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

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Betrayer0fHope, Sep 10, 2008.


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

  1. Yes

  2. No

  1. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    Thanks. Being able to prioritise and respond to the most relevant points of an argument is a good skill to have when you are lacking in time.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. copernicus66 Banned Banned

    I've already addressed this! Please take the effort to read my previous posts before asking redundant questions. I make my posts concise and to the point. They are rarely more than a paragraph in length, so that they are quick and easy to type and read.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Nope. A brain suffices. Well, for most.

    Guard against miscarriage for forty weeks. Or tell it to a woman who lost a pregnancy in a car wreck, or being thrown down the stairs by an abusive partner.

    Fallacious, fallacious, and interesting to say the least, but seemingly fallacious:

    Criminals as defense attorneys — How does an attorney's interpretation of the law require that he first commit a crime? You would be better off—although still in the realm of the fallacious—to assert that nobody should argue the law unless they've written and enacted legislation.

    Abuse survivors as legislators — One does not need to be raped in order to observe the effects of sex crimes on the community.

    Bipolar as counselors — Have you ever spent time on the psychologist's couch? I ask because I'm curious what you would pay for in mental health counseling. Myself, I don't expect a psychologist to have intimate knowledge of my feelings; that would be my role in the equation. But the psychologist is expected to know something about the general trends of how the mind works. Statistically, A leads to B, or something nearly like it. Statistically, C suggests D. Add up A, B, C, and D, and E is the most frequent result. It doesn't mean the statistical result is always right. But it helps.​

    Would you suggest that doctors shouldn't treat cancer unless they've survived it themselves?

    Easy to say when one will never be pregnant.

    Anecdote from a Jesuit school. In bioethics class, we once had a guest speaker, a local doctor, discussing abortion. The teacher tried to argue with him on some basis of Catholic principle. The doctor responded that principles are principles, but "You might be surprised at the number of girls from this school who I've seen in my office." And some of them, he suggested, more than once. Indeed, even activist pro-life mothers would bring their daughters to him for an abortion. Moral of the story: Principles are great and all, but incredibly vulnerable to change if the decision transforms from the theoretic to the real.

    Let's try a theoretical proposition, first. Let's imagine that the only men against abortion also have some degree of immunity against sexual urges. That is, the only men who oppose abortion only want sex when they're ready to reproduce. Were this the case, I wouldn't chuckle so grimly at men who are anti-abortion.

    To consider the real, then ... okay, let's give the anti-abortion men their way. And when they find they can't get laid in a morgue because the women are protecting themselves against the consequences of sex, what are they going to say?

    Now, I don't know about where you are, but it is not nearly impossible—in fact, it is fairly common—to hear a woman disparaged because she did not want to have sex.

    Putting the circumstances together, what we would find is a morbidly hilarious situation in which a man would say, "Alright, ladies, close your legs if you don't want to get pregnant. What's that? You did? Well what's wrong with all you bitches? Don't you like sex?"

    That's your opinion. But I live in the United States, for instance, where that is functionally—e.g., legally—untrue.

    Face it: You do not have ownership over what takes place inside another person's body. If you want ownership, then have it take place inside your body. What's that? You can't? Oh, well, sorry. Nature's unfair. Deal with it.

    • • •​

    Excellent point, but not entirely true.

    I once made an argument of principle based on that. Should we oblige women to report miscarriages? Should law enforcement—if, after all, the fetus is a whole and complete human being with full rights and status—investigate every miscarriage as a potential homicide case?

    And, of course, some people found that a bit extreme.

    However, it's about to happen. At least, the reporting part. See Virginia SB962, "A bill to amend and reenact 32.1-264 of the Code of Virginia, relating to reporting of fetal deaths; penalty".

    Or, as sex columnist Dan Savage points out, if you've had a miscarriage,

    That's a personal tragedy. But have one in Virginia and you may have to report it to the state. Because there doesn't seem to be an exception for miscarriages in this proposed law requiring the reporting of all "fetal deaths" to the authorities.

    While it doesn't call for homicide investigations, SB962 presents an interesting possibility. Imagine down at the Fetal Death Investigations office any number of employees absolutely drowning in paperwork. The number of miscarriages reported is a mere fraction of the number that occurs. A woman might experience some pain and drop some blood into the toilet or some-such, and there are several possibilities. One of those, of course, is a miscarriage. And it might be the first and only sign she had that she was pregnant. Of course, it might also just be her body clearing blood from a uterine bruise after especially vigorous sex. So either the office of FDI, or whatever it ends up being called, might end up swamped with "maybe" reports, or thousands of women might end up in breach of the law, even if they don't know they've had a miscarriage. Ignorance is not bliss before the law, after all.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Liebling Doesn't Need to be Spoonfed. Valued Senior Member

    Mine are rarely a paragraph, but you seem to see fit to ignore all of my arguments and pick one line to reply to. So as soon as you start to form a full response, I'll start giving you one back.

    Again, repeating a mantra doesn't make it true.
  8. visceral_instinct Monkey see, monkey denigrate Valued Senior Member

    You either have ASD several degrees more extreme than I do, or you are being sarcastic, I can't tell which.

    I was taking the piss. I didn't actually mean that I admired any aspect of your behaviour.
  9. swarm Registered Senior Member

    Early term abortions should definately be the woman's choice.

    Late term with no inordinate danger to the woman should result in a birth and then the baby can be orphaned.

    If we weren't blowing trillions on insane wars, we could easily afford to pick up the tab as a society.

    Make me choose between the rights of the woman and the "rights" of the fetus and the woman wins.
  10. Betrayer0fHope MY COHERENCE! IT'S GOING AWAYY Registered Senior Member

    I've yet to see any proof showing that all babies in what would be considered late term feel pain or anything that entitles them to life.
  11. swarm Registered Senior Member

    You are thinking about the wrong person.

    It isn't about him or her or what might have been.

    There is a child. It is his. He gets to help support it.
  12. Cybernetics Registered Member

    I Belive in modern society an abortion is perfectly fine therefore it is the mothers fault. Forcing child support fees is somthing I am all together against so I would say no anyway.
  13. Orleander OH JOY!!!! Valued Senior Member

    so basically a man could go through life never wearing a condom, making babies everywhere, and if he doesn't want them, he doesn't have to pay child support.
    This man wouldn't have to show an iota of responsibility because its the woman's fault??
  14. Cybernetics Registered Member

    i belive both parties should take precasutions but the woman should make the choice to not sleep with a man if she dosnt want to face the concequences. I do not agree with child support payments becasue if a man wants an abortion but the woman dosnt then she can still force him to pay. If a man on the otherhand wants to keep the child but the woman dosnt then she can get an abortion wihtout his concent. She has some advantages and so dose he
  15. Randwolf Ignorance killed the cat Valued Senior Member

    I'm going to violate my own personal rule of not posting unless I have read the entire thread, so what I'm about to say may very well already have been covered.

    In general, I would say yes, a man should help provide for a child that he helped conceive.

    On the other hand, there are numerous exceptions and extenuating circumstances.

    What if both the man and woman were in "agreement" that neither wanted children, the woman agreed to shoulder the burden of contraception (i.e. the pill vs condoms) and the woman becomes pregnant. The man, basing his suggestion on good faith regarding the woman's previous stance, advocates aborting, and she says no? At this point, in current society, the man has no further say in the matter, except ante up for the next 18 years.

    What about the reverse, the man wants to keep the child, but the woman says no, and aborts anyway?

    It would seem that while both parties had equal say in the "whoopie" part, 2 seconds later only the woman has a say as to the consequences either way. Doesn't seem fair, in spite of the fact that the woman has to bear the burden of pregnancy, labor and childbirth, why should she be able to demand financial recompense for her decision?

    Of course, a man can always choose to always wear a condom, regardless of any "understanding", but that doesn't seem realistic. furthermore, what if the condom malfunctions? Now you have a situation in which, short of not having sex in the first place, a man has done all he can and still ends up being financially responsible.

    Many of you may respond, oh well, that's the chance you take. You're right. I have a child, previous to my current marriage, that came about in similar circumstances. I chose, after some soul searching, to accept the situation and pay up without a fight. The kicker? I paid for 18 years, but one year after birth, the mother met a new boyfriend and moved 2,000 miles away. She did her best to discourage any communication between my daughter and myself, because she was about to marry her new boyfriend. Never happened, of course, they lived together for a few years and then split up. I'm quite sure this boyfriend enjoyed some of the benefits associated with the child support I was paying, for the sum was much larger than that required to raise a 3 year old, but these amounts are regulated by the state.

    So I got to pay large sums of money for the knowledge that I have another child, somewhere, that I never see, have no interaction with, but paid a shitload of money to raise. Oh, well...

    In sum, I would say that no, a man shouldn't have to pay child support in these situations, but... As someone else mentioned, what's to stop everyone from turning around and saying "I didn't want the child, so I shouldn't have to pay?" This issues turns upon intent and responsibility, good faith and trust. These factors are notoriously hard to determine in a court setting, so the system defaults (at least where I live) to every man must pay every time, regardless of the circumstances. In fact, they have a preset schedule where if you make x, then you owe y amount for child support. No negotiation, no particular circumstances taken into account.

    It would seem to me, that at the very least, if society believes that the man must pay, regardless of intent, then he should have some say in the raising of said child. In theory, you do, but in practice, you don't.

    End result: "Should a man be forced to pay..." - Depends. Either way, the current system is flawed, but I really have no viable alternative that would be practical to enforce...
  16. tuberculatious Banned Banned

    He should go to jail.
  17. oiram Registered Senior Member

    Don’t you mean “Hoe Vs. Paid”
  18. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Randwolf, in australia the family court is finally starting to take action in situations like yours. they have recently changed there attiude so the primary caregiver must stay in reasonable proxcimity to the other parent so they can have as much contact as possable.

    feminist groups have been winging about this and there example is "couple moves to mining town for husband to work, they break up and she is now milles from her surport network" my counter agrument is that so is he and she is getting the advantage of the extra money so suck it up
  19. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Current abortion laws prevent women from being forced into caring for children they don't want. Men should also have that privilege.
  20. Mrs.Lucysnow Valued Senior Member

    How by forcing a procedure on a woman's body? How archaic.

    I don't think its fair that a man should be forced to provide support if a woman decides to keep a baby and the male decides he never wanted it. We no longer live in a time where women are dependent on men for support, at least not so much in the West, so things being 'equal' if a woman decides to take responsibility of a child on her won she should be willing to provide for a child on her own. If a woman chooses her to abort then that is her business.

    Of course this all changes in terms of marriage. If a man chooses to marry a woman then any child wanted or not is his responsibility. If he doesn't like it he can always file for divorce and pay her alimony and child support. A husband who doesn't want children in a marriage can very well go and get his balls clipped.
  21. Cowboy My Aim Is True Valued Senior Member

    Please cite the comment where I said anything about forcing women to have abortions.

    I'm talking about NOT forcing men to pay child support for kids they never wanted in the first place. In other words, having the same privilege that women do to avoid unwanted parental responsibility.
  22. pjdude1219 The biscuit has risen Valued Senior Member

  23. swarm Registered Senior Member

    suck it up whimp.

Share This Page