Oh, I actually forgot to mention(because I thought it's so obvious) that the man would lose ALL rights to the child if he doesn't pay child support(in this situation). No visiting or anything, no first "dibs" on anything just because he is the biological father.
Should a Man be Forced to Pay Child Support for a Child He Wanted to Abort?
- Thread starter Betrayer0fHope
- Start date
Originally I would have said no. However after contemplating it for a while I believe he should. No man should ever hop in the sack and practice unsafe sex. Whether it be for disease or pregnancy prevention there is no dismissing any recklessess. At minimum you both should discuss what you would do in case the woman gets knocked up. Both not only have that responsibility but they have a shared responsibility to do all that's possible to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. I understand accidents happen but both parties must also accept that possibility.
I think that the onus is more on the man than the woman to pay support and if I were a judge I would rule in favor of the woman. Obviously the father is not helping to rear the child and unfortunately for him the only recourse for His/Her Honor is to order his pocket picked.
I think that the onus is more on the man than the woman to pay support and if I were a judge I would rule in favor of the woman. Obviously the father is not helping to rear the child and unfortunately for him the only recourse for His/Her Honor is to order his pocket picked.
You realize you can easily get a girl pregnant even while practicing "safe" sex, right? And the "discussion" never happens, in my hypothetical situation. Yes, the shared responsibility happens, with the man paying to support the child, but the woman has complete control over the child until it is born. If she chooses to have the baby against the man's wishes, how should he be expected to pay for a child he clearly has no legal rights over whatsoever?
rest of his life??? LOL, I don't think so. Maybe for 18 yrs.
In a case where a man doesn't want to be involved, the woman is raising the child, feeding the child, taking the kid to the doctor, buying the kid clothes, etc.
All the man has to do is mail a check.
If we are talking strictly responsibility, then aborton should be illegal period. ecause women can bail out of the responsibility by having an abortion where the man has no say or choice in the matter, this is not equal rights.
Total fairness would be that abortions are illegal, if you are pregnant then the man and the woman must both pay and take responsibility for the child. Surely you cannot give the woman the option to murder and bail out on responsibility while stating the man has to deal with it and pay regardless, this would be unfair and one rule for one sex another rule for the other sex.
If you use responsibility as your pillar for debate then you must also apply full responsibility to the woman. They both knew itmight lead to having a baby so deal with it or dont have sex until your ready to act responsible. Rape is not an issue here and that is for another thread.
its not equality if its not equal......................
peace.
Total fairness would be that abortions are illegal, if you are pregnant then the man and the woman must both pay and take responsibility for the child. Surely you cannot give the woman the option to murder and bail out on responsibility while stating the man has to deal with it and pay regardless, this would be unfair and one rule for one sex another rule for the other sex.
If you use responsibility as your pillar for debate then you must also apply full responsibility to the woman. They both knew itmight lead to having a baby so deal with it or dont have sex until your ready to act responsible. Rape is not an issue here and that is for another thread.
its not equality if its not equal......................
peace.
Do you not respect the worth of a dollar? And aren't you like 40 years older than me? That man has to work for every penny he earns, just like the woman might have to. All you have to do is mail a check for a couple thousand to needy families. Not that hard, right?
Indeed and that's why I voted no.
women have the power. They can say yes or no to sex. They can say yes or no to keeping the child. The man has no say in either of these things, except that the man can say no to sex as well. Otherwise, the woman is in power. That being said. The man has to know up front that by having sex he has a chance of making a kid. The man tossed away his legal right to avoid supporting the child the moment he penetrated the woman.
Betrayer0fHope said:
He will have legal rights regarding the child. On what basis would you pretend that he does not?
Of course, you used the word "over", suggesting some sort of specific dominion. However, in stating that he does not wish for the child to be born, and in removing himself from direct involvement in the obligations of parenting, he pretty much rejects any claim to dominion he might later desire.
Nonetheless, recognizing the possibility that a woman might get pregnant no matter what preventive measures he believes are in place, he goes forward—accepts the risk—and plants his seed within her body. To pretend he has no responsibility for the outcome is ridiculous. On the other hand, to pretend that he exercises authority over what takes place inside another person's body is nearly infamous.
To consider that last according to a different context: If a man and wife believe in one of those perverse versions of Christianity that rejects certain medical procedures and, facing cancer, the woman decides that her trust in God extends to include the potential outcomes of medicine that she has, previously, rhetorically rejected, should the husband be able to prevent his wife from receiving life-saving medical care? The events in question, you perceive, occur within her body. If, once the tumor is removed from the body, the doctors place it in a jar so she can take it home and show off to her friends, then it becomes communal property within the marriage.
Likewise, while a man has a role in causing certain events inside a woman's body, he has no say but what she grants him about how she deals with those events. If she deigns to receive his counsel, that is her choice, and the decision to hear what he has to say in no way binds her to follow that advice or accede to those demands.
Just because a woman lets you fuck her does not mean you have any further governance over her body.
Observing these ridiculous complaints serves only to remind that there are many men for whom sex and reproduction are entirely about themselves.
• • •
For men so desiring to minimize their obligations related to sexual intercourse, I might suggest a pick-up line: "I beg your pardon, my lady, but if you would please observe this document I present to you, it suggests that should you ever conceive a child by our sexual congress, you accept sole responsibility for such an outcome, and I bear no moral, ethical, filial, or financial responsibility toward such offspring. To the other, if you would turn your attention to this other document, it suggests that should you ever conceive a child by our sexual congress, you oblige yourself to terminate the pregnancy as quickly as possible after fertilization. I would ask you to sign one or the other, and, well, you want a roll in the hay? Because, well, you're smokin' hot, bitch, and I'd love to tap that."
Try it. Strike the last sentence if circumstance so demands. Or perhaps honesty presents too great a challenge to your chances?
Two things, until I read the rest of your post 
. One, this situation is more similar to a woman having something of the man's in her body. Just cause it's there doesn't make it hers. Second, men, and every? other living animal have a physical need for sex. To say we should punish for this is absurd.
. One, this situation is more similar to a woman having something of the man's in her body. Just cause it's there doesn't make it hers. Second, men, and every? other living animal have a physical need for sex. To say we should punish for this is absurd.Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
There will probably be an appeals system for that.
Where in the father has to volunteer to pay child support, people do change their minds you know.
the way i look at it, if one parent wishes to keep the baby then they assume full responsibility. if they can't afford it, too bad. don't get pregnant if you can't afford to raise a child.
also, that a man has no say, purely because its in the woman's body, is ridiculous. as if there's anything a loving father wouldn't do to gain the rights a woman gets simply for housing the fetus. equal responsibility means equal rights, and both parents are equally responsible.
also, that a man has no say, purely because its in the woman's body, is ridiculous. as if there's anything a loving father wouldn't do to gain the rights a woman gets simply for housing the fetus. equal responsibility means equal rights, and both parents are equally responsible.
This discussion is a disgrace to masculinity
There are a few solutions to the dilemma you propose. The simple answer, of course, is that if he finds it so problematic to put something he considers his into her body, he should not have put it there in the first place.
Indeed, there are ways to make sure of this:
Perhaps the most offensive thing about this discussion is a coin with two sides. In the first place, why should the welfare of a child be subordinate to your own irresponsible pride? And, if we flip the coin and take a similarly selfish posture, I confess I'm embarrassed to share a Y chromosome with such a poor excuse for decency.
Life is. That's the simple mystery. Or, rather, it's simple to express, and a bit tougher to understand; I'll let you know if I ever get the hang of it. But as one who has faced the prospect of unplanned fatherhood, I can only reiterate that I was annoyed—and not injured—by the fact that my partner made her decision without so much as asking me. It is, in fact, a long story that involves her sousing our newly-conceived offspring, using that existence as a weapon, admitting that she did not know for sure if she was pregnant even though she had suspected it for a couple of weeks, and then only having the pregnancy confirmed after her substance use over the weekend so exhausted her that she collapsed at work and had to be taken to the hospital. The offense was personal. That is, I was enormously sick of her behavior. (And yet, to the other, I kept getting on for the ride.) But from any ethical, moral, or judicial perspective, I cannot see how she owed me any say whatsoever.
Call her a bad person if you want. Go on, try it; it does help, for a few minutes. But that's the thing: Her ethics were purely self-centered, her morals so much of a joke I can't describe, and there was no judicial leverage by which, had I been so inclined, I could have forced her to get an abortion. Additionally, even if we had put to paper her offer to excuse me from any parental responsibility, I can't imagine a court respecting that agreement. After all—and here's the thing—when a child is involved, it's no longer about you.
Do you understand that? When a child is involved, it's no longer about you.
Just because you're not breaking anything when you knock up a woman doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the effects of your actions. If you choose to have sex with a woman, and you make her pregnant, and you don't want the child, you, sir, are screwed by none other than your own dick.
Bottom line: find out before you fuck. And if that word isn't trustworthy, it's still your own damn fault for taking the plunge.
This whole plea is ridiculous. You don't get to change the rules simply because you don't like them. So if you don't like the rules of the game, don't play.
You've hands, a brain, and plenty of alternatives.
God damn. I generally don't mind the men are stupid stereotype because, compared to other stereotypes, this one doesn't seem to do much harm. Except, of course, when men believe it and make such efforts to prove the point.
Betrayer0fHope said:
There are a few solutions to the dilemma you propose. The simple answer, of course, is that if he finds it so problematic to put something he considers his into her body, he should not have put it there in the first place.
Indeed, there are ways to make sure of this:
• Total abstinence, which, to consider your post, seems either impossible or simply unfair to ask of a man.
• Barren partner: Only have sex with women who have had hysterectomies, or are otherwise certifiably unable to reproduce.
• Vasectomy is, perhaps, simpler than the point above; by taking measures into your own hands, you will not be reducing so greatly the selection of women available to you. Indeed, I must say that, according to your attitude, you might wish to consider this option.
• Homosexuality: Go find yourself a cute guy to fuck.
• Barren partner: Only have sex with women who have had hysterectomies, or are otherwise certifiably unable to reproduce.
• Vasectomy is, perhaps, simpler than the point above; by taking measures into your own hands, you will not be reducing so greatly the selection of women available to you. Indeed, I must say that, according to your attitude, you might wish to consider this option.
• Homosexuality: Go find yourself a cute guy to fuck.
Perhaps the most offensive thing about this discussion is a coin with two sides. In the first place, why should the welfare of a child be subordinate to your own irresponsible pride? And, if we flip the coin and take a similarly selfish posture, I confess I'm embarrassed to share a Y chromosome with such a poor excuse for decency.
Life is. That's the simple mystery. Or, rather, it's simple to express, and a bit tougher to understand; I'll let you know if I ever get the hang of it. But as one who has faced the prospect of unplanned fatherhood, I can only reiterate that I was annoyed—and not injured—by the fact that my partner made her decision without so much as asking me. It is, in fact, a long story that involves her sousing our newly-conceived offspring, using that existence as a weapon, admitting that she did not know for sure if she was pregnant even though she had suspected it for a couple of weeks, and then only having the pregnancy confirmed after her substance use over the weekend so exhausted her that she collapsed at work and had to be taken to the hospital. The offense was personal. That is, I was enormously sick of her behavior. (And yet, to the other, I kept getting on for the ride.) But from any ethical, moral, or judicial perspective, I cannot see how she owed me any say whatsoever.
Call her a bad person if you want. Go on, try it; it does help, for a few minutes. But that's the thing: Her ethics were purely self-centered, her morals so much of a joke I can't describe, and there was no judicial leverage by which, had I been so inclined, I could have forced her to get an abortion. Additionally, even if we had put to paper her offer to excuse me from any parental responsibility, I can't imagine a court respecting that agreement. After all—and here's the thing—when a child is involved, it's no longer about you.
Do you understand that? When a child is involved, it's no longer about you.
Just because you're not breaking anything when you knock up a woman doesn't mean you aren't responsible for the effects of your actions. If you choose to have sex with a woman, and you make her pregnant, and you don't want the child, you, sir, are screwed by none other than your own dick.
Bottom line: find out before you fuck. And if that word isn't trustworthy, it's still your own damn fault for taking the plunge.
This whole plea is ridiculous. You don't get to change the rules simply because you don't like them. So if you don't like the rules of the game, don't play.
You've hands, a brain, and plenty of alternatives.
God damn. I generally don't mind the men are stupid stereotype because, compared to other stereotypes, this one doesn't seem to do much harm. Except, of course, when men believe it and make such efforts to prove the point.
Challenger78
Valued Senior Member
That has to be the most tacit endorsement of masterbation I've heard from you.
Fundamental something
In the first place: And ...?
To the other, though, I confess I must disagree. I would expect that few anti-abortion morons would also endorse homosexuality or such a broad application of extramarital sex. In that sense, I must dispute the word exactly.
To yet another, the similarity is merely superficial. Especially as the underlying complaint of the discussion is a woman who will not have an abortion when a man wants her to.
The truth of the matter, Asguard, is that abstinence is the only thing close to a guarantee against contributing to a pregnancy. That some traditionalist moron who wants women to return to their subservient role in society happens to find utility for that fact does not in any significant way change it.
Trying to separate a cause and effect does not necessarily work. The passage of time or working of processes does not separate a man from any responsibilities he has toward a child born of his seed.
Nor, however, do those responsibilities give him any governance over what takes place inside another person's body.
The topic itself strikes me fairly simply: Man wants to get laid. Man gets woman pregnant. Man doesn't want responsibilities. Man starts looking for any excuse he can find. That's the underlying premise. He thinks it's so unfair that he does not have a say over events that may affect him that take place in another person's body. Now here's a twist.
We're all aware of the obvious point that men can't get pregnant. Let us set aside that nonsense about men shutting up about abortion because, frankly, if the honorable and decent men who agree with the general principle shut up about it, women would find their right to medical care severely curtailed by those who have no such compunctions about asserting themselves in matters that, in the first place, they know nothing about and, as we recognize, have nothing to do with them.
Rather, let's look at what it equals. Because right now pregnancy is a fundamental difference between men and women. Oh, the men are treated so unjustly because a woman has the right to decide what takes place in her own body, even when the man helps make it happen. Well, fine. What do we have to offer, then? Go on. Name for me, please, an equivalent we might offer women in exchange for granting us this relief?
Is there anything akin to pregnancy? Name the equivalent trade. I'm not talking about an actual negotiation for exchange, that if women give up this right, we'll give up another. What I'm after is the mere principle. I don't think anyone can name an equivalent. This is a fundamental difference between men and women. There is a strange irony afoot, too: Women have suffered in various ways because of this difference, and after years of suffering for it, men are supposed to complain because we don't want to be held responsible for what we were too fucking stupid to prevent? Oh, my! We are so horribly oppressed!
This is insane. We men are on the verge of being rendered wholly extraneous to the human endeavor. What better argument than this very discussion to assert the wisdom of that change?
I say bring it. Seriously, if my daughter could come up in a world without sniveling, sexually-obsessed men ...? I mean, sure, it's not going to happen. But humanity might well get along better if the loose baggage of our species was finally cast aside.
____________________
Notes:
Highfield, Roger. "Sperm cells created from female embryo". Telegraph. January 31, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/31/scisperm131.xml
Asguard said:
In the first place: And ...?
To the other, though, I confess I must disagree. I would expect that few anti-abortion morons would also endorse homosexuality or such a broad application of extramarital sex. In that sense, I must dispute the word exactly.
To yet another, the similarity is merely superficial. Especially as the underlying complaint of the discussion is a woman who will not have an abortion when a man wants her to.
The truth of the matter, Asguard, is that abstinence is the only thing close to a guarantee against contributing to a pregnancy. That some traditionalist moron who wants women to return to their subservient role in society happens to find utility for that fact does not in any significant way change it.
Trying to separate a cause and effect does not necessarily work. The passage of time or working of processes does not separate a man from any responsibilities he has toward a child born of his seed.
Nor, however, do those responsibilities give him any governance over what takes place inside another person's body.
The topic itself strikes me fairly simply: Man wants to get laid. Man gets woman pregnant. Man doesn't want responsibilities. Man starts looking for any excuse he can find. That's the underlying premise. He thinks it's so unfair that he does not have a say over events that may affect him that take place in another person's body. Now here's a twist.
We're all aware of the obvious point that men can't get pregnant. Let us set aside that nonsense about men shutting up about abortion because, frankly, if the honorable and decent men who agree with the general principle shut up about it, women would find their right to medical care severely curtailed by those who have no such compunctions about asserting themselves in matters that, in the first place, they know nothing about and, as we recognize, have nothing to do with them.
Rather, let's look at what it equals. Because right now pregnancy is a fundamental difference between men and women. Oh, the men are treated so unjustly because a woman has the right to decide what takes place in her own body, even when the man helps make it happen. Well, fine. What do we have to offer, then? Go on. Name for me, please, an equivalent we might offer women in exchange for granting us this relief?
Is there anything akin to pregnancy? Name the equivalent trade. I'm not talking about an actual negotiation for exchange, that if women give up this right, we'll give up another. What I'm after is the mere principle. I don't think anyone can name an equivalent. This is a fundamental difference between men and women. There is a strange irony afoot, too: Women have suffered in various ways because of this difference, and after years of suffering for it, men are supposed to complain because we don't want to be held responsible for what we were too fucking stupid to prevent? Oh, my! We are so horribly oppressed!
This is insane. We men are on the verge of being rendered wholly extraneous to the human endeavor. What better argument than this very discussion to assert the wisdom of that change?
I say bring it. Seriously, if my daughter could come up in a world without sniveling, sexually-obsessed men ...? I mean, sure, it's not going to happen. But humanity might well get along better if the loose baggage of our species was finally cast aside.
____________________
Notes:
Highfield, Roger. "Sperm cells created from female embryo". Telegraph. January 31, 2008. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/01/31/scisperm131.xml
tiassa come on, im dead on my feet but even asleep you know i can counter that
women wants to get laid, women gets pregnant, women needs to show responcability and not take it out on an inocent child
its the exact same argument my friend, if she didnt want to get pregnant she shouldnt have spreed her legs ect, and its a stupid argument in both situations.
women wants to get laid, women gets pregnant, women needs to show responcability and not take it out on an inocent child
its the exact same argument my friend, if she didnt want to get pregnant she shouldnt have spreed her legs ect, and its a stupid argument in both situations.
You forgot that life is meaningless, Tiassa.
Simon Anders
Valued Senior Member
But there is a missing step....
the 'and therefore you must take that child to term' which is where I would guess Tiassa would disagree.
See the woman 'faces the consequences' of a pregancy. No mere phone call or disappearing evades that. She must either have it or not and each entail effects on her body.
The anti-abortionists see her, basically, as having sinned and must do something she does not want.
No.
She does have to deal with it, but she can deal with it in a number of ways.
With the man, one of the obvious possible consequences of having sex with someone is that a child may come out of it, and he needs to face that before he has sex.
He needs to realize that after a conception he will have less control over what happens next then the woman does. This does not alleviate his responsibility to deal with what she chooses.
But say...if they both agreed they didn't want children, they used contraception, it failed...she knows they agreed not to have children but her instinct is too powerful to have her abort the fetus...How is that fair to him?