General Question

deaddolly's avatar

Your opinion of "Roe vs. Wade for Men"?

Asked by deaddolly (3388 points ) October 22nd, 2008

I saw this on TV today and was really interested in what the collective thinks. Here’s the story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/09/national/main1385124.shtml
Bascially, this guy’s gf became pregnant, after he told her he didn’t want children and she told him she couldn’t get pregnant. Guess what, she got pregnant and now he’s up for child support. Took it to court twice and it was kicked out both times. What do you think?

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

52 Answers

jsc3791's avatar

This is an interesting issue that I have seen debated before.

I am pro-choice, but do concede that if the father is not included in that decision, certain quandries about responsibility do present themselves.

It almost seems that to prevent this from happening, there would have to be some formal agreement prior to any pregnancy happening – almost like a pre-nup, but for sex.

Alternately, one should really not be engaging in sex if he or she is not prepared to handle what responsibilities may come.

This is a tricky one.

scamp's avatar

This is another old old story. Over the years, many men have tried to put the responsibility for contraception on the woman. She’s pregnant, and the choice of whether or not to have the child is hers alone, because it is her body. He can’t force her to have a child or a medical procedure. It may be wrong to continue the pregnancy as far as the guy is concerned, but he stuck it in, so he can stick it out!!

deaddolly's avatar

@jsc Yep, it is tricky. I can’t help thinking, if he didn’t want kids, he should keep his pants zipped. And why is contraception always left to the female?

I’d never heard this before. The guy was on Tv this afternoon, with his mother (don’t get me started)...claiming his whole life has been ruined.
I feel sorry for the baby.

EmpressPixie's avatar

Did he wear a condom?

If yes, then honestly I think he should be set free. It was her decision to go through with the pregnancy knowing that he wanted no part of the child or his/her life. But he should be kept to that “having no part” thing.

If no, then he passed the little STD along and he can help take care of it. Actions, like unsafe sex, have consequences.

I keep hoping they’ll produce birth control for men. I say “produce” and not “create” because if they felt there was a market for it, it would be out there already.

cwilbur's avatar

I think that since abortion allows the mother to opt out of bearing the child and adoption allows the mother to opt out of raising the child, the father ought to have a comparable option where he can waive all rights and get out of all responsibilities regarding the child.

And if he was acting under the belief that she could not get pregnant, either because she claimed she was on the pill or because she claimed that she could not get pregnant, then him not using a condom is understandable even if it is stupid. Many women have stupidly assumed that a baby will make a man stick around; usually, they get to raise the child alone while hounding the man for back child support payments.

Emilyy's avatar

@Empress: Unwanted child=STD? Wow.

marinelife's avatar

If you take the risk of procreating, you are legally responsible for child support and morally and ethically whether you wanted a child or not.

Maybe his life is ruined (what a crock!), but perhaps he should have thought of that before he had sex.

cwilbur's avatar

@Marina: sure, but if the mother decides she doesn’t want to be responsible for the child, she has two options: abortion and adoption. The father doesn’t have these options. And it does take two to tango: the mother was just as willing to participate in the sex. Why does she get to have the option to abdicate her responsibility, when the father does not?

jsc3791's avatar

@cwilbur – that is the issue exactly. i am not arguing for or against anyone having to take responsibilities for the act of having sex, but rather would hope that if both parties are equally responsible in the act, they should have an equal set of options based on the outcome.

jessturtle23's avatar

Lots of women who didn’t think they could get pregnant have. If a man doesn’t want to take responsibility for getting a woman pregnant than he should wear a condom AND pull out. You can’t make a woman have an abortion. It’s the same as telling a woman she can’t have an abortion.

cwilbur's avatar

@jessturtle: no, but if a man gets a woman pregnant and does not want to take responsibility he ought to have comparable ways of opting out. He can’t make her have an abortion, but it might be equitable for him to be able to play a flat fee of, say, three times the reasonable cost for an abortion, in order to have no further responsibilities towards the baby.

What’s unfair here is that the woman can decide that she doesn’t want to be responsible and have an abortion—frequently without any input from the father of the child—but that the father is stuck with whatever the mother decides. Both parties had an equal part in conceiving the child; both parties ought to have comparable methods of abdicating the responsibility.

The father can’t force the mother to have an abortion, but neither can he stop her if she wants to. On the other hand, she can force him to pay child support for 18 years, and he has no way out even if she lied about birth control. How is this fair?

jessturtle23's avatar

@cwilbur. A man can give up responsibility if the woman signs off on it. As for being fair, when the men in this world start doing the majority of the raising of children or at least half then you can talk about fair. There are many more deadbeat dads out there that said they would be there and took off than deadbeat moms that did the same. For the most part women are the ones that end up paying for the decision the rest of their lives whether it be an abortion, adoption, or raising the child. If a guy doesn’t want a kid he needs to wear a condom and pull out. It’s called being proactive.

cwilbur's avatar

@jess: Precisely. The man can’t unilaterally give up responsibility; the woman can.

And what we have here is a man who said from the start that he didn’t want kids. His girlfriend told him that she couldn’t get pregnant. Then, when she did, he didn’t change his tune. She’s probably claiming to be horrified that he didn’t want kids, despite him telling her that from the beginning, and she’s probably shocked and hurt that he left her and that he doesn’t want to pay child support, despite him telling her from the beginning that he didn’t want kids.

So I don’t have any problem whatsoever seeing her pay for the kid all by herself. If a woman doesn’t want a kid she needs to be on birth control or not have sex. It’s called being proactive. Sticking a man who said from the start that he didn’t want kids with child support bills for 18 years is asinine.

Further, if you’re unhappy about deadbeat dads? Hitting a man who said he didn’t want kids with the bill is not going to encourage him to stick around.

Seems to me the woman here should have reasonably foreseen his reaction, and taken reasonable precautions herself—or, if she didn’t want to raise a kid by herself, once she was pregnant, opt for abortion or adoption. Why is this automatically the man’s fault?

tinyfaery's avatar

This is totally unfair. What a way for women to trick men into getting them pregnant and then force the man to pay for it. She lied. He was honest. Shouldn’t she have to pay the consequences?

Nimis's avatar

This situation is complicated. I’ve argued it countless time—from all different sides. Despite this, I have yet to reach any real personal conclusion. I agree with Jsc3791, the only way to really get to the heart of the matter is to have some kind of agreement/understanding before sex. That’s not likely to happen. The closest thing we will ever get to that are contraception choices. There are options for males and females alike.

Female: Contraception.
Male: No contraception.
Unplanned pregnancy: While it was her contraception that failed, at least she had taken the necessary precautions available to her. Male should have to pay abortion cost (if she so chose) or child support. He could have lessened his chances (of unplanned pregnancy by failed female contraception) by using male contraception as well.

Female: No contraception.
Male: Contraception.
Unplanned pregnancy: While it was his contraception that failed, at least he had taken the necessary precautions available to him. While I think both should still split the cost of an abortion (if she so chose), I don’t think he should have to pay for child support. She could have lessened her chances (of unplanned pregnancy by failed male contraception) by using female contraception as well.

Female: No contraception.
Male: No contraception.
Unplanned pregnancy: Split cost of abortion (is she so chose) and child support.
Though I think after x number of abortions, they should be sterilized.

Female: Contraception.
Male: Contraception.
Unplanned pregnancy: Same as above—minus the sterilization part.

This particular situation is trickier. If it is possible to prove that the woman knew he didn’t want to have a child with her and assured him repeatedly that — because of a physical condition — she could not get pregnant; I don’t think he should be held accountable for child support.

jvgr's avatar

In this case, I believe the woman is fully responsible. He stated his postion about having children, she said she couldn’t get pregnant. She is the one that mislead because apparently she could get pregnant.

But what about the sitiuation or 2 where a woman did not want to proceed through the birthing process but the man did want to assume full responsibility for the child.

Seems to me that since it takes 2 to create the pregnancy, it demands that 2 resolve the pregnancy.

jessturtle23's avatar

@cwilbur.You are assuming that she was trying to trick him into having kids. It may not have been that way.

Nimis's avatar

Jvgr: I’ve thought about that too. If it is the woman VS the law, it should be up to the woman to decide whether to have an abortion or not. Though if it is the woman VS the man, I think both should have (somewhat) equal say. It’s not really equal because the woman has to carry it to term. But perhaps there could be come kind of compensation? It seems unfair when the man wants to take on full responsibility for the child, but is not given the opportunity to do so because he isn’t carrying it.

syz's avatar

Yes, he stated his opinions on reproduction. Yes, she told him she couldn’t get pregnant. And yes, the responsibility seems to lie mostly with the woman. But, as in all aspects of life, he is responsible only for his own actions, and as such, should have supplied/used his own form of birth control to protect himself. He put himself at risk by not taking his own precautions.

It’s a bad situation all ‘round.

laureth's avatar

If they had been smart, they would have used some kind of protection anyway.

If they were not smart, they just trusted nature (who can do the “impossible” every day) and now they’re having a new generation.

I’m not one to diss Darwin, but if there’s any way that he could be made to look foolish, this is it.

deaddolly's avatar

Don’t know if he used a condom…she was on the pill.

Interesting that the courts threw out his case twice. And I’m not surprised that most of the men on here favor the guy.

I wish there would be male contraception also. Funny, we’ve got everything else but that…

He keeps saying he doesn’t want any part of the child. What if he changes his mind later on? Does everything change then..just because he’s ready?

If I were him and I was that serious about not wanting children, I’d of worn double condoms…
In my opinion, he’s an ass.

scamp's avatar

Lets face it, the only foolproof way to not have kids is to not have sex, period. They are equally responsible for this mistake. She will have a child to raise, and he should do his part to help her. She could’nt get pregnant without sperm, after all, and he provided that. So they are both responsible. Even if she straight out lied to him about her fertility or lack thereof, he participated, so he bears responsibility for his action. I agree with deaddolly. He’s a whimpering ass.

And does he have choices? Of course he does. He can choose to abstain.

rowenaz's avatar

Question:

Why can’t the man give up responsibility by severing his parental rights? Can he do that to get out of paying child support?

marinelife's avatar

Do we know that the woman lied? Perhaps she had been told she could not have children.

Finally, the man is not the victim here. The child is. Whatever his intentions, he was happy enough to engage in sex. Now, there is a consequence. He needs to pay his share.

This poor child will have enough of a burden knowing his daddy made him the poster child for selfishness.

Look, men who do not want children, but want to have sex should use condoms or have a vasectomy.

augustlan's avatar

I saw this on TV today too and found it very interesting and complex. 1) Yes, he did participate, but it was under false pretenses. 2) In several states there are “safe haven” laws that allow the custodial parent to safely abandon their child, abdicating responsibility with no consequences. 3) A woman has the right to choose abortion or adoption against the wishes of the father. 4) A child, who did not ask to be born, needs to be supported by both parents.

It just doesn’t seem very cut and dried to me. What I find very interesting is that the courts would not even hear his case – dismissing it as frivolous, and charged him with all legal fees associated with it. I’d think a case this complicated should at least be heard before judgements are made. As for preventing this type of thing in the future, I really like the idea of a pre-sex agreement. Maybe someday soon it’ll be all the rage.

rowenaz's avatar

I don’t like the idea, mind you, I just wonder if it’s possible. Some men would sever their parental rights during a divorce just for that purpose?

AlfredaPrufrock's avatar

This is a really good question, and it really gets down to, is, no matter what you think about sex in terms of social context, the biological intention of intercourse is procreation. If you don’t want children, then keep your pants zipped, get a vasectomy, or use a condom. Actually, use a condom anyways if your partner is not your spouse.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Emily, usually I call them parasites but in this case I wanted to stress the sexually transmitted part. I can find kids as cute and cuddly as the next person, but from his point of view right now? The kid might as well be an STD. Unwanted, probably not something he really wants to talk about, a bit embarrassing, and expensive. Not exactly the best situation for the kid to be around.

deaddolly's avatar

I agree with Alfreda, use a condom ALWAYS. I doubt those wham-bam-thank-you-ma’m type of relationships would bother to sign an agreement. The heat of passion would out shine the whole idea.
It’ll always be a bone of contention. I can see both sides. And i find it strange too, that courts wouldn’t even hear the case.
But, all that matters is the child. I can’t help thinking that when this guy is older, he may want to connect with his child. That would open a whole new question for the collective.

cwilbur's avatar

@jessturtle: I’ve seen it happen more than once that a woman gets pregnant against the wishes of her boyfriend because she really wants a family and thinks that if she has a kid he’ll be moved to stick around, and if not, she can always stick him with child support. So yeah, I think that’s the way to bet in most cases unless there’s evidence otherwise.

@Marina: the problem here is not “who is the victim?” but “why does the woman have the power to abdicate her responsibility (by having an abortion or giving the baby up for adoption) while the man does not?” Both of them participated in the sex act; why does she (and she alone) get to decide what happens to the baby?

Look at it the other way: what if he wanted to keep the baby and she wanted to abort it? He’d have very little say there, despite it being fully as much his kid as hers. So, since she has the ability to abdicate her responsibility, I think he should have the ability to do the same.

@deaddolly: There is male contraception. It’s called wearing a condom. The man in this scenario didn’t do it, because he was told the woman couldn’t get pregnant.

Yes, it’s a terrible situation for the baby to be in, but the solution to that is giving the baby up for adoption, not raising the baby as a single mother while hounding a man who did not want to be a father in the first place for child support money.

galileogirl's avatar

The financial support is the right of the child, not the mother or the father. Privately the mother can assume full financial responsibility for the child, but that might not stand uo in court because she doesn’t have the right to sign away the child’s rights. If the child ever requires government support, the government will go after you. After all we didn’t agree to pay for your fun.

A man has two choices if he doesn’t want to share parenting and a lifelong commitment-get it SNIPPED or keep it ZIPPED.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@cwilbur: Yes, he could wear a condom, but so could she! (But not at the same time.) That doesn’t negate that we still need a male hormonal, safe, reversible birth control.

deaddolly's avatar

@cwilbur If he was that adament about not wanting kids, he should have used a condom. Not matter what she said. He believed what he wanted to hear.

And no matter who did what; there’s a baby. It’s a part of BOTH of them and will be forever.

cyndyh's avatar

I can see different angles to this.

In this particular case the woman was told she couldn’t get pregnant and was on birth control for other medical reasons. She wasn’t trying to trick him. Whether she had an abortion or not is no one’s choice but hers. Either way that’s her body going through the abortion or the pregnancy. There are a lot of women who would never abort. That’s her option.

I think if I had been advised by a doctor that I couldn’t get pregnant and was on birth control for other conditions, I might think this pregnancy was my one chance at having a child and keep it. I can see someone doing that without having a motive of tricking the guy.

He did have a choice about whether to get her pregnant or not. She did everything to not get pregnant and he did nothing. Wrap it up, fellas. He’d have had a better case if he’d actually used a condom or had himself snipped.

I find more interesting the case of the guy who wanted to keep the baby that the girlfriend gave up for adoption. After the pregnancy has already happened, the baby’s been born, and the girl wants to give it up I think the father, short of him being unfit, should have a say.

On the courts throwing the case out, they read the brief and if there’s no reason to hear the case they don’t. They think it doesn’t have merit to take the court’s time over the issue. That doesn’t mean they wouldn’t hear another case where the guy involved has a better case.

laureth's avatar

When a biological male can carry a baby for nine months, get stretchmarks, swollen milky breasts, morning sickness, and all the pain of childbirth, then he will have as much say in what happens to the pregnancy as the woman does.

Until then, I think the one who is having an alien take over her body has more say than the one who had five minutes of pleasure and is then free to go.

galileogirl's avatar

Pixie: Safe reversible male birth control-his zipper. The only safe effective hormonal male birth control they have found contains female hormones but then you get the stretch marks and breasts.

tinyfaery's avatar

@gailieogirl So you believe in teaching abstinence to teenagers? Maybe we should all have sex only when procreation is the intention.

galileogirl's avatar

I didn’t know we were specifically talking about teenagers since the subject of the article was an adult male who shouldn’t need to be “taught” anything, especially to take responsibility for his own actions.

Although I believe it may not be as effective with teens. it wouldn’t hurt to remind every man to look at her very carefully before he droups trow for a quickie because she may become a permanent part of his life. It’s kind of like Russian roulette except when you pull the trigger you will just wish you were dead for the next 18 years.

TaoSan's avatar

From a social aspect, feminists have been fighting for equality for so long, where are the “masculinists” now that make it really equal?

If you read the article right, then you see the part where even the judges admit that the current situation is unfair to men, but they simply don’t want to burden society with the cost by setting precedent.

Don’t lynch me now. Morally, if you stick your weenie in somewhere and the stork comes to visit, the right thing to do is to take care of that.

However, once an egg is fertilized, I do hold that men are entirely incapacitated in their options. And that is gender-inequality. A woman has a plethora of means to resolve the situation available to her, men have zilch, man have to listen what she wants and that’s that. Fair???

I certainly do appreciate the complexity of the issue, but maybe just because of that complexity a little simplification is needed. It takes two to make a child, it should take two to determine the future of it, and not a completely one-sided dominance by the party that is at that time suffering from hormone bombardment anyways.

I’m only 34 years old and already I know three guys that have been “blessed” with unwanted children based on either false pretense or in one case stupidity. It happens way more often than one may think and for at times outright slimy motivations.

I’ve just grown so tired of the portrayal of women as the victim of the situation, when in fact they hold all the power in the world over you if this happens. When it comes to making the child, it’s your body the sperm comes from so it’s your problem, when it comes to deciding the outcome it’s like it’s her body you can’t do squat.

I know that all sounds rude, and don’t get me wrong, I simply believe in equality. She said she can’t get children, hell can’t you even trust the people you have sex with anymore??? To me the case is clear, these two people were in agreement based on her knowingly or unknowingly false statement. He was clear from the start, her info was wrong, she lied or was stupid. Should he still have used birth control, you bet he should!!!

But let me ask you this, if she told him in all sincerity that she can’t get pregnant, what a romantic night that would have been when he still insisted on condoms, hmmmm, ever thought about that?

Hindsight is always 20/20, specially when the brain dropped into the pants….

just my 2 cents

laureth's avatar

Maybe it’s not about being able to trust the people you have sex with, but having sex with people you trust.

EmpressPixie's avatar

@GG: I was reading a thing recently, and I’m trying to find it now, that said that if pharma companies felt there was a good market for it, we’d be less than five years from having a pill for guys on the market (more or less). But they haven’t because they don’t think guys are into birth control.

It makes me so mad because yes—right now the male options are don’t do it, snip it, or glove it. The glove, when used properly, is still not as effective as BC and could break. Snipping sometimes self reverses. And telling guys just not to do it because they don’t have safe, effective, reversible (because when snipping doesn’t self reverse it’s often not reversible at all) birth control options is ridiculous. I think they deserve the same options women have: condoms, not doing it, snipping/tying, OR ORAL/PATCH/SHOT BIRTH CONTROL. It is ridiculous that the safest of the reversible options just isn’t available to an entire gender.

deaddolly's avatar

@empress/GG I totally agrtee. So they think there’s no interest and that’s it? WTF? The whole notion of it ‘being a man’s world’ is bs. It should not be the sole responsibility of a woman to provide for birth control. Just because men can’t seem to control their penises!

It’s a sad commentary on men as a whole.

cwilbur's avatar

@laureth: Yes, the fact that the woman carries the child means that she should get some say in what happens to it. Which means that she has every right to decide whether to have an abortion, give the baby up for adoption, or keep the baby.

On the other hand, the man and the woman were equal participants in the act that created the baby, and they both consented to it knowing the ramifications. It is unfair, in both the vernacular and legal senses, to give him the same responsibility to care for the baby without giving him the same rights regarding the baby. I’m not saying that he should have the right to force her to get an abortion or give the baby up for adoption, but that as she has those two ways to abdicate her responsibility to the baby, he should have comparable options to abdicate his responsibility to the baby.

Yes, he should have worn a condom. On the other hand, as far as either of them knew, she was on the pill and incapable of conceiving. I don’t think it’s unreasonable for him to say, “This is not what I signed up for,” and walk away; I think he has a duty to make his intentions clear, and to follow through on his commitments, but I don’t think it’s at all reasonable that if she decides unilaterally to keep the baby, despite his stance from the very beginning that he didn’t want kids, that he should be required to pay for it.

The argument is that the baby’s rights are most important. Well, honestly, the baby in this situation is probably best served by being given up for adoption by a stable household, not being raised by a single mother who has to hound the baby’s father for child support—because a stable family is something that no amount of child support money can replace. When I see someone advocating for adoption, rather than beating up on the father, I’ll believe that that person actually does have the baby’s best interests at heart.

TaoSan's avatar

And by the way, statistically, what are the chances that she had a defect diagnosed preventing her from getting pregnant AND took the pill for other reasons whilst there are many better therapeutical hormone products available today AND the original defect just so disappeared AND she hit one of those dud packages of the contraceptive.

OH COME ON!!!!!

This smacks A LOT of agenda-pregnancy

galileogirl's avatar

TooSan: Are you trying to say that a woman might lie like a man? Oh my, what is the world coming to? Laureth said it perfectly

“Maybe it’s not about being able to trust the people you have sex with, but having sex with people you trust”

Bravo, Laureth!!

TaoSan's avatar

@GG

That wasn’t well formulated on my part. It was based on my agenda to not have sex with people BEFORE I trust them. But your right, I expressed that in the wrong manner…..

siilver's avatar

okay, you can’t put the blame on the guy. Yes, he should have taken precautionary measures, but she told him she couldn’t get pregnant. If a woman had her tubes tied, would a man still need to wear a condom? Or, if a man had a vasectomy would the woman need to still use birth control of some sort? Is it still the responsibility of the other party to use protection when the other says they can not get pregnant? Yes, a man should help the child in some way, but that is because children should not be punished for their parents mistakes. He should not be forced to pay child support, which will undoubtedly just go to the mother and her spending, but he should still provide for the child’s well being.

You also have to realize that this was his girlfriend at the time and not just some random, drunken, one night stand where the girl was like “Oh, I can’t get pregnant. Blah, blah, blah, let’s just do it!” So, I am betting that they had unprotected sex for awhile before this accident occurred.

The big debate would be about an abortion. I am very pro-choice and believe that it is everyone’s right to do as they please, but in a situation like this would it not be just as fair to let the father terminate the pregnancy as the mother? Many times have men not been to happy with the fact that the woman aborted and nothing could be done because it was her body. But, isn’t a child’s DNA half and half, both mother and fathers genes? This should give him as much as a say as a woman on whether or not he chooses to abort or not. I know it is a little different, but let’s say you have a joint bank account in both names but the man has the card on him. If the woman doesn’t want him spending anything does she not have the right to say “hey, no, don’t spend that money. i have put half of that in there too and don’t want you to blow it.” It is half hers and she gets say in what happens to it. Now apply that same logic to this situation. I believe he has as much right as her to choose the fate of the child as she does.

I know it doesn’t sound right in some people’s eyes, and I sympathize with you. But you have to look at this with an unbiased point of view. Whether pro-choice or pro-life, it is as much his say as hers. and if they can not come to an agreement, then, through the courts eyes, he should not be financially responsible for something he could not control. He says no baby, she says yes. She then wants money for something she lied about, and the only one to be punished for it is the man. I agree with a “pre-sex-nupt.”

Oh and for all of you out there saying if he stuck it in he can stick it out, or he shouldn’t have unzipped it, blah, blah, blah – get off your high horse. I know no one likes contraceptions but its a part of life. But don’t automatically put the blame on him because he stuck it in. SHE lied, SHE chose not to use protection too, SHE chose not to get an abortion, SHE wants his money, SHE chose not to go ahead and get her tubes tied just in case. Yes, he is at fault too, but why should he be making the only payments? She should be forced to make child support payments into a fund with the child’s name that can only be accessed when of age. Sounds fair enough to me.

cyndyh's avatar

@siilver : You missed a lot of points in your statement above. In the case in question, she didn’t lie. She was told she couldn’t get pregnant by her doctor and she was on birth control for another condition.

Your bank account analogy doesn’t hold water because the bank account isn’t in her body. He doesn’t have equal rights to make the abortion decision because he doesn’t have any risks involved in the medical procedure because it’s her body and not his.

Child support is not ordered for a some-day bank account for a child to cash in on when the child comes of age. Child support is for supporting the child’s day-to-day needs—food, clothing, shelter, etc. Both parents do pay into it based on the laws of the governing state and the formula used in that state.

siilver's avatar

@cyndyh but she did lie. I mean, he, according to many in this post, just stuck it in without caring about anything and not taking any precautions. So she is just as guilty as he is. And it just seems fishy that someone who is told that they can not get pregnant, and is “on” birth control still gets pregnant. I mean we are talking 1 in a billion or more chances that this happens, legitimately.

As far as the analogy. It does. What is his is his. nuff said. It might be her body, but if she chooses not to let him have any say then he should not pay. (hell, i should be johnny cochran with a line like that) Seriously, if she won’t let him deny the life, why should he be responsible for it? He, thinking that she is sterile, engages in sex and is now forced to pay for a child that she deviously bore. With the way people are these days i really don’t doubt that she paid the doctor to say that he told her that, and did they test to see if she had the birth control meds in her system? plus there are emergency contraception methods too. Just seems like a ruse to get money from the man. It doesn’t matter if it is in his body or hers. I love how he gets no choice on what she does with it (live or die), but when it is born he still doesn’t get a choice whether or not he has to take care of it. I mean you can’t have it both ways. If a man doesn’t want a child, and the birth was unplanned for both parents, if she says no i am still going to have it, why should he be responsible? Actually, what if the tables were turned? What if she didn’t want it but he did? I guess you would say it is her body and she can do whatever she wants. But then, that is just as much his child as hers, so he should have the right to make her have the baby. Would the government then step in and make her have the baby, and then pay child support? I already know your answer to this, and you will say “it’s her body and she can do whatever, blah blah…” But if you take a second to actually realize how messed up that would be if the tables were turned, then i think you would see the argument differently.

Oh, and for the third statement. I understand it is not created that way, hence why i said should be made. I know more often than not that the money dished out for child support is not fully spent on the child’s well being. I do understand that it is supposed to be for the continual care of the child, but since she F-d up too, shouldn’t she have to put money into a fund for the child? My issue stems with the fact that this is all his fault and in no way her’s. I think that both parents should still have to put small amounts towards the child’s future and call it a day.

cyndyh's avatar

@siilver: Do you have anything to back up your stated odds? You don’t really know how likely the situation is or not. But in the stated case that inspired the lawsuit she didn’t lie. Assume for the moment that she didn’t deceive him. How does that change your argument?

You’re arguing for putting women into a position of slavery. The guy’s choices end where her body begins. It’s not a matter of them each having the same amount of DNA in a neutral inanimate vessel. Attempting to force her to have an abortion or a baby is not his choice and it should never be. When you come from an absurd position it makes the rest of your case look weaker.

Child support is based on both parents’ income. If she’s raising the child she is putting into the care of the child even if he sends money her way. I’m interested in you backing up this statement you made.

“I know more often than not that the money dished out for child support is not fully spent on the child’s well being.”

That’s a big claim. If you can make it you’d have an argument for reducing child support payments for more than half of payers. But you still wouldn’t have a case for severing parents’ responsibilities entirely or forced abortion.

siilver's avatar

@cyndyh typical feminist. You don’t see both sides of the situation. It is strictly the man’s fault in all of your accusations, and she was just innocent and accidentally got pregnant after all these “statements” that she couldn’t and wouldn’t get pregnant. You automatically assume it is all his fault. What is there to back up your proof that he did everything wrong? Do you have any proof that she didn’t lie? You say it is all her choice but you never answered my question, if he wanted the baby and she didn’t does she have the right to terminate? You say i want to put women in a position of slavery, but you are sadly mistaken. As noted the judge sympathized with the man but didn’t want to cause a stir with people like you. Its not just the women’s choice about a child. This is a split decision and if one of the parents doesn’t want the baby they should have the right to terminate or give up their parental responsibility, including financial responsibility too. But of course i know you will answer back, show me the proof, and females this. That has been all you have said since you posted on the topic. You have no proof, I have no proof, but being a feminist woman you will disagree with what is said from any male unless they take a stand in your corner. The point is, they both messed up. one wanted the child, the other didn’t. it was unplanned and shouldn’t be put on a parent that was engaged in sex under false pretenses. The only one responsible at this point should be her because she chose to do what she wanted with her body. You are so anal about what women can do with their body, then tell me this, if men get no say on what comes out or goes in your body, why should they be responsible financially for it? You want it all. You don’t want us to have anything to do with what happens with our baby while it is in your body, but the second it comes out all of a sudden you want all this money from us, and out of nowhere it is now our responsibility to take care and deal with something, that, nine months earlier, we couldn’t say anything about because it is your body and we have no right. One or the other, either it is your body, your child, your money solely, or we get say on what happens to it.

I know you will get back on here and blab about proof, slavery, and anything else to “empower” women, which is fine, women deserve their rights as much as anyone else. But, you have to make a choice either we get say, or you get nothing. I bet you can’t choose.

Hypocrisy_Central's avatar

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. A man SHOULD have the right of a legal abortion if the woman has the choice then to be fair (since that is what NOW and all the feminist want) the street should be both ways. Cases like this show what a fraud the feminist movement is. They want to have their cake and eat it to, they don’t merely want equality but to be the hog with the biggest nuts. Can a guy get compensated if he can’t be the father of the child half his sperm went into because she don’t want to be all fat by bikini season? No, he isn’t, so why should he have to pay if he didn’t want to be a father? If she don’t want to be a mother she can give the child for adoption then none of them is stuck. If she didn’t want the chance to be a mom she can keep her legs closed as well as him keeping his pants zipped. But that is the chance you take when you have sex outside of marriage and he/she was just a booty call with no more than fun at its core. To not give men a legal abortion just makes all talk of true equality a fraud.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

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