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

Yes, yes, yes ....

We're familiar with the general thesis. Are you proposing anything specific, or just rehashing and voicing your support for the broader proposition?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So people who demand equal treatment under the law are "whimps"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't think a man should have to pay child support if he successfully tricked a woman into having sex with him. He won, she lost, to the victor goes the spoils of not having to pay child support.
Her job is to find a guy who actually WANTS to have a family with her, shouldn't be THAT hard, it's not like she has other stuff to do, she doesn't skateboard or anything, she's a girl, all she does is plot and scheme ways to get married and have a family.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In that particular post I was clarifying to Lucysnow what I meant by my first post.

To be specific, though, I think that men who are unwilling to assume parental responsibility should be subjected to the same time frame as women have for abortions (no more than nine months, in other words). Women can't abort a 7 year old child, so men shouldn't be able to decide 7 years later that they no longer wish to pay child support.

 

They have that privilege, the same as a woman does. Before they even lay down with the woman.

If you can't trust the woman, or don't know what she would do morally if something were to happen "accidentally" then you probably should be sleeping with her.

Really, men could take the upper hand in this whole thing by thinking with their brains instead of their libido. You give a woman that power when you throw caution to the wind, and some women will take that ball and run with it. It's sad, but if you knew more about her and her morals and values before she got knocked up and extorted you for child support, you may find she's not so sexually attractive after all.

That said, it's both parties responsibility. And both parties should have responsibility, both financially and physically. A long time ago, I had written out a good contract about payments from both parties and equally responsible divvies of the financial details which included fines and such. If put into law, it would avoid a lot of these issues. Of course, if people thought before they went about fucking people they barely knew anything about, it could all be avoided. There is nothing wrong with having the conversation about responsibilities and outcomes before you get in the sack.

 

Umm.. I think you're missing something here. It's not about either parent, it's about the kid(s).
And how can you have kids that you never wanted ? Unless you were deliberately and verifiably tricked that's nonsense.

 

And yet after they "lay down" (how biblical) those rights immediately vanish for the man, yet continue to exist for the woman. I think that's what he was complaining about.

Of course it's the woman's body so she has ultimate authority over it, but the question is whether or not that ultimate authority should also carry ultimate responsibility for the choices one makes.

This is probably good advice, given the current laws that force men to be responsible for children that a woman decides to have. But the issue here is whether or not the current situation is just.

 

Exactly. If we had a reputation system, you'd have just received some positive feedback from me.

 

You aren't asking for any equal treatment. You are trying to whimp out on your responsibilities.

Basically you are a waste of testosterone and hopefully you will succeed in never breeding.

 

Exactly. Once the kid is here you are committed at least 'til they hit 18, even if you are totally useless and only good for meeting the bills.

If you don't want to play, get snipped instead of whining about how it ain't fair.

 

So swarm, do you want to engage in any rational discussion, or are you just here to call people who disagree with you "wimps" who need to "suck it up"? It has been proposed that it's not fair for a man to be forced to take equal responsibility for a child when he does not have an equal say in whether or not the child is born. Would you like to attempt to address that issue with some sort of rational argument, or are you just here to insult people who disagree with you?

 

I don't see any rational discourse. I only see a bunch of pathetic losers whining that they don't want to have to pay for their mistakes while their kid goes cold and hungry.

What's not fair is to be born with a piece of shit dad who won't take care of you. That is what's not fair. Getting off with just having to cough up some money is really too easy on them, but I suppose that's better than actually having them involved in the kid's life.

He also doesn't have to have a kid grow in him for nine months, or give birth, or nurse, or have his body stretched out of shape, or have a period every fucking month, or ...

Cry me a river of tears for not having "equal" say. You had equal say at the moment of creation and your fall out is a couple hundred bucks a month for 18 years and your whining how it ain't fair.

I'll give you a clue: Life ain't fair. But you aren't the one getting the short end of the stick.

Being a single mom raising a kid with a looser sperm doner who gripes about every penny, that's the short end of the stick.

Being a kid without a dad who doesn't cares about him, that's the short end of the stick.

Whining about having to meet the least possible degree of responsibility for being too stupid to keep form getting some one pregnant? No you are just a whiny looser.

 

Are women who have abortions trying to wimp out of their responsibilities?

By the way; I'm not saying that I would refuse to pay child support, only that men should have that option.

 

It's pretty obvious that Swarm chose Door #2.

 

Yeah, I guess that last post answered my question. Apparently anyone who disagrees is just a whiny "looser".

 

It's just for the child. Not for the irresponsible parents who made bad choices on both sides.

Unfortunately, you cannot change biology. Women can't give the right away to bear a child. You can't give a man your uterus to carry and care for. So scientific law here, trumps any law that man could write for it when it comes to the woman's body, and no two women may feel the same way about how that will or will not effect their body. But it is their body.

That's why I say that everyone, man and woman, should know what their potential partner would do in that situation if it should arise. Then you can choose not to go further. It's simple logic, and yet it's ignored by the general populous repeatedly.

In short, I think both parties should be liable.

Apparently, my views haven't changed on this in 5+ years. The only thing I would add now is an encoding system for the registry so religious nuts can't go around killing people who may have had an abortion, or target people in any way.

It's the fairest way possible for a populous that can't think before they procreate.

 

Somebody has to pay child support and I don't want it to be me the tax payer. I don't want the child, (the innocent victim of procreation) to be unsupported.

Why should the women bear all the responsibility for the children just because she carried them in her womb. If you are going to put your penis inside a womans vagina than accept the the responsibility for any child or STD that you may acquire. You made your choice man, now face the consequences. And don't say I was drunk, I could not help myself because she was attractive and my body did what it wanted to, because that excuse does not work for the drunk women who have sex with men that they would not have sex with men they would not have had sex with had they not been drunk.

The issue of abortion is between the women, their consciences and the legal system. The woman has to carry the baby or not carry the baby to term, this is her decision and she has to face the consequences of that decision alone. Even if she has a loving husband he can not take a turn being pregnant.

Whether the man supports his child is between the man, his conscience and the legal system. Even if the mother is loving and capable and highly paid, the man must still decide on his own what responsibilities of childhood he is willing to bear. If the mother wants nothing to do with the man after the child is born then the courts will decide about child support and visitation.

If a man or woman has the money to pay for their kids and chose not to then I hope the legal system finds them and squeezes them hard and painfully to scare other deadbeat parents out of being deadbeats and to scare irresponsible lovers into taking responsibility for their contraception. Pay for your kids and raise them well because it is not fair to make me, the taxpayer and citizen responsible for your children.

 

They have that privilege. Nobody is forcing men to have sex.

I don't support right wing religion but all the strict discipline of the past around marriage and out of wedlock sex and wearing of burqas were for a real purposes. These old disciplines stopped jealous men form killing each other, were supposed to help men and women focus on god (not always a good thing) and focus on behaving honorably instead of focusing on sex, prevented stds (which used to be deadly) and most importantly prevented the creation of unsupported children.

Unsupported children create more unsupported children which creates crime and anarchy. We seemed to have enough money and technology to be able to afford irresponsible sexual recklessness in the west but that time is already passing. I would not want the world to go back to puritanical ways but maybe sex should be a privilege that comes with responsibilities (like driving) and not a right that has no responsibilities (like breathing).

 

I would have assumed this was sarcasm, but knowing you, you actually meant it. You're always insisting that men are doers and women are baby machines.

Newsflash: women are people too.

 

Pfff, well... agree to disagree.