Social Question

poisonedantidote's avatar

Why should a man be made to pay child support if the man was in favor of abortion?

Asked by poisonedantidote (21549 points ) July 21st, 2011

Kind of inspired by another question, but totally unrelated. Yea, I’m going to get some crap over this, but lets see if any of that crap actually makes sense.

So, hypothetical question. A man and a woman have sex, the condom or pill fails, and the female gets pregnant.

When the man finds out, he states clearly that he is only in favor of abortion, but the female has the child anyway.

Why should this man now be expected to pay child support? To me it makes no sense.

Sure, if the guy is not in favor of abortion, or even up for having a kid, but then tries to back out child support, then yea, what an ass. However, if he clearly stated that he does not want a kid, why should he be made to pay?

When I think of the topic, the words “jizz thief” and “prostitute roulette” come to mind.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

250 Answers

AmWiser's avatar

In life there is no written agreement ‘if the condom or pill fails’, I will not be responsible. If you don’t want children, get fixed or don’t do the do.

ucme's avatar

Because, regardless of the scenario, he be the daddy!
Kind of a closing the stable door after the horse has bolted ethos.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@AmWiser Why should the man be the one to get fixed by default? Why should there be any default at all if there is no written agreement.

Two uninsured drivers crash, one of them was not responsible by default?

KatawaGrey's avatar

This was the situation with the question that I asked today. The man wanted the woman to have an abortion, but she did not.

I think that even if a man wants the woman to have an abortion, he should still pay child support because it is not as if he doesn’t know what happens when two pubescent or post-pubescent people of opposite sexes engage in sexual intercourse. He chose to engage in intercourse with the full knowledge that a child may result.

Like @AmWiser said, if you don’t want kids, then get snipped or don’t have sex.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ucme He be the daddy, but as far as he was concerned, it could have gone down the sink hole.

He saw the horse running, and shouted “abortion” but the dozy woman got all emotional and wanted the horse to run free, and left the door open, cheered the thing thru the gate, and gave it a good feed once it was out, then asked for cash for hey.

Blackberry's avatar

I’m so not touching this lol!!!

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Yep.
I don’t care if he is in favor of abortion. Or if he doesn’t want the child. He helped to make the child, and he shouldn’t have a say over what sort of medical procedures a woman should undergo because he would prefer things that way.
It is a mutual risk.

And that is coming from someone that has major issues with child support laws and father’s rights as they stand. Just for the record.

OpryLeigh's avatar

Honestly, and I may get some flack for this I don’t think he should have to pay for the child if he states right at the beginning that he doesn’t want anything to do with the pregnancy/baby but I believe that if he makes that decision then he shouldn’t be allowed to change mind and waltz back into the kids life at any point while the child is still under the age of, say, 18 years old. I believe that if he decides not to pay maintenance then he has to be willing to cut all ties with his son or daughter.

In an ideal world, everyone would be taking responsibility for their own actions but this isn’t an ideal world and I think this arrangement would mean everyone would know where they stood.

I have only formed this opinion recently when this happened to my friend. She decided to keep the baby and the father decided to walk away. She gave him the choice because she made the choice to keep the baby but he can’t go bck on that decision and, hopefully, he’ll live to regret it. He doesn’t even know his beautiful daughter has been born.

Seaofclouds's avatar

I actually agree with you on some level. Women get to make the decision to abort without the guys say and men have no way out like that. I feel like a man should have a way out in the very beginning, but since it would be damn near impossible to actually keep up with legally, I understand why it isn’t so. Ideally, I think the man should be able to say he doesn’t want anything to do with the child during a certain time period (say the first trimester) and that the woman can then choose to do it on her own, give the child up for adoption, or have an abortion. There would have to be some kind of legal documentation of this though saying that the female knows this and is willing to agree with that. The part that gets tricky is what if that guy isn’t the biological father? What if she doesn’t tell him until after the first trimester? What if he says he doesn’t want it, but changes his mind? What if he says he does want it, but then changes his mind? What if he says he didn’t know even though he did? How would you prove any situation for sure since it would all be he said she said? There are too many what ifs for this to really be possible right now.

Unfortunately for men, the only thing we know for sure when a woman gets pregnant is that she is the mother. That is why she has so many more rights during pregnancy than the man.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@KatawaGrey She had sex with him fully known some people will ask for an abortion.

If the man offers a perfectly guaranteed solution, only to have it refused, surely his hands are clean. Other than forcing an abortion on her, he can only let her force the decision on him, how is that not theft.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Just so we are clear btw, this is 100% hypothetical, I actually want to have kids.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Guys can make decisions on whether or not to become a parent. Either keep it in your pants, get a vasectomy, or be responsible when it comes to birth control.

erichw1504's avatar

Because then every guy would say this.

Kardamom's avatar

Unfortunately for men, the fact that the woman is the only person who can actively make the choice to give birth to the child or not (unless the father injures or kills the mother, but that is another discussion), puts the man in the position of having to get himself snipped (if he doesn’t want children) or not having sex (if he doesn’t want children).

After the fact, if the woman chooses to have the child, even if it’s against the wishes, knowledge or consent of the man, a child still exists. It’s unfortunate for everyone in this type of situation, but because the man knows full well that a child might be born if he has sex with a woman, that is just the price he has to pay. The man always has the choice not to get himself into this position in the first place.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. The feminist want both sides of the street. Child support made sense when a woman had to carry the child to term. Now that Roe v Wade reduced the unborn child to a mere nuisance to be suck out of the way, to be totally equal a man should have the same option; a legal abortion. If for some reason they were fornicating and the pill did not work, or the condom slip and they didn’t know it, caught in the throes of ecstasy and she gets pregnant, it was a risk both took. If she states she wants to keep it but he don’t want to be a father, and he is no more an ass than the woman who would vac her own child away, he shouldn’t officially have to be one. He should be able to sign a legal abortion that is irrevocable, like a real abortion, that he will never be officially recognized as the child’s father, or show up on the birth certificate. There will never be any legal or official record linking him to the child and he will not have no say now and forever about any dealings concerning the child. If the times have changed for women and Roe v Wade was the law catching up with the times, we need a male version so the law can truly catch up and be completely fair, but the feminist want to own both sides of the street..

erichw1504's avatar

I smell a question of the day coming on.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central There is a child to consider. This is not just up to the men & the feminists.

ucme's avatar

@poisonedantidote Where’s this maternity unit? Churchill Downs ;¬}
Yeah I get what you’re saying, but fatherhood changes everything, not least on an emotional level. Something as crass as monetary issues shouldn’t really come into it.
@Blackberry That’s what the midwife said at the ugly baby convention.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@poisonedantidote: So it’s okay for her to get a potentially dangerous, painful and expensive medical procedure or be saddled with a child for the rest of her life or go through all the hoops and issues associated with adoption, but it’s not okay for him to give his child money if he doesn’t feel like it?

poisonedantidote's avatar

Regarding vasectomy, why should that be up to the man in the first place, and what happens to the men who want kids, just not now.

How is it ok to force vasectomy on a man and not an abortion on a woman, why can one sex get to have a say about what the other should do with their body.

The final decision is up to the woman, this must by default mean the man does not have to pay if he can prove he was only in favor of abortion.

I cant help but feel (probably like you do about me) that what you are saying just makes no logical sense.

Blackberry's avatar

@ucme I’m convinced your only role on Fluther is comic relief lol.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@KatawaGrey Make the man pay for the abortion, thats as far as I can agree with anyone on this, but if the abortion is offered, I see it as hands clean my self.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@poisonedantidote One good reason that a man can’t (and shouldn’t ever be able to) force a woman to abort a child is because it may not be his child she is aborting in the first place.

SpatzieLover's avatar

Men can wear a condom and use spermicide @poisonedantidote…A vasectomy is just one method for prevention.

AmWiser's avatar

@poisonedantidote, I’m not saying the man should be the one to get fixed. But your question stated why should the man have to pay child support. And I’m saying if the man doesn’t want to be responsible for paying child support he should’nt put himself in the position to ever have to pay.
Actually it’s unfortunate that people don’t discuss these hypothetical situations beforehand (and also go so far as to have them in writing). In this day and age IMO men don’t have to be taken advantage of and neither do women. If more men (and women) thought with their heads instead of their organs (or hormones) there would be a lot less entrapment going on in the world.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Seaofclouds Great point, but if the woman cant say for sure who’s it is, that is hardly going to make me any more empathetic to her problem.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@SpatzieLover And when those birth control methods fail? Heck, even vasectomies can fail…

ucme's avatar

@Blackberry A position i’m only too happy to fill, again, that’s what she said.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Don’t get me wrong btw, I’m not sure If I am in favor of changing the default so that it represents how I feel on the topic. However I am certainly In favor of questioning why the default is logically the way it is now.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@AmWiser Actually, while I agree everyone should discuss this before they actually have sex, things change once the pregnancy actually happens. Discussing it could help, but unfortunately, it wouldn’t guarantee that these situations wouldn’t come up. A girl could say she’d be willing to get an abortion if she were to get pregnant and then change her mind once she finds out she is actually pregnant. So what then? The guy is still left in the same situation as if the conversation didn’t happen. Just playing devil’s advocate here.

Zaku's avatar

Biology isn’t equal: Only women get pregnant.

When two people have sex, there is a chance the woman will become pregnant even if neither of them intended that.

If the woman does get pregnant, she has a choice to have the child, or to have a (non-trivial) medical procedure to end the pregnancy. It’s a major decision which will impact her body and her life, either way. Compare that biological truth to the man’s biological situation: His body will never bear a child or have an abortion (or have menstrual periods, or be pregnant (which shifts brain chemistry and creates new perspectives). It’s not an equal situation.

So, it seems to me, it makes sense and is most humane and proper for the woman to have the ultimate say about whether she will have an abortion or bear the child. If there is a child, a baby is a major responsibility which should really involve two mature adults being parents for it, and all that entails. If the man opts out of being a proper father, the child is getting abandoned in a major way, and the mother is on her own to compensate, which the law attempts to help with, via child support.

Makes sense to me. Child support seems like a poor second to having an actual mature and loving father.

SpatzieLover's avatar

It is a very rare occurence @Seaofclouds for more than one method of birth control to fail. Both parties should be taking responsibility.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Zaku “it seems to me, it makes sense and is most humane and proper for the woman to have the ultimate say about whether she will have an abortion or bear the child.”

If the argument is one of health and risk, I’m betting an abortion is safer than giving birth. If the woman decided to have the kid, she is bringing the risk on her self.

The way I see it, the man offers the safest and most logical decision, only to have it rejected, and then be made to pay for someone elses poor decision making.

I can’t help feel the majority of argument around this topic are being fueled by primitive status quo roles for the sexes.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@SpatzieLover Rare as it may be, it still happens and can put a man in the position of being forced to have a child he doesn’t want and didn’t want to begin with. A woman still has options once birth control fails, a man doesn’t.

WestRiverrat's avatar

Unless the gal lied about being on the pill, or poked holes in the condoms, it is a choice both of them made, they both have to take some responsibility for the child.

Now if she intentionally sabatoged the birth control or lied about being on it, then the man should not have to pay child support.

funkdaddy's avatar

1) The support isn’t for the woman, it’s for the child.

2) Child support is generally based on ability to pay.

3) It’s a little person he’s responsible for creating. His actions directly led to the baby, why wouldn’t he be responsible for it? Because he wished it didn’t happen? Is there anywhere in life that excuses someone?

Not only responsible financially, but responsible for the well being of the child, regardless of requesting a do-over.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@WestRiverrat There is still one more form of “birth control” and one is refusing to use it.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@funkdaddy there is no child, unless the woman decides on her own to make one.

brengunn's avatar

Next time I’m out picking up girls, once I get all the cheesy chat up lines out of the way I’ll pull out the contract that says although I will enjoy tonight immensely, I am not responsible for any resulting difficulties that occur.

I just can’t see it catching on!

JLeslie's avatar

Logically I think he should not have to pay if he makes it clear early in the pregnancy he will not be a father to the child, but I still think the law should require him to pay. I think it because there are too many men that have sex, don’t want to use birth control, and just act so irresponsibly, something has to attempt to make them responsible for the behavior and the child. Here is a similar question that was very interesting. There have been cases in the courts in the US on this very topic. Creating laws that would allow a man to opt out of being a father.

poisonedantidote's avatar

-You shot me!

-Sorry it was an accident, Ill call an ambulance so we can get the bullet out

-No, this thing is going to stay in there and rot my leg off, and you will pay for the oil on my wheelchair!

-WTF

funkdaddy's avatar

@poisonedantidote -

Your argument consists more of

- You shot me!
– Man, that sucks, maybe you should get that looked at because I sure wish I hadn’t shot you and from this point forward I consider it your problem. I TOLD you to see a doctor. You’re on your own.

SpatzieLover's avatar

A bullet and a child do not equate.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@SpatzieLover @Hypocrisy_Central There is a child to consider. If that is the case it should count at all times, not just if it will get in the way of a career or looking good for Spring Break.

@Zaku Biology isn’t equal: That is why certain jobs women should stay away from because they are not biologically physical to do the jobs as they have doe centuries or decades. That is another story though.

When two people have sex, there is a chance the woman will become pregnant even if neither of them intended that. I guess the thing to tell men then is if you are going to have penetrative sex with a woman you are just dating, better just bend her over, and give it to her anally only, never a chance for a kid.

If the man opts out of being a proper father, the child is getting abandoned in a major way, and the mother is on her own to compensate, which the law attempts to help with, via child support. If she decides on an abortion she stood there like Caesar with the thumbs up or down for both the parents. If thumbs down the kid is not getting abandoned by one parent, but killed off by one parent. Abandoned by one and alive beats dead, at least IMO.

Zaku's avatar

@poisonedantidote I am not sure how much I agree with the idea that the woman is entirely responsible for the choice to have the child, given that he did conceive it with her. I think both sides of that argument could be rationally considered valid.

But if for the sake of argument I agree for the moment that she is responsible for not aborting the pregnancy even though he requested it, more important than all that, it seems to me, is the child’s perspective. The child has a right to expect two mature responsible parents, and financial security. The child support is there for the child, not for the mother.

brengunn's avatar

Yes i shot you and I damn well enjoyed it.

Facade's avatar

This was already said, but it’s true. The man helped make the child, therefore he and the mother are both responsible for its well-being.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@Seaofclouds They also both as consenting adults knew they could abstain for 100% assurance to have a zero chance at creating life.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Facade The man did not “help” at all.

I don’t know where this bizare argument is coming from.

Facade's avatar

@poisonedantidote “Help” as in she wasn’t fucking herself. I apologize for not being that clear earlier.

jca's avatar

It takes two to tango. If the man has something to do with the conception, he should have something to do to support the result of the conception. If he does not want that responsibility, he should not partake of the woman’s womanly charms.

Not every woman agrees with abortion (I do so please don’t argue with me about abortion being a good thing, because you’re preaching to the choir). Therefore, a woman should not be solely responsible for the baby just because she does not want an abortion.

JLeslie's avatar

@Seaofclouds Actually, while I agree everyone should discuss this before they actually have sex, things change once the pregnancy actually happens. Discussing it could help, but unfortunately, it wouldn’t guarantee that these situations wouldn’t come up. A girl could say she’d be willing to get an abortion if she were to get pregnant and then change her mind once she finds out she is actually pregnant. So what then? The guy is still left in the same situation as if the conversation didn’t happen. Just playing devil’s advocate here.

That is what prompted one of the lawsuits, which is mentioned in my older question I linked. Two teens knew they wanted to avoid having a baby, but then when the girl did get pregnant she decided not to abort. The mother of the teen boy is the one very frustrated that her son is not required to pay for the baby when he never wanted it, both teens had discussed birth control and pregnancy, and had agreed no babies now.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@SpatzieLover Yes they could have. My point is simply that if they didn’t want a child to begin with and the woman still has choices after getting pregnant, then I feel the man should have some choice afterwards as well, especially in cases where they were trying to prevent pregnancy.

poisonedantidote's avatar

Lets all try and remember, THERE IS NO CHILD.

It boils down to one person inflicting something on another. The little thing in there is not a child, but will be if 1 person decides to make it one.

With everything we know about how life is formed, we simply cant treat insemination as the end of the road for birth control.

There is yet more that can be done, but one person alone is guilty of neglecting the possibility, yet someone else pays.

JLeslie's avatar

Also, in most states the men are required to pay and do not get automatic visitation if they are unwed. The law only cares about reducing the chance of having to pay welfare or medicaid, that is why the state seeks out the father.

JLeslie's avatar

@poisonedantidote If you believe life begins at conception, there is a child.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JLeslie Welfare, nail on the head.

If you believe life begins at conception, you are demonstrably wrong and nothing has changed.

funkdaddy's avatar

You don’t even have to believe life begins at conception, you just have to understand pregnancy is caused by sex.

It’s not really in question at this point.

I don’t know if you’re being intentionally dense to make an argument or truly believe that sex doesn’t lead to children.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@funkdaddy sex leads to the possibility of children, abortion puts a stop to the possibility.

JLeslie's avatar

@poisonedantidote I don’t believe it. But, many people do. The US is probably more fundamentally religious than where you live and most of Western Europe.

brengunn's avatar

Stopping the woman having a child means you have control over her body, her choice. Which you do not have.

erichw1504's avatar

The only way to get out of it is to not get into it in the first place.

Haleth's avatar

Off topic, but I just wanted to point out the use of “man” and “female” in the original question. I found a link that does a good job of articulating my views on that:

Now on the flip side, Liz from Austin, Texas, called in to say her pet peeve is when people refer to women as females, for example, when someone says, “I was chatting to some females.” To her, that sounds very scientific and awkward.

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of English Usage notes that esteemed authors in the 1800s used female in this way. And these authors were women.

Jane Austen used the phrase “the females of the family” in Pride and Prejudice, for example, and Emily Brontë wrote “It opened into the house, where the females were already astir” in Wuthering Heights.

Yet even back in those times other people complained that using female in this way was demeaning (5), and I agree with Liz that it doesn’t sound right today. Merriam-Webster’s goes on to say that the neutral use of Austen and Brontë has faded away and the most common use of the word female now as a noun is to refer to lower animals. For example, if you were studying apes, you could say something like, “The females formed a small group to defend against the attackers,” (6).

It’s my recommendation that you use female as a noun only when you are speaking about animals or writing scientifically. When you are talking about female humans, the favored nouns are woman and women. Likewise, when you’re talking about male humans, the favored nouns are man and men.
——————-
I’m not even going to get into “jizz thief” or “prostitute roulette.” But the use of men and females here is a subtle (unconscious?) way of demeaning women and making the men’s point of view appear more valid.

In a way, I see where you’re coming from. Two people made a mistake and one person wanted to opt out of the consequences. If it were just between two people, and it were fixable (say, a fender-bender or something) then that would probably be ok. But as someone else pointed out above, child support is for the child, not for the mother. Once the mother has that child, it’s not about whatever is going on between the parents anymore. The most important thing is what’s best for the child. And personally, I think anyone who doesn’t pay child support is a colossal douchebag.

JLeslie's avatar

@funkdaddy I have to agree with @poisonedantidote in that the woman has the option to end the pregnancy, the man is at her mercy whether he will be a father or not.

JLeslie's avatar

@Haleth English is not the first language of the OP. Although I understand your point, and it is valid. But, I think we should cut some slack for our international jellies.

Facade's avatar

A heartbeat = life to me…

poisonedantidote's avatar

Why are sperm bank donors exempt from child support, the man knew depositing his sperm there could lead to a child.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Facade It takes about 20 days for a fetus to develop a heart, and even then, it looks nothing like the description of a homo sapien.

Seaofclouds's avatar

I think people are starting to focus to much on abortion. The point is, a guy should have the ability to say he doesn’t want the child just a a girl does. Once a guy says he doesn’t want the child, the girl is free to still make a decision of keeping it, giving it up for adoption, or having an abortion. Her choices don’t change any from before, she just has to make the decision knowing that she would be doing it on her own rather than having him to help her (which would possibly be the case anyway if he ended up being a deadbeat).

Zaku's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central:

Your point about work roles is valid in some cases but irrelevant to this thread.

Your point about alternative sex methods is partly valid but exaggerated and you expressed it in a needlessly crude way. Yes, sex can lead to pregnancy, and if a man is responsible he will realize that, act appropriately, and be ready to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions, which may include a woman becoming pregnant and bearing his child. If a man is honest, he would disclose his attitudes and ideas about that before having sex with her, and if he did, there might be many fewer unwanted children (and OH NO! more of the childish guys not having sex and having to masturbate instead HEAVEN FORBID!) There might be less veneral disease, too. Maybe healthier love relationships.

Your point about the woman deciding for everyone about abortion, yes, once pregnant. It is her body.

Your point about a foetus preferring life to death: I don’t believe it has any such concept, and personally, I don’t consider foetuses humans with rights, and I think women come with abundant compassion for unborn children, and that the pregnant woman is nature’s chosen judge for that question. I don’t think a foetus’s life has begun and I don’t think it makes accurate sense to project onto a foetus thoughts such as, “do I choose to be aborted or to be born?” A pregnant woman however does have many years of many people invested in her past and future, and is vastly more worthy of consideration, it seems to me.

Blackberry's avatar

Unless we’re going to have a conversation about where life begins, there is no third party, and it should be between the two people that had sex.

JLeslie's avatar

@Facade Not trying to argue with what you believe, if the heartbeat is the line you draw for whether it is a life or not I am fine with it. But, you should note the heartbeat initially is not a four chamber human heart. It is basically just a pulse, the beginnings of the circulatory system. The embryo is about a half centemeter when we first hear the “heartbeat.”

Haleth's avatar

@JLeslie Ah, I didn’t realize that. But when I learned another language, we learned the words for women and men long before the words for male and female. In light of the fact that English is not a first language for him, that probably is too harsh of me. But it still strikes me as a strange choice in this context.

poisonedantidote's avatar

I can’t grasp the logic of the arguments against me, it all seems very influenced by emotion and beneficial biased, as I’m sure my arguments seem to you.

At this point I feel we have reached an impass, and that I am just repeating my self. So I will not respond to any more posts for now, unless something new pops up.

@Hypocrisy_Central Has more or less put a lid on things for me. There should be a “legal abortion” the man can sign.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@poisonedantidote: I happen to be the child of a sperm donor so you on my turf now, foo.’ It is an entirely different situation. It also depends on exactly what kind of sperm donor we’re talking about. In my case, my mother wanted the sperm donor to remain anonymous to prevent future contact. In some cases where sperm donors are known, the sperm donor my try to seek custody of his biological child. In that case, if he wants to be part of the child’s life, then he definitely should be paying child support.

Also, someone who goes to a sperm bank with the intention of getting pregnant is prepared to get pregnant. Presumably she or they has considered all of her options and is in a financial situation to do so. She is prepared. If someone is in the position to possibly want an abortion or who may need child support, then they are probably not prepared to have a child.

Also, what I’m hearing from you is, “Guys should be able to fuck whenever they want, regardless of consequences, but women shouldn’t if they don’t want kids.” I don’t see how this is any better than those of us saying that men shouldn’t have sex if they don’t want kids.

ninjacolin's avatar

Just examining the situation, fact-by-fact like:

—Every child born requires financial assistance to survive.
—Financial responsibility for the child must rest on someone other than the child.
—Any person who wants to care for the child must accept financial responsibility.
(anything missing here?)

Financial responsibility belongs to __________________.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@ninjacolin: But what if the mother cannot bear the financial burden herself? Is it a situation where she’s just out of luck and the kid must either starve or be taken away from mom because dad doesn’t to pay? I’m not attacking you, I just want to present an argument based on your scenario up there. :)

ninjacolin's avatar

Well, what happens when a FAMILY (man and woman) can’t afford the financial burden?

JilltheTooth's avatar

OK, @poisonedantidote , re: the sperm donor issue, most sperm banks have their donors sign a contract that guarantees that the donor will not attempt to have any unwanted contact with any resulting issue (at least they used to) and the recipient of said donated sperm (that would be me) also signed a contract stating that I would never attempt to collect any monies or property for the purpose of support from said donor. On that note, maybe if a contract like that was entered into between the two consenting adults before the sperm was deposited into the vagina in the traditional manner, he indeed should not have to be financially responsible. The courts, however, don’t give a rat’s ass about the wishes of either the man or the woman, their concern is the best interests of the child.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@KatawaGrey “Guys should be able to fuck whenever they want, regardless of consequences, but women shouldn’t if they don’t want kids.”

nop…

“Guys should be able to fuck whenever they want, if it is consentual and the man does everything he can to prevent a child being born, and not have to worry about what stupid things the other person will do”

From you I get…

“women should be able to fuck whenever they want, and if they get pregnant this gives them the authority to act any way they like and make others pay for it.”

EDIT:

as for sperm donors, my point was it is no different to walk in to a sperm bank, than it is to not walk in to an abortion clinic, the decision is 100% up to the woman. Different consequences blah blah blah yes, but still in both cases, it’s 100% the womans choice.

JilltheTooth's avatar

And hey, it’s just not fair, to either party. In the case of @KatawaGrey‘s friend, the now deadbeat dad was all for the idea of being a father for awhile, spending enough time with the child so that she knows who her father is and now wants to opt out of all responsibility.

brengunn's avatar

It’s not the man’s decision after the act. Can I suggest post menopausal women as the only sure way of having your cake and eating it too.

Seaofclouds's avatar

Another thing I just thought of, if there was some sort of way a guy could opt out of being a father at the very beginning, it could save the courts and states a lot of time, energy, and money with going after deadbeat dads, not to mention the mom’s time, energy, money, and stress involved with all the court stuff. Let’s all be honest here, when a guy doesn’t want to pay, he isn’t going to pay. When he doesn’t pay, the courts and state put a good bit of time, energy, and money into trying to get him to pay and a lot of the time, they are still unsuccessful. If the guy could opt out in the beginning, leaving the woman to know that if she decides to keep the baby she would be doing it on her own, the courts wouldn’t have to be involved with going after a deadbeat. I don’t think it’s unfair to the woman because she would be making the decision to keep the child knowing that the father won’t be involved (instead of abortion or adoption).

It’s not about saying no guy should ever pay support, just that there should be a time period where a man has a choice. Once that time period has passed or if he initially said he wanted the child, he is responsible for the child. There wouldn’t be an opt out later on, just in the very beginning before the child is even born when the woman would have time to make a choice knowing that the father doesn’t want to be involved.

My ex-husband initially wanted our son and changed his mind when he was 10-months-old. If I would’ve known in the beginning that he didn’t want our son, it would’ve saved me a lot of time, energy, and money when we were going through the courts for custody and child support. We could’ve skipped all that drama and jumped right to the agreement we have now, which is me having sole physical/legal custody and all the financial responsibility as well (since I dropped the child support order we use to have when he had visitation). My situation is much easier now that things are settled and I don’t have to keep going back to court for various things and dealing with child support enforcement since he never paid anyway.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@JilltheTooth What I’m talking about here specifically, is when the male makes it totally clear he wants nothing to do with the kid and never differs from that.

If some idiot wants to play daddy and thenc hange his mind, then yea, he has fucked someone elses life over and should totally be made to pay, just like any other compensation case.

And I agree, that this entire thing is simply not fair on anyone, it is a very complicated situation.

I have the style of being cut and dry, black and white with my arguments, for sake of getting my point across, I am being blunt as usual, but please don’t think I feel nothing for the hypothetical woman in the situation.

I am a very understanding and compromising person, I could even see my self paying child support for a kid I did not want, just to do the right thing.

What we are dealing with here, is 100% hypothetical and an attempt to convey a point, we are not dealing with how I act or would act in my day to day life.

EDIT:

Furthermore, it should be known that I am not saving money, getting in shape, and quitting bad things, in order to help me find someone I can mate with for life and have kids with. I am actively seeking marriage and children.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

Can you actually imagine if this were the case how many men would abuse it? People abuse the current system. This would be a damn free for all. And what a position that puts the woman in. Raise the child alone, and support it 100% financially… even though it takes two to tango… or undergo a medical procedure that can come with serious emotional and physical risks.

Absolutely unacceptable.

ninjacolin's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf.. the woman could just abort.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@ninjacolin that is the medical procedure carrying emotional and physical risks that I mentioned.

ninjacolin's avatar

do it or deal with it.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf In the real world, I will admit that my ideas don’t have a leg to stand on. My ideas simply are not realistic. However, I put it to you all that the status quo is not realistic either, or at very least, far from perfect.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@ninjacolin why should that apply to the woman but not the man? Are you actually serious when you say that??

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf Many woman say giving birth is the most emotional thing they ever did all the time. Giving birth carries more risk than abortion, your argument is just white noise to me at this point.

JilltheTooth's avatar

@poisonedantidote : I don’t disagree totally with the premise of your Q, I think it has a lot of merit on the face of it. Unfortunately, it may mean that recreational sex may have to start including contracts and caveats before anyone gets out of their pants. But with killer STDs out there, now, the days of Erica Jong’s “zipless fuck” are long gone anyway.

ninjacolin's avatar

No-no, I’m speculating on that hypothetical situation where a man can opt out of responsibility. Just seeing where the conversation goes. (Saying things plainly has way of forcing people to think deeper down a hypothetical train of thought.)

A friend and I were having a big discussion yesterday and we decided that china has it right. A country and it’s people really have to get serious about population control. We’re all being so stupid with all these new people being brought into the world recklessly.

Apparently there’s a new shot being worked on (or possibly already developed) that a man can take to “fix” himself for 10 years at a time. We decided that every boy at age 15 should have the shot. AND it should be illegal to have kids before 25.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@poisonedantidote we are talking about potential emotional detriment. Most women consider childbirth to be a positive experience, emotionally.
Regardless, it is a medical procedure that carries physical risks…

Damage to the womb or cervix
Emotional or psychological distress
Excessive bleeding
infection of the uterus or fallopian tubes
Excessive vaginal bleeding (may lead to shock)
Continued pain or pregnancy symptoms (possible sign of ectopic pregnancy)
Signs of infection, including persistent fever, vaginal drainage with a foul odor, vaginal drainage that looks like pus, or abdominal pain or tenderness
The risks for any anesthesia are:
Reactions to medications
Problems breathing
The risks for any surgery are:
Bleeding
Infection

That’s white noise? I can’t believe I’m reading the replies here. I am thoroughly disturbed by this discussion.

ninjacolin's avatar

uh.. if it helps any, I’m not really a fan of abortions that can’t be performed simply with a needle in the woman’s arm.

Kardamom's avatar

The only way around this problem that I can see for the future (I don’t think there is precedent for this currently) is to draw up some type of legal document before a couple has sex, agreeing that the man will not have anything to do with the child or any child support payments if the woman chooses to have the baby, rather than getting an abortion. Both parties would have to sign this document, with witnesses and get it notarized and put on file.

I don’t think it’s OK for a man to just verbalize this to a woman before, during or after the sex act. Because he could make it up, or change his mind after the fact. Legal contacts are the way to go, even though I think that having to stoop to that level is very, very sad indeed.

A man never has to have sex with any woman that he does not want to have children with, ever. That solves the problem before it becomes a problem. None of these choices are fun or sexy, but that’s just how it is.

ninjacolin's avatar

btw.. we decided to call 10 year shot “Child vaccination” :)

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf I will admit there is a positive/negative aspect to the emotion, but the rest of my argument still stands.

That is the list of things that can go wrong with abortion? Kind of short.

malpresentation (breech birth (i.e. buttocks or feet first), face, brow, or other)
failure of descent of the fetal head through the pelvic brim or the interspinous diameter
poor uterine contraction strength
active phase arrest
cephalo-pelvic disproportion (CPD)
shoulder dystocia

That is the list of labor complications alone.

The list of things that can go wrong trying to have a baby are longer.

Risk has nothing at all to do with the argument, it is a mute point, we are starting to get in to “creationist logic” now. no offence to creationists

The only point you have is in terms of emotional distress, and how will that distress stack up to living an entire life with a kid that has a father that does not want him and wants nothing to do with you.

As I said, white noise. I’m not saying that to be rude either, it is just a term for describing bad logic.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

How is it bad logic that a woman should be able to choose which potentially life threatening situation she ends up in?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Because what you describe is not a man.

The difference between Men and Boys…

Boys pursue what is best for themselves, even at the expense of others.

Men pursue what is best for others, even at their own expense.

The initial conditions of the OP are flawed. No Man would abandon his responsibilities. What you’ve described are the actions of selfish immature boys.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf her lack of medical experience, her lack of a clear mind, the entire argument we are having where we try and say “maybe men have a say”.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies Man vs Boy noise = no true scotsman fallacy.

poisonedantidote's avatar

greatest person on earth messaging me on msn, back later

marinelife's avatar

Because he participated in the act which caused conception. He is responsible.

Just because he views abortion as an option, does not mean that the mother does. It is still his child.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf Giving the man an opportunity to opt out does not take away the woman’s choices. She still has the same 3 choices she had before he opted out. Again, this is going with a situation where the guy was always up front about not wanting children, not one where he changed his mind after the fact.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Not so @poisonedantidote. The Scotsman fallacy does not define what a true Scotsman is. It only describes what a true Scotsman isn’t.

I described what Men and Boys are, not what they aren’t.

Blackberry's avatar

(sigh) I give up lol. I was going to try to explain where I thought @poisonedantidote was coming from, but I have to leave soon also, and I wouldn’t be able to stay and explain every hole in my hypothesis lol. Maybe I’ll come back later lol.

ninjacolin's avatar

My conclusion on the matter: Paying for a kid who shouldn’t exist in an overpopulated world is a nuisance.. the kid may be the end of the world but paying for the little germ bag isn’t.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies I have no idea what you are talking about.

The no true scotsman fallacy:

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing.

No true “man” was your implication, you attempted to redefine 1 kind of men as boys because you disagree with the action.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

You need to read the actual fallacy. Not what someone has written about it.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@Seaofclouds but it does alter the choices. Instead of splitting the financial burden of an accidental pregnancy vs adoption vs abortion… you replace the first option with bearing the whole financial burden. The man can walk away. That part is easy. The woman doesn’t have that option. They are both equally responsible for creating the child, why should a man have the option to just walk away when a woman will never have that option?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies It’s getting off topic, lets just both agree you are wrong. I have several books on logical fallacies, I know me a no true scotsman when I see one. Even if by some technicallity it is not officially called that in your case, what you did was still a fallacy along the lines of a no true scotsman.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf She may not have the option of literally walking away from the pregnancy, but she has options of getting out of her responsibility toward the child. Knowing up front that the guy doesn’t want to be involved would be much better than finding out after the fact. If the guy doesn’t want to be involved and pay for the child, he won’t. Court orders for child support does not guarantee that she will get money from him for the child, so if she knows he doesn’t want to be involved ahead of time, she can plan accordingly.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Sorry can’t do that. Antony Flew never described what a true Scotsman actually is. His premise only speaks from the negative, describing what they are not.

My premise is from the positive, defining clearly what the conditionals are. Not what they aren’t.

It’s not the same in the slightest.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@Seaofclouds her options vs his option of walking away are completely different, in my opinion. It’s easy to walk away. There are plenty of men who do it now without a legal right to do so.

I have a very thorough understanding of child support and custody and how ugly things can get. No one needs to tell me. But I simply don’t see why a man should be able to just toss responsibility like a piece of trash, and the woman is left to make the tough decisions is insane, in my opinion.

I’m for the suggestion above that a contract be implemented prior to having sex. That sounds good to me. But “oops, we’re pregnant” then “peace, I’m out! Deal with it!” No way.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

A person should be forced to pay child support because society fails when people are not held accountable to their actions. I say person, because insemination is only one qualifier among others. This scenario could easily manifest for an adopted child to a couple (straight or gay) that has contractually agreed to take responsibility for that child.

It could be a divorced lesbian couple. If they signed the contract for the child, then they are bound by the terms of that contract.

But the dude never signed a contract when he knocked up the girl… right? Well, not really. I tend to go very very deep with things. So from my point of view, a contract is the joining of words… code. Upon the male genetic code co-joining with the female genetic code, a new code is formed. Just like my signature and amendments join with the signature and amendments of another party who signed the contract.

The child IS the contract. The child’s genetic code is a co-joining from the genetic codes of the parents who conceived it. This is why genome sequencing centers can easily determine who’s the daddy.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Seaofclouds But what if the mother cannot bear the financial burden herself? If she knew she lacked funds but decided to have the baby anyhow when the father didn’t want any part of it, she took on that responsibility. If she wants to own the car, why should he have to pay for the gas and tires when he wanted a motorcycle? What if he moved on and he is with another woman to whom he feels he want to have a child with. His future children should be leveraged by a childe he didn’t want prior to that?

dappled_leaves's avatar

Good luck with that “I actually want to have kids” thing, @poisonedantidote. From what I’ve seen of your posts thus far, you seem to seriously dislike women. They pick up on that, you know.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central I think you addressed that to the wrong person.
@ANef_is_Enuf I agree it needs to be at a set time (like before the sex even happens). I started out by saying this could never really happen because of all the things that could go wrong with it. I’m merely saying that a man should have some out just as women have outs available to them.

ninjacolin's avatar

New question, mother-fuckers:

Why is it best for a man to have to pay for a child he never wanted?

I have a friend who was recently LIED TO by a girl who told him she was on birth control. Now she’s having the baby regardless of his sentiments. And yes, she confided in a friend that she really did lie to him about it.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central …“she lacked funds but decided to have the baby anyhow when the father didn’t want any part of it, she took on that responsibility”

Wha? Damn straight she did, and good for her.

You and I are business partners. We each have a responsibility to the business. But I’ve taken the money and run off to the Bahamas with our secretary. We ain’t coming back pal. The product we sell is a matter of life and death for kidney patients. People will die if it doesn’t get produced. You are left holding a big bag of troubles. Simple decision for you. Regardless of my actions, will you suffer for the good of others? Or will you prove to the world that you’re just like me?

JilltheTooth's avatar

@ninjacolin : Did the friend not realize that it is also his responsibility to employ birth control? That relying on someone else is, well, dumb? If a woman believed a man who said he’d had a vasectomy just cuz he didn’t like condoms, wouldn’t you think that was also stupid?

Seaofclouds's avatar

@JilltheTooth Ahh, but the woman could always get rid of the child if she didn’t want it (through abortion or adoption) is she ended up pregnant after believing the guy about the vasectomy. The guy never has that option was conception occurs.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

@ninjacolin guess what? I married a man who was lied to by a woman who said she was on birth control. That scenario alone has affected me on a PERSONAL level that you can not possibly begin to fathom.

I still stand firm that you can’t just decide that because you accidentally got a woman pregnant that you can just skip out because you don’t feel like bearing your half of the responsibility.

I think it’s despicable that a woman would trick a man into getting her pregnant. It’s a shame that it happens. BUT THAT IS NOT THE MAJORITY SITUATION. The majority of the time it’s an accident, and it’s convenient for a man to run. It is not convenient for a woman to run. Women don’t have that option. There are plenty of men who abuse it, though.

JilltheTooth's avatar

And around we go again. How about everybody just steps the hell up and takes some responsibility for their actions? ‘Course, if people always did that we wouldn’t have the church of England, would we.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf Is the man really running if he’s up front about it from the very beginning that he doesn’t want a child? I mean, if the guy tells the girl that he doesn’t want to be involved and she decides to keep the baby anyway, she has to realize that she’s going to have a heck of a time with custody and child support issues these days. It’s not going to change the situation any on that level. Allowing the guy a way out would just get rid of his parental rights and responsibilities (which if he has no interest at all in the child, he won’t be seeing or paying for it anyway).

ninjacolin's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf said: “I still stand firm that you can’t just decide that because you accidentally got a woman pregnant that you can just skip out because you don’t feel like bearing your half of the responsibility”

Women can with abortion.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

I don’t agree with that, either. I agree with a woman’s right to choose – but I think that the father of the child should have a right to object to ending the life of his offspring.

JilltheTooth's avatar

@ninjacolin : On the face of it in a black and white world, that’s an absolutely valid argument. In the real world, nobody gets (or deserves) a free ride. It’s never that simple.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf but I think that the father of the child should have a right to object to ending the life of his offspring. How would that work out? Are you saying he should be able to make her continue the pregnancy if she doesn’t want it (thus forcing her to go through the pregnancy and then being responsible for a child she never wanted as well)? The only reason I believe guys should have the ability to opt out at the beginning is because they don’t have that type of ability with the pregnancy. What if the child ends up not being his? Then he forced her to have a child that she alone would be responsible for (until she found the biological father). That doesn’t seem right.

ANef_is_Enuf's avatar

And the whole focus of this discussion is totally fucked. The ultimate goal should be to determine what is best for the CHILD. Not the parents. You made a baby, now you figure out what the very best thing is that you can do for that child. If you are unable or unwilling to care for the child, then adoption and abortion are viable options. You don’t just get to skip out because you don’t want to deal with it. That’s bullshit.

I’m out.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf I know you said you are out, but if the guy wants to give the child up for adoption, but the girl doesn’t, he’s still stuck. That’s the whole point of this conversation. The woman has all the power when it comes to actually bringing a child into this world once it is conceived. The guy has no say at all about what happens after conception. The point of the conversation was about the guy being able to opt out before the child was ever born since he can’t abort it or put it up for adoption on his own. It’s not about what happens after the child is here (that’s a different matter).

ninjacolin's avatar

Fact: Only a woman can decide whether to bring a child into this world.

nikipedia's avatar

I haven’t read all the answers so I don’t know if this has been said already, but I want to point out that the purpose of child support is to support the child, not to punish the father or reward the mother. Whether the father likes it or not, his actions led to a child existing, and the child can’t support itself.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ninjacolin “Women can with abortion”

Abortion is not an answer. It’s a shirking of accountability. Not a good habit to get into.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ninjacolin “Only a woman can decide whether to bring a child into this world.”

Not without semen she won’t.

ninjacolin's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies we have a greater responsibility to prevent over-population than to ensure births.

funkdaddy's avatar

Abortion as an option seems to be getting tossed around like it’s equivalent to using a condom or being on the pill.

It’s not in most cases, it’s a medical operation by the time most people find out they’re pregnant. Forget lists of possible complications, you’re asking a woman to go in and have surgery to remove a piece of herself.

I’ll fully support men who want to opt out one time and tell a woman she should “just have an abortion”...

as long as he’s willing to get a vasectomy the same day.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ninjacolin “we have a greater responsibility”

Education is the answer for that. Not abortion.

ninjacolin's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies, mistakes happen and there are ways to prevent birth if caught early enough.

@funkdaddy said: “Abortion as an option seems to be getting tossed around like it’s equivalent to using a condom or being on the pill. It’s not in most cases, it’s a medical operation by the time most people find out they’re pregnant.”

I agree with this sentiment. I speak of abortion as being something caught early by a woman who’s aware of the risk of pregnancy after sex and who gets it handled before an operation is necessary.

I’m pretty scared of later abortions myself. I guess the next question is.. what if it’s too late and the lady wakes up and she’s 9 months pregnant, then what?

In that case, I would have to defer to my conclusion on the matter above.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Mistake? That’s like saying my big fat ass is a mistake from eating too many Krispy Kreme Donuts. Yes, liposuction is the cure!

ninjacolin's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies you offer more sanctity to pre-fetuses than they deserve.

josie's avatar

It’s an age old bias. It won’t change in your lifetime.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

@ninjacolin That my friend is an opinionated observation, not an absolute truth. An absolute truth is that from the point where male and female genetic code form another, unique in all of history, then everything we need for human being exists. We are codes. That’s all we are.

With life being so rare and precious in the universe, its sanctity is well deserved, and it should be honored above all other concerns of humanity. ok that last part was an opinionated observation too

ninjacolin's avatar

“ok that last part was an opinionated observation too” – haha, glad you noticed.

“With life being so rare and precious in the universe, its sanctity is well deserved, and it should be honored above all other concerns of humanity”

We honor life best by living it practically. We can have kids later when we’ve figured out how to fit more humans on the planet. It doesn’t honor ANYTHING to be giving birth excessively and unnecessarily. If a birth can be prevented humanely why wouldn’t we prevent it?

ninjacolin's avatar

lol, I feel like such an abortion advocate. But hey we gotta figure this stuff out.

It’s important.

Kardamom's avatar

And once again, I will point out that if a man does not want to have a child, he is never forced (unless he is raped, or his semen is somehow stolen in his sleep) to have sex with any particular woman and possibly impregnate her. And unless the man is incompetent, he knows that having sex can cause a preganancy. Doesn’t matter at all whether he wants to have a baby or not or whether he wants to support a baby finanacially. By having sex with any woman he is complicit in creating that child and therefore partially responsible. Since the baby is actually inside the woman (part of her body, in fact) she can be the only person who gets to ultimately make the decision upon whether to keep or to abort the child. It doesn’t make any difference how mad the guy is, or even if she tricked him into believing that she was on birth control. All men (except developmentally disabled men or men who were reared in isolation and were never told about where babies come from) have a reasonable expectation that they can impregnate a woman if they have sex with her. The only way to avoid that, is for him not to have sex with her. It’s not that difficult. He might suffer from blue balls or agonizing symptoms of horniness, but that’s the way it goes. He’s making a choice.

I know that this answer is no fun, but it’s accuate and it works.

SpatzieLover's avatar

@ninjacolin Wouldn’t you rather be an advocate for men making inteligent choices pre-sex?

ninjacolin's avatar

No, women are the ones at risk of having babies. They better smarten up.

Women if ever you have unprotected sex, use Plan B.
Buy this product and have it available in your homes. It costs about 40 bucks.

If you miss your period for even 3 days, purchase a home pregnancy kit and get your ass to a walk-in clinic. Find out what’s up. Why? Because in most of the developed world it’s entirely possible to stop a pregnancy with a simple shot your doctor gives you in the arm. That’s why.

Delay is your enemy. Get smart. Take action. Prevent unplanned births.
not that it’s relevant to this discussion but try not to get pregnant in the first place, k? thanks.

Kardamom's avatar

“Your life, moment to moment, is the output of the way you’ve been living. If you’re getting undesirable results, simply change the way you live and your life necessarily will change with it.”

This statement is on @ninjacolin‘s profile.

So if he really believes this statement, then it stands to reason that the men who are getting unwanted results (having to pay child support) should simply stop putting themselves into any potential situations (having sex with women) that might have a pregnancy as the end result.

Men actually do have to be responsible too (only in different ways than women).

poisonedantidote's avatar

@dappled_leaves

“Good luck with that “I actually want to have kids” thing, @poisonedantidote. From what I’ve seen of your posts thus far, you seem to seriously dislike women. They pick up on that, you know.”

You are right, (my female friends would beg to differ, but you are right.)I dislike the vast majority of women, I dislike the vast majority of men too. Do not confuse my gutter talk and blunt language for a lack of intelect, I am perfectly capable of forming meaningful realationships with other people, thanks for asking.

You should probably go back and read some more of my posts, I think you have mistaken me for someone else.

And if anyone is not annoyed by high pitched sounds, babbling about shoes, and fanatical feminism, please slap your self really really hard.

EDIT: here would be a good one to start at.

Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Pied_Pfeffer's avatar

@ninjacolin I’m sending you a free ticket to a sex education class. Please use it.

ninjacolin's avatar

@Kardamom and @Pied_Pfeffer.
“Men actually do have to be responsible too (only in different ways than women).”

The question is about pregnant women. Not contraception.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Okay, there is a lot going on in this thread, a lot of views, a lot of people validating their opinions with morals and values and that’s all good (and bad, depending on how you want to look at it). Here’s the thing @poisonedantidote (I am also going to forgive you for some terrible wording and some even worse words used in your details to give my answer focus): I am a feminist that believes in the equality of all people, be they men, women or trans which is why I agree that a man should have a say in whether a woman gets an abortion or not and whether or not she remains pregnant because he contributes to that child half of the child. However, as @Zaku points out (really enjoyed your answer, @Zaku and your couple ones, @Kardamom), the burden of pregnancy falls unfairly on the mother, in terms of biological and emotional costs. Because of pervasive patriarchy and deep-rooted sexism of our culture, men have simply left their women even if they wanted children, because of the assumption that the mother will take care of the child, that she wants the child, etc. In an ideal world, the man wouldn’t have to be forced to pay child support and the woman would have to take into account whether he wants her to have an abortion (or whether he wants her to have the baby when she wants the abortion). We live in an unbalanced world (where there are far worse double standards, @josie, against women than there are against men) and as it stands, there is no fair system when it comes to this kind of thing.

I also find it interesting that no matter how this question is asked, someone always starts to bitterly talk about how some dude got tricked by some girl as if it’s really all that common for a woman to have an entire pregnancy and child just to trick a guy, please, get over yourselves.

Response moderated
Blackberry's avatar

Screw this, I’m gettin’ snipped.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Response moderated (Personal Attack)
Kardamom's avatar

@ninjacolin I’ve read the question several times and it is about pregnant women and contraception. Men have to make the assumption that contraception can fail. If they don’t make that assumption, then they will continue to have to pay child support for children that they help to create, whether or not they want them.

And like @Simone_De_Beauvoir said, we don’t live in a perfect world, and women do get treated far worse than men, in our society. But because of the actual fact that the child grows inside them, there is nothing that a man can do, other than follow the law and pay child support or run away. Until the laws are changed (contracts drawn up ahead of time) or until the laws of physics change so that babies can grow outisde of a woman’s womb or until such time as there are birth control devices that are 100% effective and appropriate for all people that need them, then the dude keeping it in his pants is the only alternative.

I agree that it shouldn’t be necessary for a man to pay child support for a kid that he doesn’t want, but until all of the above things are changed, that is the way it has to be for the sake of the child that ends up being born. Men still have the 100% ability to not put themselves in this position.

Response moderated
Response moderated
Response moderated
Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@ANef_is_Enuf And the whole focus of this discussion is totally fucked. The ultimate goal should be to determine what is best for the CHILD. Not the parents. The best thing for 98.7% of the children is to be born. The ultimate goal for many here is not what is good for the child or the father but the mother only; damn anyone else. It is all about ”It is the mother’s body, so she get to do what is best for her.

Before science tinkered in the birthing process be it an accident or planned there was going to be a baby if everything medically went as it should. Now that a choice is available for women, and her alone, to avoid the responsibility of raising a child she didn’t want many do not want to entertain any other option that makes her less than Caesar standing before the crowd ready to give the “thumbs up or down” as to the baby’s fate.

Then the tired, feckless argument, ”He should pay his half since it is half his DNA”. My how magnanimous to consider he actually has 50% of the DNA when it comes to money; oh, but that is only if he is paying her. If she wanted to suck out his half of the DNA along with hers she don’t want to take care of will she compensate him? Did I just see the equality in the situation fly out of the window like a clown shot from a circus cannon?

The only way to even the playing field, that is what the feminist want, and even playing field, right, is to allow men who do not wish to be a father to the child a Legal Abortion where they can absolve themselves from any legal, official dealings with that baby. If he wanted to be a father and take care of the baby but she didn’t want to wait that long thinking birthing a child will kill her, the fact women did it for centuries, I estimate more then 90% get through it without a hitch, or she is afraid of stretch marks. He should be compensated for his 50% he don’t get to have and raise.

Anything short of that makes the feminist and their argument a big colossal fraud to me.

Response moderated
Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central Do you only to choose to hear the ‘feminist arguments’ that don’t appeal to you instead of hearing some of us feminists that partly actually agree with you? Guess that’s more convenient.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

Am also shocked that no one has yet anything to say in regards to my avatar? I put it out just for you, fuckers :) it’s a giant sex machine near my head! Come on!

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir I noticed it a while back, but was too busy surfing “machine” porn to say anything

poisonedantidote's avatar

I wonder if there are any insurance companies out there… that, nvm.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@poisonedantidote What? Say it, maybe I have an answer.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir Do you only to choose to hear the ‘feminist arguments’ that don’t appeal to you instead of hearing some of us feminists that partly actually agree with you? I would love to hear it. I would more love to see it also. I would love to meet a feminist that ”talk the talk, and walk the walk”. Maybe I should have said most people I met who claimed to be feminist. Most all I have met in my neck of the woods seem to be buffet feminist they pick and choose the parts they like that evens the score or puts them ahead, but if acting on feminism they will lose a perk or an advantage they want to whine about it and cry ”foul”.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir It was just a joke, but completed it would have said “will insure the trajectory of my sperm”

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

i’m still digesting the “my gigantic hairy vagina sets up multiple complicated labyrinth-like traps” line.

What a freaking groovy ride!

poisonedantidote's avatar

So… ball park figures, how many of you hate me now?

EDIT:

last time i brought this topic up was about a year ago, I seem to remember @Simone_De_Beauvoir telling me something allong the lines of “I hope anyone you ever want to have sex with sees this post”. Hehehe :P

ninjacolin's avatar

@poisonedantidote I stood in front of you and took your bullets, man. No worries.

FutureMemory's avatar

Clearly not enough bullets were fired.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

How can I hate anyone who presents such controversial questions. I LURVE YOU @poisonedantidote

git used to it

ninjacolin's avatar

I’m invincible, @FutureMemory. That’s why I offered myself.

@Kardamom “Men have to make the assumption that contraception can fail. If they don’t make that assumption, then they will continue to have to pay child support for children that they help to create, whether or not they want them.”

Cool, I’ll do what I can.
Women, please do the same.

Babies are a risk. They aren’t the reason any of us have sex most the time. Humans probably only TRY having a baby maybe 1% of their sexually-invested lives. (made up statistic for illustrative purposes only)

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@poisonedantidote That sounds about right. But you don’t believe your detail section, as you say, you want kids and I don’t think you think women are below you, period (yes you can make a joke about how you love women below you). It’s okay, I won’t tell anyone. Now, did @ninjacolin mention bullets? Where is my rifle? I named it my Venus FlyTrap, lovingly.

bob_'s avatar

Because that’s what the law says.

If a man would like to have sex with a woman, he should be aware of the potential ramifications. Put another way, if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

I’m gonna drop my comment in, and immediately run away, since this thread is so volatile.

Here’s the bottom line on the matter and it’s 100% truth- Regardless of whether or not the man wanted the child to exist, the child does exist. He took the risk of getting his lover pregnant and he should be man enough to take his part in the child’s support.

Any man who fathers a child and neglects his responsibilities is not a man, but a reckless, immature little boy.

ratboy's avatar

A man so lazy or stupid as to have sex with a woman who knows his real name is not someone whose genes should be perpetuated.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@ratboy So you never told a lover your real name? I’m sorry.

Response moderated (Spam)
augustlan's avatar

[mod says] Personal attacks are not permitted and have been removed, along with all replies about them. Let’s not make this personal, people.

ratboy's avatar

@Simone_De_Beauvoir: thanks, but I’m among those whose genes shouldn’t be perpetuated.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@Zaku Your point about work roles is valid in some cases but irrelevant to this thread. That is why I left it alone and said that is another argument. I just injected it to show you cannot use biology when it is convenient but reject it when is not helpful. Women are the ones created biologically to carry the babies. If women do not like that they can blame nature if you don’t believe, or blame God if you do. If men and women were intersex, is that the going term now, why would men need to have a woman and vise versa? Just because she is biologically the one to carry the babies don’t give her card blanche on the cargo, because she don’t own 100% of it.

Blackberry's avatar

Maybe we really should take second look at abstinence like @poisonedantidote suggested lol.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@augustlan ow! :(

@Blackberry I’m thinking we need to start working on sex computers like they had in demolition man.

Blackberry's avatar

Ya know what? I just had an epiphany.

Sex with women is so great…........it seems totally worth a lifetime of bills, babies and crushed dreams lol.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@Blackberry LOL. Also, too bad that whole exchange was removed, it was hi-larious.

Response moderated
Blackberry's avatar

Yeah, I’m in favor of a modded post library.

Response moderated
Response moderated
RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

What do you mean by “babies, on the other hand, really suck” @ninjacolin?

Response moderated
ninjacolin's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies this thread doesn’t seem to be good at discussing the matter lightly and comically so maybe I do have to clarify when I’m kidding around. (still can’t believe someone called me on using the term “germ bags” as if ANYONE IN EXISTENCE would ever use the term literally. holy shit)

The colloquial “suck” is an expression of general disfavor. When something is said to “suck” it is being suggested that that something is unfavorable. My statement reads: “New born babies conceived through a lack of planning are not favorable under the conditions of over-population that we are threatened by on our planet at present.”

The original phrasing: “Babies really suck.” Is an excessively ridiculous remark designed to feel “unreasonable” when read thereby indicating it’s exaggerated and not-to-be-accepted-at-face-value nature and hinting at a less extreme general opinion that as humans we need to be very very careful about how many babies we bring into the world… starting immediately.

Are there any further questions or clarifications I can make?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It is the lack of planning which is “not favorable” @ninjacolin. The babies are living human beings that didn’t have anything to do with creating “the conditions of over-population” which concerns you so much.

Every one of those babies has the potential of growing up to be healthier, happier, and much much smarter than you or I could ever hope to be. Perhaps even smart enough to not cast blame where it shouldn’t be cast.

ninjacolin's avatar

Lack of planning, on the global scale, is my only issue with conception. The term “babies” was also being used colloquially. I was actually referring to the cause of babies known as embryos and zygotes. I’m not at all opposed to babies growing up: It’s too late at that point, they must be kept alive as far as I’m concerned.

“Every one of those babies has the potential of growing up to be healthier, happier, and much much smarter than you or I could ever hope to be.”

Babies, sure. And let’s hope they do. But it’s not at all a good plan to try to solve the world’s political, environmental, social, religious and other major problems by giving birth to more babies. In fact, I submit that that may be the silliest idea ever.

Instead, since already born and developed adults are capable of using their brains NOW just as well as any new born will eventually be able to use their brains.. a better plan would be to depend on those already born and educated to make the kinds of decisions that might repair our global issues. One such decision might be to reduce the amount of children humans produce annually.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I see no evidence to suggest that “already born and developed adults are capable of using their brains NOW”

ninjacolin's avatar

Well, then that might highlight a difference in our perspectives of humanity. I’m a humanitarian and an optimist. The classic anti-humanist and pessimistic positions are those that tend to suggest the futility of man’s attempts to better himself and a requirement for humanity to reject their so-called education and reduce their efforts to the point of requesting and relying on some unknown God’s intervention.. either that or another common position is to simply destroy all worthless humans and their influence over reality.

Well, the truth is.. evil doesn’t exist. Only ignorance. What we do wrong is merely what we do in ignorance. We’re not evil, we’re uninformed.. what’s more, we’re corrigible. Only people who judge too harshly give up on other humans. To consider someone incorrigible is to consider them your enemy.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Funny how a little sarcasm can open an entire can of worms. Idn-nit?

ninjacolin's avatar

Totes. Now you know how I feel.

JLeslie's avatar

So I was thinking about this. Let’s say the parents are married, living together, and are doing nothing to financially support or take care of their children. Not clothing or feeding and basically neglecting their child emotionally and physically. In that case the child is removed and the parents are off the hook financially right? Do they go to jail?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

It would vary from case to case. Most often jail time is reserved for physical/sexual abuse. Neglect is a cause for removal.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies And the state never comes after the parents for money? When the child is removed?

jca's avatar

@JLeslie: no. Your tax dollars at work.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca So then with that same logic, why should the dad who wants nothing to do with his kid, who is ignoring the child, not paying for the child, has no right to the child, why is he expected to pay when the shitty married parents who had their child removed don’t have to? I am not saying I agree with it, just trying to look at the logic.

jca's avatar

@JLeslie: Laws and logic don’t always go hand in hand. I personally feel that if parents have their children removed, they should still bear some financial responsibility for them, but that’s just my opinion.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In cases where the child is removed from the home, the state has taken full custody. That includes all responsibility. The goal is to protect the children while the parents get their act together so that one day they may be united again. The goal is always to reunite the family.

Cases more extreme are usually criminal in nature. I worked for an orphanage doing PR photography for severely abused children who were not only removed from their homes, but were actually being hidden from their entire family structure. My photography of them had to always be a silhouette or from the back side, never showing their faces in fear that some extended family member might recognize them and try to kidnap them away from state protection. These kids were severely abused by those who should have cared for them. They were the sweetest children I’ve ever seen.

Sometimes the child is removed from a family because the child is dangerous to others, even the parents.

Sometimes the child is removed because the parent cannot afford to properly care for them.

Parents who’ve lost their child because of neglect, don’t necessarily know or understand that they’ve actually done anything wrong. To them, the child is fine. They must work diligently with a social worker to put their lives in the proper order before their child can return home. All financial resources are leveraged towards that end goal.

Seaofclouds's avatar

Women also have the option of taking advantage of the Safe Haven Laws that majority of the states have as a way of relinquishing their parental rights/responsibilities if they want to (without any punishment). So, a woman could have a child and drop it off at a hospital/fire house (or whatever that states specific safe haven law states) if she decides she doesn’t want the responsibility after giving birth.

JLeslie's avatar

@RealEyesRealizeRealLies if the parents lose custody and a grandparent or aunt steps up, might not the state happily give the child to the competent relative? In the case of a dad who wants nothing to do with his child, but the mother wants to raise the child, and for that matter the mother automatically has custody when the child is born if the parents are not married, and the father has zero rights for access to the child unless he goes to court to get it (at keast in MI and TN that is how it works) then how is that dad really any different than a dad who doesn’t care for his child in general? Are you saying being psychologically competent to do it, just not doing it, makes the father more financially responsible to the child than if the father is psychologically incompetent?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

In Missouri, both parents share joint physical and legal custody the moment the child is born.

“if the parents lose custody and a grandparent or aunt steps up, might not the state happily give the child to the competent relative?”

Perhaps if they legally adopted the child. But states are very careful about where children go when parents are shown to be inadequate. Too easy for a parent to steal the child back from a relative.

“In the case of a dad who wants nothing to do with his child, but the mother wants to raise the child…then how is that dad really any different than a dad who doesn’t care for his child in general?”

We’re getting twisted on the two meanings of the word “care”. When you say “doesn’t care for his child in general”, you mean provide… right? Or do you mean love?

The first father doesn’t love the child, but he’s accountable to his actions and responsible to provide.

The second father does love the child, but he doesn’t know how to do it properly. The state takes custody until the father is educated by a social worker. The goal is to reunite the family.

“Are you saying being psychologically competent to do it, just not doing it, makes the father more financially responsible to the child than if the father is psychologically incompetent?”

I can’t say it’s psychological at all. It’s a matter of potential repair of family unit.

jca's avatar

@Seaofclouds: If a parent drops the child off at a Safe Haven site, they will be served with a Neglect Petition by Family Court within 3 days (at least in NY they will).

Seaofclouds's avatar

@jca It varies from state to state. In some states, they can do it without anything happening. They can even do it anonymously. From the information below, it sounds like, while NY can serve people for neglect, the fact that they did it though the safe haven actually makes it so that they don’t actually get in trouble for it (since it’s an affirmative defense in NY).

From this site “In approximately 12 States, anonymity for the parent or agent of the parent is expressly guaranteed in statute. In 24 States and Puerto Rico, the safe haven provider cannot compel the parent or agent of the parent to provide identifying information. In addition, 13 States provide an assurance of confidentiality for any information that is voluntarily provided by the parent.

In addition to the guarantee of anonymity, most States provide protection from criminal liability for parents who safely relinquish their infants. Approximately 33 States (Alaska, Arizona, California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin) and Puerto Rico do not prosecute a parent for child abandonment when a baby is relinquished to a safe haven. In 16 States, safe relinquishment of the infant is an affirmative defense in any prosecution of the parent or his/her agent for any crime against the child, such as abandonment, neglect, or child endangerment.

The privileges of anonymity and immunity will be forfeited in most States if there is evidence of child abuse or neglect.”

From the link I provided, it says that, “In a State with an affirmative defense provision, a parent or agent of the parent can be charged and prosecuted, but the act of leaving the baby safely at a safe haven can be a defense to such charges. The States with an affirmative defense provision include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming”. (emphasis mine)

This link covers the above information and then goes on to break it down state by state for anyone interested. It took a while to load for me, so be warned that it might be slow.

jca's avatar

@Seaofclouds: Yes. As I stated, they will be served in NYS. It does not mean CPS will be successful with their petition. What it does mean is a few months of family court and CPS visits, and all that’s involved.

JLeslie's avatar

If my 16 year old son was on the hook for the next 18 years because a girl did not want to get an abortion, I would be pretty upset about it. Don’t get me wrong, once the child is born I would want a relationship as the grandmother and want my son to have a relationship with his child. I would let the couple even live in my house together with the baby. But, abortion would be my preference in that scenerio.

jca's avatar

@JLeslie: I would recommend, then, that men having sex with women discuss their willingness to get an abortion. Don’t get me wrong, I“m all for it, but not all women are, so you need to remember that.

josie's avatar

@jca Great idea.
In fact, I suggest that there should be a document, sort of like a prenuptual agreement, except it would be a pre-coital agreement.
There should be a standardized form that both parties read and sign, prior to each act of sexual intercourse, that outlines the respective responsibility of each partner in case there is an unwanted pregnancy and abortion is not considered.
Sex without a pre coital agreement would be dealt with sort of the way that drivers who do not wear a seat belt are punished.
And if a pregnancy occured without a “pre coit” the issue would be settled in court, with both parties paying fines and costs for neglecting to sign the agreement.
Plus it will create a new “sexual bureaucracy” for those who want more government.
I like it.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@jca Just talking about it wouldn’t be enough though because a girl may say she’d be willing to get an abortion and mean it at the time, but then change her mind once she is actually pregnant.

@josie Some kind of pre-coital agreement (on paper) is exactly what would be needed for anything like this to ever work. Once the pregnancy happens, it’s a totally different ball game due to the emotional aspect of it actually happening.

JLeslie's avatar

@jca I completely agree. Of course there still is no guarantee. I think the case on my old question was the teens had discussed birth control and abortion, and then when the chick got oregnant, she decided to keep it.

JLeslie's avatar

@josie Sexual bureaucracy. LOL.

Kardamom's avatar

The Ministry of Sex?

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

CIA Coitus Intimacy Association

Kardamom's avatar

Copulation Code Compliance?

Blackberry's avatar

But what woman would sign this agreement lol? I assume after being presented with it, she’d walk out.

Facade's avatar

@Blackberry Problem solved

josie's avatar

@Facade @Blackberry
Not solved. Merely back to the beginning. Funny how shit works.

augustlan's avatar

If it became a standard thing, I think a signed agreement (pre-sex) would be a fantastic idea, and everyone would just expect to sign it. Pre-nups are much more accepted these days than they were in the beginning… it has to start somewhere!

funkdaddy's avatar

Ok, so the condom is too much trouble and breaks “the mood” but let’s find some pens and get this transaction properly documented and certified.

To the notary! Pronto!

augustlan's avatar

@funkdaddy Even the best birth control methods fail… it would still be good to have an agreement about how to handle an unwanted pregnancy. Preferably signed well before things get hot and heavy enough that it interrupts the mood.

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

People can’t always sign their names properly when stumbling out of a nightclub drunk on their ass @augustlan. At least I can’t. I’d be lucky to read the freaking thing, much less sign it. And I guarantee, that would definitely spoil the mood.

“Oh?!?!?! You mean I got to think about my actions beforehand”?

MRSHINYSHOES's avatar

Yes I agree, in the case you hypothesized, it’s very unfair to the man. When the man doesn’t want the child, but the woman does and has it, and the man still has to pay for child support, it’s like having your cake and eating it too. If I had my way, I’d make the woman support the kid totally. At most, the man should only have to pay a small fraction. Those who argue that the man created the child——yes, he did, but if we’re going to legalized abortion and give the woman the right and the option to abort the baby, we should also give the man the right and option to opt out of “paying for the baby.”

JLeslie's avatar

@MRSHINYSHOES I also see the logic in a man being able to opt out. The problem is the impact on society. Children raised without fathers tend to be more screwed up (not always of course I am talking statistics). Screwed up kids affect not only their own lives, but all of us. Also, It is the laws responsibility to protect society. If they are less productive, or God forbid wind up to be criminals. They are more likely to live in poverty, which means you and me pay for those children with tax money. So, either we all can pay for that kid, or the man who actually had the 10 minutes of fun to create it.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

@JLeslie The problem is the impact on society. Children raised without fathers tend to be more screwed up (not always of course I am talking statistics). Screwed up kids affect not only their own lives, but all of us. Also, It is the laws responsibility to protect society. Off its face, that is a slippery slope many don’t want to go out on because they might end up slipping off. If most of that could be definitively proven, then fertility centers allowing single mothers to impregnate themselves would be suspect. The child would not have a father in the home as the child was raised. That would be the same with a same sex union of two women, no father. Those who don’t want to slide off the slippery slope, will say the statistics are wrong. If no one wants to agree with the statistics because it will make wrong some of those who want to be right, how useful is the statistic? If one is to use those statistics to somehow show or prove a man’s responsibility to the child he has 50% DNA invested in, how effective is it when you don’t apply it unilaterally across the board and whomever it burns, it burns?

So, either we all can pay for that kid, or the man who actually had the 10 minutes of fun to create it. She was there also, plus she was the gatekeeper. If he breeched the castle walls for his 10 minutes of pleasure, he will have 20 years displeasure in lock up. If she lowers the draw bridge and allows him access, she is just as culpable, if not more, because she controls the gate. The fair thing is that we all pay for it. We all pay for her to get out of it if she has no money but don’t want to be a mother. If she birth it, and left it at the hospital or the fire station we all will be paying. We pay more behind her than we pay behind him and there are not remedies to get that money back.

Since she has safe havens to “rid” herself of the crying pooping problem, if she didn’t vac the little nipper out before the birth, men should have the ability to legally sign off, once and forevermore, any connection to the child. Officially he never existed as the child’s father, even if later in life he should be a match for a transplant he would not be noted as a relative but a stranger that just matched.

JLeslie's avatar

@Hypocrisy_Central My statement and those stats are about poor moms or moms who wind up in poverty, many times accelerated by an unexpected pregnancy. It does not include middle class women going to the sperm bank, or lesbian women, or even divorced women or widowed women.. It is about consistant rearing of a child in a safe environment in a world and society where being poor puts a child at a disadvantage unfortunately. If the mom has plent of money, then she isn’t getting tax money, so that mom does not factor into my argument above.

This is already how the state thinks about, forget any slippery slope you fear. The state actively tries to find the father to pay up. In TN the state pays for the DNA test if the supposed father winds up not being the dad, if he is the dad he has to pay the bill, and then pay for the child. The state does not give him visitation or custody of any sort, but he has to pay. So, you could say all the state of TN cares about is not having to hand over tax payer money. If the unwed father wants to get awarded visitation or custody he needs to go to court. It is basically the same in MI I know, because my girlfriend volunteers time to help the father seeking access to their children.

JessicaRTBH's avatar

I think two people having sex should probably have a conversation first regarding what to do if pregnancy occurs. I’ve actually been in this situation. I knew going in to it that my partner preferred abortion. I got pregnant and decided to have the child. I didn’t expect anything from him OR the government. I’m financially stable and simply couldn’t have an abortion for personal reasons. I saw no reason why he should have to pay when he made it clear what he wanted in the first place. I also knew that I am financially stable and could support a child independently. Another note – I was on the pill but an antibiotic made it ineffective. I think there are plenty of irresponsible people having sex with no plan or prior discussion of what to do if pregnancy occurs. Many of those people are also not in the financial position to even support themselves. Can’t fix stupid. I agree with you 100% because I think as a woman you must assume a bit more ‘risk’ and know that a pregnancy – whether aborted or carried to term is a life changing experience – relying on a guy’s $ is pretty anti feminist too isn’t it?

Nullo's avatar

Sex is inherently about reproduction. This much ought to be common knowledge by the time you are a consenting adult. By being a consenting adult and knowing a woman carnally, he is accepting the possible outcome of his actions.
Or should be, if he were bothering to stop and think about it.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.
Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther