Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?

Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?

  • Total voters
    43
visceral_instinct said:
I'm with Betrayer.
Let's say the guy was responsible and used a condom, but something went wrong, she insists on having it, he does not want to...I do not think he should have to pay for that.
Click to expand...
There are all sorts of things in life where we engage in activities and do things 'right' and yet know that even so certain consequnces are possible. We have to live with those consequences.

and other people in society should not have to end up paying for your kid.

As far as the amphibians....
a lot of guys would like it to be like the amphibians have it.
Women tend to like being primates.
The price of having a large brain and our clever little hands is more responsibility.

Are we men or are we newts?
 
It took me a full 3 milliseconds to vote Yes. The delay is a symptom of approaching senility.
The simple word is Responsibility.
 
Asguard said:
here is a question for you.
The law states that if a mother puts a child up for adoption the father has the right to assert parental rights over that child (ie take the child whatever the mother says).
now in this case where the mother has put it up for adoption and the father has taken it is that just to bad for her, she is finatially responcable or does this end her finantial responcability?€
Click to expand...

She couldn't put the child up for adoption w/o the fathers consent. He would get the child and she would pay child support.

We had a case here a few years ago where a woman put her child up for adoption. She never told the man she was pregnant. He found out and successfully got his child from the adopting couple. I think she was a toddler by the time he found out.
 
Betrayer0fHope said:
Damn, imagine how must that must suck for the parents who originally adopted the child.
Click to expand...

It did. It was a very long drawn out emotional court battle. But he never signed off on the papers and it was his child.
I wonder if the father has to sign off on the papers in every state.
 
The option of abortion avoids the pregnancy and childbirth, not the child. The man pays for neither, AFAIK. I don't know of any state that requires a man to pay for pregnancy and childbirth, or compensate a woman for the risks and damages thereof.

Everyone, man or woman, who gets pregnant and chooses not to abort must suffer, uncompensated, the rigors of pregnancy and childbirth. That's fair.

Every parent of a child is responsible for the costs of raising that child. That's fair.

I don't see the issue here. The answer to the question is yes, of course.
 
The main thing is that if the woman wants to abort, she can. But if she doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support. Although it would probably be fairer if the man payed for the abortion.
 
betrayal said:
The main thing is that if the woman wants to abort, she can. But if she doesn't, the man is forced to pay child support.
Click to expand...
Unless you are complaining that it's unfair the man is usually not the pregnant one, I'm not following this.

How does the fact that the pregnant one is the only one that can abort, put any extra burden on the other one ?
 
it takes 2 to make a baby, and if they both had sex without protection then yes he should pay child support
 
Asguard said:
here is a question for you.
The law states that if a mother puts a child up for adoption the father has the right to assert parental rights over that child (ie take the child whatever the mother says).
now in this case where the mother has put it up for adoption and the father has taken it is that just to bad for her, she is finatially responcable or does this end her finantial responcability?€
Click to expand...

She would be financially responsible and would have to pay support. You simply cannot waive parental rights to avoid child support. It would become a child custody determination under law with the non-custodial parent paying child support. Both parents would have to "abandon" their child (e.g. put up for adoption) for support obligations to cease.

Betrayer0fHope said:
Oh c'm'on Challenger! Thought I knew you better than that. I thought you were uber rational :(. My way of thinking seems the most rational to me, obviously. A man didn't want to have the kid, and has no say in whether the kid is born or not. Why should he be forced to pay for something he basically had no control over(after insemination).
Click to expand...

He has as much control over the conception as the woman. That's where the law begins and ends when it comes to child support.
 
A woman wants to have a kid, the man does not. A woman and a man have sex with out protection, and are both equally responsible for this(as stated many times). The woman chooses not to abort the child, opposing the man's wishes and forcing him to pay child support for a child he has no involvement with and was not responsible for having any more than the woman. If the roles are reversed, the woman gets an abortion and the man is fucked. So the woman shouldn't force the man to pay child support for something she could've stopped from happening. Here's what I'm thinking, there are two chances to stop a baby from occurring, prevention and abortion. Both people are equally responsible for the prevention part, but the woman is solely responsible for abortion.
 
Asguard said:

women enjoy sex as much as men do, you do realise that lots of women CHOSE to self impale themselves with rubber devices which bare a striking resemblance to a human (and other animals for that matter) penis dont you?
Click to expand...

Like I said, women like orgasms. The difference is that more often than not, if a man and a woman disagree about sex or an orgasm, it's the woman who didn't enjoy it. And difference is that fewer heterosexual men are impaled against their will than women.

• • •​

Visceral Instinct said:

Let's say the guy was responsible and used a condom, but something went wrong, she insists on having it, he does not want to...I do not think he should have to pay for that.
Click to expand...

Let's say the guy was responsible and used the rhythm method, but something went wrong ....

I mean, really, if you have every reason to expect that there is no egg in place for the sperm to interact with ... or have every reason to believe the condom won't fail.

There is a statistical risk factor estimated between one and twelve percent. I have long heard the number 95% efficacy in educational circles, and 88% from Americans who oppose sex outside of marriage. Bandolier, a British medical journal, identified in 1999 three limited research results between one and four and a half percent, and asserts,

It seems that the reported rate of condom failure through slippage and breakage is significant. While 95% effectiveness of a contraceptive method sounds good, actually it leaves a woman with a chance of pregnancy which may be considered unacceptable. At 95% it is 7:1 against in any one year, rising to 33:1 against at 99%. As any follower of the turf could tell us, outsiders at 33:1 win races every day.

(Bandolier)
Click to expand...

Responsibility, in this case, means risk reduction. It does not mean there is not a risk. Any male who thinks, "I'm wearing a condom; she can't get pregnant," is deceiving himself. Ignorance may be bliss, but should it be an excuse?

Dang, if only we were like amphibians and other 'lower' animals, and could simply dump eggs and sperm on the ground.
Click to expand...

You know, salmon die for the privilege of either laying eggs or gratifying the self. If I'm going to die in order to reproduce, I would hope it would be better than self-gratifying onanization. After all, as a man, I can spray my seed on the ground pretty much any day, should I choose.
_____________________

Notes:

"Condom Failure". Bandolier. June, 1999. http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band64/b64-4.html
 
tiassa, your preduce is showing my friend, as i have said constantly i find sex to be mostly BORING. alot of the time i do it to stop PB winging that she isnt getting any and is sexually frustrated but myself i would rather play a computer game or watch a movie or my fish

as for bringing rape into it i resent that my friend, i have NEVER raped anyone and never would, couple of times i have thought if i didnt agree pb might rape me but anyway:p
 
visceral_instinct said:
I'm with Betrayer.

Let's say the guy was responsible and used a condom, but something went wrong, she insists on having it, he does not want to...I do not think he should have to pay for that.

Dang, if only we were like amphibians and other 'lower' animals, and could simply dump eggs and sperm on the ground.
Click to expand...

Wow. You are, I think, an honest Feminist. cudos
 
Responsibility, in this case, means risk reduction. It does not mean there is not a risk. Any male who thinks, "I'm wearing a condom; she can't get pregnant," is deceiving himself. Ignorance may be bliss, but should it be an excuse?
Click to expand...

I do appreciate where you're coming from, but....ngh. If the child was an accident, but she suddenly decides she wants to have it and he doesn't, it doesn't seem right to me that he should have to look after its needs.

You know, salmon die for the privilege of either laying eggs or gratifying the self. If I'm going to die in order to reproduce, I would hope it would be better than self-gratifying onanization. After all, as a man, I can spray my seed on the ground pretty much any day, should I choose.
Click to expand...

No no no, I didn't mean it like that. I meant the fact that for animals like those reproduction is an equal process. The female shits out eggs and the male shits out sperm, and there's your reproduction. It's a 50/50 process, not like humans where all the male has to do is ejaculate and the female's body will take care of the rest.
 
Betrayer0fHope said:
A woman wants to have a kid, the man does not. A woman and a man have sex with out protection, and are both equally responsible for this(as stated many times). The woman chooses not to abort the child, opposing the man's wishes and forcing him to pay child support for a child he has no involvement with and was not responsible for having any more than the woman. If the roles are reversed, the woman gets an abortion and the man is fucked. So the woman shouldn't force the man to pay child support for something she could've stopped from happening. Here's what I'm thinking, there are two chances to stop a baby from occurring, prevention and abortion. Both people are equally responsible for the prevention part, but the woman is solely responsible for abortion.
Click to expand...

True.
However, prevention is ridiculously easy, I think you're taking Abortion and adoption as easy steps to take.

Why not have the father adopt the child if he wants it ?
And
If he doesn't, Provide evidence of it, take it to court.
Has there been any cases of divorce while pregnant ?
 
It seems a bit odd that the man should have no say -- besides being an obsequious partner -- in what a woman does to the fetus, but then is forced to pay support for the rest of his life.

If the woman doesn't wan the baby, but the man does, she can abort. But if the man doesn't want the baby, but the woman does, he's forced to pay forever.

I think that, the woman should be required to inform the man within the term of the pregnancy that she's pregnant. If she does, then he has to state his support within the term of the pregnancy or forever lose his rights to see his child.

~String
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top