the kid. If there was a discussion about abortion within the first three months of the pregnancy and there was no agreement made and no abortion carried out, this is the assumed outcome of the treaty.
3. The man wants the child but the woman does not. In this scenario, both parties pay 50% of the abortion costs. It is unfortunate, but this is the only way to prevent men from pretending to want the kid so as to get out of paying the cost of an abortion.
4. Both want the child. No need to sign anything.
Because of this, only scenarios 1 & 2 need to be covered by a post-pregnancy agreement. I can't see a reason this would cause a problem with anybody, both parties get what they want and each pays the necessary fees as is fair to what is in their best interests. Men cannot get out of child support payments by not responding to a summons but they are able to initiate for a contract to discuss whether or not they will be paying child support.
The only issue this does not solve is a woman keeping a pregnancy hidden from the man in order to get him to pay child support for a child he did not want. There is no good way (from what I can see) to prevent this from being a burden on the mother to find a deadbeat father, but at the same time clause 1 or 4 is assumed if there is no action from the man. Perhaps we should require mothers to decide whether or not they want the father in their life. It's unfortunate there will be extra work and that means the woman will have to go out of their way to get the dads to decide what they want, but it would prevent fathers from being surprised by women coming to them with a baby and expecting him to pay child support when he never wanted it to be carried to term.
That contract would be unenforceable. The father's legal responsibilities are to the child and not to the mother. She can't sign away the child's rights preemptively like that.
You guys keep making the same mistake over and over in this discussion. You make this a father vs mother issue and forget that the legal framework is based about the rights of the child. You get sidetracked by the sociatal issue of the mother usually getting primary custody of the child and the unfortunate side effect of the parents too often using the child as a weapon against each other.
The problem is in America the father has essentially no rights to the child. All the male figure is seen as in the court system is a money machine.
The mother has all the power over the child. She can be a strung out crack whore turning tricks for hits and it will take an army of lawyers and a tall stack of cash to get that child away from her.
#1. Father loses his job. The way child support laws work is they set the monthly rate based on what the father is making at the time of court appearance. This is what happened to Terrel Owens (NFL wide receiver). Basically he had his child support set based on his multi-million dollar contract and now he doesnt play and therefore makes nothing. But every month he owes thousands of dollars in child support.
#2. Man turns out to not be the father after child support is set. It is becoming a common occurrence for men who know they are not the father of a child to still be forced to pay child support. If a couple has a child and the man assumes his partner was faithful he would most likely go along as the father. Now a few months/years later things go sour and they part. The court assigns some level of child support and then the mother says "by the way I cheated on you that might not even be your kid". In this case... too bad so sad for the man. It is extremely difficult to have another court appearance and have the child support removed.
That's a related but ultimately separate issue. This discussion is primarily about fathers who do not want to have anything to do with the child to begin with.
Aborting your child is not "in the child's best interests." Adopting out your child to have it live in the foster care system is not "in the child's best interests." Abandoning your child at a hospital or at a church is not "in the child's best interests." Yet these are all things the mother has every right to do. Is it about the rights of the child or isn't it?
Not going to deny there are males like that. But I would say those are the minority.
What surprises me are the woman who dont want anything to do with the children they carry.
Still, give the man a few more rights and you will see more men wanting to have something to do with their children.
Abortion, no, but those other courses could be in the child's best interest, depending on how crappy the mother's situation is.
Of course, there's a bigger question of why the mother's situation is so crappy, but that's beyond the scope of this thread, I think.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I thought this thread is about men who would prefer if the woman aborted the baby rather than having to pay child support.
Fathers who want to be part of a child's life but are denying custody rights is a seperate issue.
I have a friend who had a child with her ex-boyfriend. He wanted her to abort it because of the fact he was paying child support from a previous relationship in which he fathered two children. She refused and he became abusive. She left him, had the baby. She wanted nothing to do with him, so she opted not to go after him for child support.
"Tough times" hit the high school dropout. He can't hold down a job. So two years later, he decides to sue for custody of the child they had. By this time, he has a minimum wage job at Wal-Mart. He can't afford an attorney, though neither can she. The judge they get was appointed by the governor of the Commonwealth, and she made it clear she's impartial: she has nothing but contempt for teen mothers. Basically, the child support she'd be required to pay would have been substantial.
One of the things that happens in custody battles is mudslinging. We're talking the entire process is about who can sling the most mud at the other person. At least, as my uncle described it (he's a lawyer specializing in paternal rights during custody disputes) this is the norm in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The judge kept being lenient on him: he didn't have to file official paperwork or motions, and she even asked him, "Do you need an attorney?" She never gave my friend a chance to do anything, going so far as to claim that motions she filed were "improperly filed" or it was the "wrong venue". I witnessed this happen on two separate hearings. Impartiality went out the window, and I was one of the first to write to the Governor's Council about this judge.
As an example: one day after the child came back from her father's, he rmother looked her over. There were bruises on the child's ribs, as if she'd been picked up and shaken, or at least some type of battery had happened. I took pictures and we took the child to the ER (her fiance at the time accompanied us). The doctor on call wrote up a report, DYS came to interview everyone, but in the end, the DYS official said, "It's clear she's been coached and no one here is a reliable witness."
The judge even said, "The doctor who saw her is not a trained professional in pediatrics, and I believe the father when he says she fell". Despite the pictures taken by the doctor and police that showed that excuse was inconsistent with the evidence.
My uncle ended up taking the case close to pro bono. He's now paying child support, though he's claiming he shouldn't have to because he never wanted the child in the first place. I'm actually supposed to testify at a hearing concerning this judge and her improper treatment of several women, and I plan to do it in uniform, since she said, on the record, that I am not someone with "good character".
Captain, United States Marines
"Peace through superior firepower."
Wow, I've heard some stories about how Sweden was one of, if not the most, feminist country in the world, but that's just mind-boggling.
First off, it's not just her body, it's the baby's body, which is also half from the father. And it's not just her pregnancy, it's his too.
You ever listen to pregnant women who want to keep the child? They always love to correct the father and say, "No, we're having a baby, we're in this together." When they want to keep it, it's a partnership and he has to be there for her.
But if she doesn't want the baby, then all of a sudden it's her pregnancy and her baby, her body and it doesn't matter that it's half his, she just gets to get an abortion no matter what the reason.
Just to be clear, if you were in that position I posed at the end of my other post, if you got a woman pregnant, and you wanted it but she didn't, you're saying you have no right to say whether your child lives or dies? It's 100% her decision and only her decision?
spectre-9, yes, it's her decision and her decision alone whether or not she wants to go through with a pregnancy. I might think forcing a father to pay for a child he didn't want is unjust, but forcing someone to give up their body because someone else wants it is even more unjust.
It might be more accurate for you to say that "the welfare of the child is not necessarily the consideration." As has been readily pointed pout there are, in fact, many instances where the welfare of the child is the consideration.
The problem with this logic is it's entirely possible to both not force a women to give up their body and not force a father to pay for a child he didn't want.
What, in your moral framework, is unjust about a father being able to say "It's your decision whether or not you have the child, but in making that decision consider that I will not provide support, financial or otherwise, for that child".
But she did so willingly so that point is moot. She took the risk that she would end up with the larger burden in this agreement to procreate and decided to go ahead anyways.
If this were thought of in terms of a contract, she was handed a contract KNOWING that it could mess up her life but signed it anyways.
If she didnt want to get pregnant she should not have had sex to begin with or used better contraception at the very least.
One day I will go infinate on a token combo then drop Scramble verse and watch as the trolling begins. That day will be a good day.
Does that even matter from a legal point? The child is not a possession of the mother but a third party to whatever arrangement is made between the mother and the father. It is after all called 'child' support and not 'mother' support. The money is supposed to go toward the needs of the child as decided by the legal guardian. Any agreement between the mother and the father cannot be binding on the child if it is not in the best interests of the child.
I don't believe I asked you that question. But, for what it's worth, we've already decided that "welfare of the child" is completely irrelevant once we put abortion as one of the possible options. There is literally no situation where abortion is in the interest of the child.