Social Question

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

If a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant why should the guy have to pay support for the next 18 to 23 years?

Asked by Adirondackwannabe (36630points) May 8th, 2012

It’s his money, what claim does she have to it? She knew the risks.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

92 Answers

tom_g's avatar

Right on! Because humans reproduce via asexual reproduction. Since the male has nothing to do with this, why should he have to pay!~

Seriously though…“she knew the risks”, “woman has unprotected sex”? Is this masturbation or is there someone else involved here?

Kayak8's avatar

After two people create a child, they will each have innumerable costs to bear until that child is 18. Some of them are financial (after all, the authorities frown on failure to feed and clothe the small beasts), some of them are emotional (day to day provision of care, providing guidance and nurturing), some of them are physical (bearing a child, caring for a child, cleaning up after a child), and other costs to numerous to mention. That each party should contribute what amounts to half of the care provision for their half of the responsibility is fair.

You see, the male had unprotected sex as well . . .

linguaphile's avatar

Because it takes two to tango—a guy is as equally responsible for his self-protection as the girl is for her self-protection. If they both decide to have unprotected sex, then both are responsible for the consequences.

Unfortunately, it’s much easier to run when you don’t have 30 pounds growing in you to lug around.

I’ll be the first to say it’s not that simple- really. It can get really, really complicated.

Cruiser's avatar

It might be his money but it was his sperm and am I to assume this man did not know the risks and consequences of unprotected sex??

jrpowell's avatar

Are you drunk? I’m not sure how you could think such a thing.

Wanna make a deal? If you don’t want to pay child support you have no fucking business in anything related to the legislation of birth control or abortion.

wilma's avatar

@Adirondackwannabe you’re pulling our leg, aren’t you?
Playing “devil’s advocate”?

john65pennington's avatar

If a man and woman have unprotected sex and she becomes pregnant, why shouldn’t the guy have to pay support for the next 18 to 23 years?

It takes two to tango and two to make a baby

It’s called responsibility from both parents.

tedd's avatar

Not sure if serious…..... anger at stupidity rising…...

wilma's avatar

I say they should both just leave the kid in the woods and let the wolves raise it. ;) ~~~

cazzie's avatar

HE had unprotected sex as well and her. How is this even a question? Sometimes, screwing makes babies… it is how biology works. Sex isn’t just a recreational activity two people do when they are bord. SEX makes babies and spreads disease, and if a boy has to even ask this question, he is too immature to be having sex with anything other than his hand and a box of tissue in his room.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

The man doesn’t have to have sex with her.
The man could’ve worn a condom

SavoirFaire's avatar

This is one of the places where the biological differences between men and women matter. Pregnancy is an asymmetrical burden, and so the rights, responsibilities, and protections are also distributed asymmetrically. This is just one way of balancing the risks.

Michael_Huntington's avatar

Plus giving birth hurts a lot. I think there should be some compensation for that

poisonedantidote's avatar

This depends on the details. If a couple fuck and the woman gets pregnant and they have a kid then they both have to support that kid.

However, If they don’t use birth control and she gets pregnant, and the guy then states that he does not want to be a father, there is still one more form of birth control that could be used, and it is 100% up to the woman if she wants to use that or not. If she says she is going to have the kid anyway, even if the guy does not want a kid, then the guy should not have to pay a single penny or have anything else to do with the kid. Anything outside of that scenario and it should be up to both parents to support the kid, 50–50.

beachbum76's avatar

What if she tells him she is on birth control pills? If he trusts that she is really taking precautions, should he be punished the rest of his life?

Blackberry's avatar

I think there should be some type of system where the woman can claim full responsibility and leave the man out of it if she wants the kid that badly. We’re not going to control the woman’s body, but we can control things beyond that. There are cases where people intentionally lie about contraception or poke holes in condoms.

And I think @Adirondackwannabe was being flippant, but people use the same reasoning “he knew the risks” for a man, no matter what happens, but we don’t seem to equally apply that same reasoning to women, sometimes.

cazzie's avatar

@poisonedantidote so…. force the girl to abort or give her no money because he doesn’t want to be a babydaddy? Surely you jest.

elbanditoroso's avatar

I think the only reasonable approach is that before each sexual encounter, the man pulls out a legally binding disclaimer – signed by both with free will – that lays out exactly what responsibilities will be in the event of an unexpected pregnancy. No signature, no nookie.

Sort of like a prenuptial contract, but at a different time. Call it a pre-fucktual agreement.

My guess is that in 70% of the times, that will utterly break the mood and the problem goes away.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie Nop, I’m serious. If the woman is say 4 or 5 weeks pregnant, the man clearly states that he does not want to be a father at all, and there is a way to stop it, yet she allows the clump of cells to turn in to a person, it is then all on her.

If the guy bursts in to the delivery room saying he has changed his mind and that he wants it pushed back in, it is too late and you have to pay. However, if there is a way to prevent something that does not even have limbs or a head from turning in to a person, and the woman is 100% responsible for deciding to do that or not, and she decides not to, it is her problem and her problem alone in my eyes.

Edit: also, no one is forcing anyone to abort, it is the womans body and her choice. The woman still gets to decide to have an abortion or not, the man just gets to decide to wash his hands of it or not is all.

Blackberry's avatar


Oh god I laughed out loud.

cazzie's avatar

@poisonedantidote how about he not have unprotected sex. Sex is not a carnival ride. Anyone who thinks like that should pay double.

Blackberry's avatar

@cazzie “Sex isn’t just a recreational activity two people do when they are bord.”

Well, um….It is. Or we would only do it for the purpose of procreation.

cazzie's avatar

@Blackberry my point wasn’t that is isn’t that, but it isn’t JUST that. It also makes more humans and spreads disease.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie The hypothetical woman also had unprotected sex.

Round 1: the man and the woman have sex without any birth control. 50–50 to blame.

Round 2: the woman still has 1 more form of birth control available yet she decides knowing the consequences to not use said birth control. 100% to blame.

cazzie's avatar

oh, and all my answers to sex questions from now on should be seen through the filter of ‘bitter and twisted ‘cause she ain’t getting any.’ Just for full disclosure.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cazzie: “spreads disease”—weak answer. Sharing straws when drinking a soda spreads disease. Using public restrooms spreads disease. heck, giving someone a kiss or a handshake spreads disease.

I’ll buy the ‘making babies’ argument, but not the disease portion.

cazzie's avatar

@poisonedantidote you think that abortion is birth control? That is pretty damn sick.

@elbanditoroso so, hepititus, aids, vaginal bacterial infection, numbers of other viruses are spread through sexual contact, not sipping out of someone elses drink. Read a book.

wilma's avatar

I think that pre-fucktual agreements should be available for download at a moments notice. On your phone would probably be the most convenient place to get them. They should definitely be covered in sex-ed class and maybe sold in those machines in restrooms at clubs and other frequent hook-up places.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@poisonedantidote That seems to me the kind of thing that has to be agreed to before sex, not four or five weeks afterwards. If you’re having sex with someone without having discussed what to do should various situations arise, that’s your own responsibility.

Also, abortion isn’t a form of birth control in any normal sense. The term “birth control,” after all, is colloquially a euphemism for “early interventions to prevent pregnancy.” Abortion only happens after a pregnancy has occurred and is detectable.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie Abortion is birth control, it controls the birth, therefore it is birth control. It is not a contraceptive, but it is indeed birth control.

@SavoirFaire I agree, it should be talked about before hand.

nikipedia's avatar

Child support has nothing to do with punishing the father. It’s in place to support the child.

cazzie's avatar

What @poisonedantidote proposes happens all the time and the men piss off without a trace anyway. It has been happening since the dawn of time. Men fuck off and leave women to raise the kids and we do it and we are probably much better off without the men who think that way in our lives. As my mother was fond of saying, ‘Good riddens to bad trash.’

SavoirFaire's avatar

@poisonedantidote If you agree, then you have to give up the controversial part of your answer (that a man can abdicate responsibility after sex). If a couple agrees about what to do in the case of a pregnancy before sex occurs, then there will be no problem. The current laws exist for when no such agreement has been reached, and I see no reason to think they are unfair given what I said at the beginning: pregnancy is asymmetrical in fact, and so should be treated as asymmetrical by the law.

cazzie's avatar

Abortions are a medical procedure and can be very invasive with serious risk factors.

If a man doesn’t want children, 1. use condoms. 2. get a vasectomy. Chances are higher that the man has a job with medical insurance and it covers vasectomies. (which are ALSO birth control.)

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie If it is the womans body and her right to choose, she is responsible for what she does with that power. Can’t have your cake and have the man pay for it.

@SavoirFaire Not really, I am in a relationship at the moment, we have talked about kids and all that stuff. We plan to have 2 kids in about 3 or 4 years time, but we have both decided that we don’t want to be parents just yet. She knows I don’t want to be a father yet, if she gets pregnant and I remind her of that after we discover she is pregnant, yet she insists on having a kid, it would be her kid, 100% on her. Having said that, that will not happen, this is just hypothetical, we don’t want kids yet because we want to travel and do things first, but if push comes to shove I would want to be the father. However, in a hypothetical situation like this, I think my view is not irrational or unfair.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie If a man has sex with a woman and he uses a condom, and the condom fails, and he says he does not want to be a father, but the woman still has the kid, should the man still have to support the kid?

elbanditoroso's avatar

@SavoirFaire – I agree with part of your response.

Yes, it is asymmetrical. But probably not in the way you meant.

I would argue that if the father is paying child support for some number of years (18,23, or whatever), then he has the right – not just the option at the whim of the mother – to see, develop a relationship with, and enjoy the benefit of fatherhood, should be so desire.

I know too many ex-couples (not married, but more like the descriptions above) where the guy pays child support but is barred from ever seeing the child.

That is wrong. If you are going to balance (or achieve some sort of symmetry), then the father has rights, too.

cazzie's avatar

@poisonedantidote Yes. But he can just send a check. No midnight feeds. No teaching the baby to walk and talk and eat and ride a bike and tie his shoes or taking it to the ER when he falls. No singing the baby to sleep. No kisses and hugs from the kid. Just a check. Easy. She’ll do everything else.

SavoirFaire's avatar

@poisonedantidote The key word in your response is “remind.” Your position above is that the man can inform after the sex. That is what I am saying you have to give up.

@elbanditoroso I agree that the father should be allowed to develop a relationship with the child (barring some strong reason for legally preventing it). As far as I know, however, no state in the US allows the mother to unilaterally decide that the fathers of their children cannot see the children. If there is such a state, or some place outside of the US, that allows that, then we agree that is a travesty. It does not seem to answer the question at hand, however.

ucme's avatar

Not a question of “having” to, should be a case of wanting to contribute to what is after all, his kid too.

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie You mean the midnight feeds, teaching, etc that the woman chose to endure of her own free will? I feel so sorry for the hypothetical woman, someone should compensate her for having to walk to the bank to cash the check too.

@SavoirFaire Yea my bad, should have made that clearer from the start, if it is a 1 night stand and nothing has been spoken about it, then the man can’t just announce it after, he should be aware that some people on this planet consider a clump of cells to be a person, before having sex. I’m talking in the context of a well established relationship.

—- side thought.. If a condom fails why does durex not pick up the bill?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie Could the man instead of send a check drop by once a week to compensate the woman by telling the kid a bed time story? she foots the bill instead.

ok ok, now I jest hehe.

Response moderated
cazzie's avatar

@elbanditoroso Money doesn’t give the man the right to demand a relationship with the kid, suddenly, after being absent for years, for example. I think kids are used as pawns when relationships fail and stupid girls getting pregnant on purpose for some twisted power trip. (‘People are stupid’ is my mantra.) Money and custodial rights go both ways, just statistically speaking, the men don’t chose to take the kid or kids full time or even part time in some cases. Providing money is one thing, custodial rights is another. I have seen this go horrible where the woman is a meth addict and the kids are far better off with their Dad, but for some stupid backward reason, the judge won’t order it.

@poisonedantidote, He is not forced to have custody of the child (which actually happens in my personal situation). He simply has provide a bit of money for the care of the child. Also, sarcasm isn’t an argument.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
rebbel's avatar

Because he squirted his semen in her?

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie I should have guesses there is some personal feelings behind this, I was not trying to offend.

All I am trying to do is highlight how there is a big difference between the choices a man has and the choices a woman has. A woman has nothing but choice, who to sleep with, how to sleep with them, and how to deal with any pregnancy that comes from it. The woman has nothing imposed on her, the child is not forced on her, but child support is forced on the man.

cazzie's avatar

Yes, I am just over flowing with choice in my life. *now I am being sarcastic

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
Response moderated (Off-Topic)
cazzie's avatar

No, but he certainly fished out a few….

Trillian's avatar

If she has unprotected sex alone and gets pregnant, she has no claim to his money, though she may claim notoriety.
If she has unprotected sex with a man and gets pregnant, then we can assume that there is a mutual responsibility. If his sperm swim against the tide and one of them actually makes it through and penetrates the barrier and impregnates her, we must conclude that he willingly had his penis inside of her at some point. We can also assume that he was aware of the possibility of her becoming pregnant. If he is too lazy or irresponsible to make sure that there would be no possibility of pregnancy, well, actions have consequences.
The resulting offspring have a right to his support, beyond financial.

wilma's avatar

It’s in social, and if you have been here for any length of time and have read any of @Adirondackwannabe ‘s other answers, then you might have a clue that he was pulling our chain.

elbanditoroso's avatar

@cazzie – I agree, if the guy has been absent for ‘n’ years, he has no automatic right. He has a moral right, but by that point, ‘n’ years later, it is not absolute.

However, at birth he does have the absolute right to choose to be part of the child’s life, if he chooses to do that, and especially if he is going to be paying child support.

Now, we can argue what ‘n’ years might be – if he was absent for 5 years, it shouldn’t be easy but he should be able to be part of the child’s life if he chooses to be. Fifteen years – maybe not.

A side issue, which has not been raised yet -

if the mother’s economic situation changes – perhaps she is making four times what the father is – should the child support amounts be adjusted to reflect economic realities? Should a woman making $300,000 and a guy making $50,000 have the same type of an obligation as a man making $50K and a woman making $50K?

poisonedantidote's avatar

@cazzie A few? I thought I was the last of my kind.

Blackberry's avatar

“if the mother’s economic situation changes – perhaps she is making four times what the father is – should the child support amounts be adjusted to reflect economic realities? Should a woman making $300,000 and a guy making $50,000 have the same type of an obligation as a man making $50K and a woman making $50K?”

Of course. It would be adjusted if it was the other way around.

Ela's avatar

Nothing like a dickmove on a dickmove. That’s like total double dickage.

Nothing about this topic is a joking matter and abortion is certainly nothing “to have fun with”.
Just my personal opinion.

Blackberry's avatar

@Ela Yeah, no one should ever discuss anything that makes others uncomfortable, ever. This is so serious that it’s not even worth discussing.

Ela's avatar

@Blackberry It’s not a matter of being uncomfortable or not, it’s just not something to have fun with and joke about, imo.

chyna's avatar

@ela Just to make sure you are clear on this, at no point did @adirondackwannabe say a word about abortion.

Blackberry's avatar

@Ela Yeah, I get it. I won’t go off topic, but nothing should ever be exempt from free inquiry, even if comical.

OpryLeigh's avatar

I actually agree with @poisonedantidote and think the bloke should be able to opt out if the woman decides to go ahead with the pregnancy against his wishes. However, I think he should have zero rights to the child if he changes his mind (until the child is old enough to decide for themselves obviously).

jrpowell's avatar

So he could pressure her into an abortion. Are you Mitt Romney?

OpryLeigh's avatar

I think both parties should have a choice and, as a woman, I believe that if I have the right to abort a baby that my partner has expressed a desire to keep then my partner should have the right to walk away from a pregnancy that I want to see through but he doesn’t.

cazzie's avatar

@Leanne1986 There is no equity to child bearing or rearing, so you can’t try to balance the scales with a bargain like that. And you are ALL missing the point. What about the child? When you get pregnant, and decide to keep it your body is not your own anymore. Your LIFE is not your own anymore. You will kill or die for that child. Seriously. I found a protective animal instinct in me I had NO idea of before.

It isn’t about making it ‘fair and equal’ to Ms. Knocked Up or Mr. Sperm Donor, it is about raising a human being and making them the best you possibly can. If a man can cut and run knowing that there is going to be a life in this world that will carry half his DNA he is a sperm donor. Some women go to clinics and do this intentionally and those guys are certainly off the hook. Anyone else is risking disease and an unwanted pregnancy and being LINKED to that person for the rest of your life.

(just for the record, my pregnancy/child was wanted. The father and I are married. He has a child from a casual relationship he had 8 years before we got married. That is a complicated situation that is a form of constant stress in my life.)

OpryLeigh's avatar

@cazzie I understand your point and a part of me agrees with it but I am very strongly pro-choice when it comes to abortion. I believe a woman should have the choice whether she sees the pregnancy through and raises the child at the end of the pregnancy. If I feel strongly that a woman should be able to opt out of raising a child then it would be double standards if I felt the man shouldn’t have similar choices.

cazzie's avatar

@Leanne1986 Men opt out all the time and it doesn’t always start at the very beginning. Some think they will do the right thing and marry the girl or move in with her and vow to help and be a dad. And then, at some point, they tire of the situation and leave. It’s a timing thing, but running out on a girl that is pregnant is cowardly and that is something I feel very strongly about.

laurenkem's avatar

Seems pretty straightforward to me – if you don’t want to impregnate a woman, then take measures to prevent it. Yes, even if she tells you she’s on the pill. Why take chances? Wear a condom!

OpryLeigh's avatar

I agree with you that it is cowardly @cazzie but some say the same about women that opt for abortion (I don’t think that is cowardly myself though).

MissAnthrope's avatar

The woman has nothing imposed on her…

Bullshit. If the condom or pill or whatever fails, guess who has a pregnancy imposed on them? Then, following that, the weighty and emotional decision of how to proceed imposed on them? I don’t know if you’ve ever stopped and put yourself into a woman’s shoes, to imagine how difficult such a situation might be. You seem awfully flippant about this whole thing.

The reason women have choices is because so many men abdicate their responsibility. It’s very easy to knock someone up and then disappear. There’s a whole subset of men who pressure, cajole, or even lie in order to bed a woman without a condom. You think they are responsible? You think they are going to hold up their end of the bargain when they lose the gamble?

Now, I do agree that it’s unfair in a sense that if a woman wants to proceed with a birth when the guy doesn’t, that he should be financially responsible… However, we are all adults and I would think we should know by now that sex carries with it some inherent risks. We live in a very convenient time, where women have easy access to birth control, but this is relatively new and I think perhaps we have gotten so used to it that we forget that sex = risk. Risk of pregnancy and risk of STD, no matter how careful. And THAT is why men are held responsible. You gamble, you live with the consequences.

Mariah's avatar

I am hoping @Adirondackwannabe will chime in and clarify this post. This doesn’t sound like him to me.

Unless we are talking about the situation in which a woman tricks a man into having unprotected sex by pretending to be on the pill (and from what’s written it doesn’t seem we necessarily are), I’m not sure why you view the woman as being the responsible party. Both the man and woman contributed to the formation of that baby equally. Why would she be responsible – because she carries the baby? Why does that matter?

Nope, they both knew the risks, they both made that decision, they’re both responsible.

And if we’re discussing the situation where the woman then raises the baby as a single mom, she’s already taking on more responsibility in that case. The LEAST the man can do is financially support his child.

mothermayi's avatar

Are you fucking kidding me? He should pay child support because he knew the risks, too! If he didn’t want to risk a baby, he should have used a condom. Fucking men with a sense of entitlement, just because they’re not the ones who actually get pregnant. What a joke.

Oh, and @poisonedantidote , abortion is not a form of birth control. Birth control includes condoms, bc pills, spermicide, sponges, diaphragms, etc… Not abortion. Sick.

Ela's avatar

I had realized that @chyna. Thank you for the clarification, though : )

WillWorkForChocolate's avatar

Please tell me this is not a serious question. I’m really hoping that it was sarcastic/tongue in cheek/whatever…

Aethelflaed's avatar

Birth control is a colloquialism that has no set medical definition. Many use it to be synonymous with contraception, but it is not always the exact same thing. While abortion is most definitely not contraception, it does control births, and many (on both sides of the abortion argument) consider it “birth control”.

Adirondackwannabe's avatar

Thanks for all you answers. Or for most of your I was just looking for a good discussion on the issue. And boy, you guys delivered.

Aethelflaed's avatar

I have huge issues with the argument that if he didn’t want a kid, he should have used protection (which fails from time to time) or simply not had sex. This is the exact same argument people make about women getting abortions – if she didn’t want the consequences, she should have just kept her legs together, but she didn’t, so she needs to grow up and take responsibility. Using this argument for men either implies a double-standard, or that abortion is really a deeply immoral choice for women. This idea that children are consequences for sex only promotes the idea that sex is inherently immoral, and that child abuse isn’t really a big deal. This arguement also has a tinge of heteronormativity – fertile heterosexual couples having PIV sex is For Reals, but that sex that same-sex and infertile couples have is Less Than.

Additionally, I have problems with how the argument that ‘of course he should pay, he’s the biological father’ privileges biology and heterosexuality over all else. This hurts parents (both hetero and homo) who adopt, step-parents, and anyone who uses more modern methods for conception and carrying. Similarly, the idea that all kids deserve both bio parents tends to say that single parents, same-sex parents, two grandparents and an aunt, whatever is obviously less desirable; what what is important is biology, not love and compassion and reliability. In general, who we hold responsible for children is totally messed up right now: We can’t make more room for non-traditional families to be just as valid, without also lessening the validity and responsibilities of bio-parents.

Things that would make this conversation easier: male contraception other than condoms and vasectomies. We have the technology 10x over, so put pressure on pharmaceutical companies to actually make the drugs.

linguaphile's avatar

@Aethelflaed You really made me think tonight and I have to say thank you…

Aethelflaed's avatar

@linguaphile Exactly what I was going for XD!

cazzie's avatar

@Aethelflaed I know of people who have stepped right out of their kids lives because the marriage broke up. It was the biological fathers. The men who did face up to be parents were the second husbands. Letters were sent to the biological fathers to ask them to give up any custodial rights, which they signed, then the step fathers legally adopted the respective kids. Because they were adopted and gained ‘real’ fathers, the biological father no longer had to pay support. So, yes, the biological parent who abandoned the family had the responsibility and validity of his parenthood lessed, cancelled, you might even say, so they didn’t have to pay 18 to 23 years of support and they ended up getting what they wanted. I think you are absolutely right that we need to have more acceptance for common law relationships, be they same sex or not, and also, we need to fully recognise who is really caring for the children. (I have been a primary caregiver to an autistic stepson and found myself so stressed out, but when I went to my doctor and social services, they said I had no rights to ask for assistance because I wasn’t a ‘parent’! grrrr)

I am not sure how we can argue what ‘valid sex’ is and that having sex to just have babies is more valid than other forms. I am not sure what you are arguing there.

We were not discussing valid sperm donors, egg donors or surrogacy. Those situations have ‘pre-fucktual’ agreements as someone put it. We are talking about pregnancies as a result of the usual scenario where boy meets girl, boy and girl get drunk, have fumbling sex and she ends up pregnant. IF she decides she can’t bring herself to abort, even though the guy wants NOTHING to do with the child that will be up to her because it is HER body. There is nothing equal about child bearing. It works both ways, as well. If he really wants the baby and she doesn’t, it is her right to abort because it is HER body. Pregnancy is STILL one of the most dangerous things women do on a regular basis. It could kill her. (there are 7 billion of us on the planet but America has the worst maternal mortality rate of all industrialised nations)

So, it is much more complicated. Life happens. I can only wish, that if anyone I am close to again in that situation, that they find a real man who loves them and the child she brought into the world and makes a family with them, so the biological dead-beat can get cut lose.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@cazzie I know that you feel strongly about this issue. But please understand the difference between me having zero issues with paper abortions, and me saying that the most common feminist arguments put forth against paper abortions aren’t good enough, because they harm other women by being inherently heteronormative and homophobic. They keep trying to hold men to the traditional contract, while moving women and the QUILTBAG away from it. Instead, we should be imagining totally new ways of holding parents responsible, new definitions of parents. But we can’t keep men back without holding women back as well.

cazzie's avatar

@Aethelflaed I live somewhere where same sex marriage is fully accepted, so I have a hard time wrapping my head around how two women can’t adopt a child fully away from the biological father if all parties are agreed to it. Is that what happens in the US? I am somewhat blissfully ignorant of some of the shit that goes on there, I’m afraid. I wish the legislators would wake up and smell the 21st century and get a grip on human rights.

Aethelflaed's avatar


Paradox25's avatar

Ahh, the poor guy didn’t know the risks himself when he decided to get his dipstick wet. Yes, not only should the poor guy not have to pay support, but she should have to pay him support for putting the poor clueless guy through so much misery.

cazzie's avatar

@Aethelflaed I don’t get your point, because I don’t know how things work there. I haven’t lived there in over 20 years. (happily) You are using all sorts of references and terms I don’t know the specifics of. I am not privy to all the ‘family rights’ arguments in the US. ‘Paper abortions’? are exactly what you claim to support because you don’t argue that biological ties are the ties that bind. I never even made that claim. If you read one part of a comment I made, I supported children being taken from their mother because she is a meth head. I also make the distinction between monetary support and custody. Two separate issues.

I absolutely resent the idea that for a woman to keep her child and expect a man to help support it somehow drives her closer to the what did you call it…. a QUILTBAG?

I don’t know how parents are made to pay child support there. I am assuming it is quite different from how it works here. Here, the custodial parent receives a sum of money from the State. The State collects the money from the non-custodial parent’s paycheck and it is based on the number of kids and whether the custodial parent is working or not. The sum is lower if the custodial parent is working. Stay at home parents are quite rare here. The cost of living is very high so a single parent pretty much has to work, unless they want to live like a real peasant. The amount of money taken from the pay of the non-custodial parent is partially adjusted according to their income. If they have any custody of the children, 30% of the time or over, the amount is also adjusted. If the custody arrangement is 50% each, a letter stating that the parties have come to an independent arrangement is sent to the government department concerned and the State stops taking money and sending money respectively.

If a couple are married (this can be same sex here, remember) and a child is born to them (by whatever means), or they legally adopt a child, regardless of biology, the child is considered theirs. This was a bit of a mind shift for me. I didn’t know that could be done, but there you have it. If they break up during the pregnancy, one spouse will be paying child support while the other raises it. Now, not sure who has the quiltbag there.

Aethelflaed's avatar

@cazzie QUILTBAG: Queer, Questioning, Undefined, Intersex, Lesbian, Trans*, Bisexual, Asexual, Agender, Gay,Genderqueer. Hence the continual capitalization. It essentially means, people who aren’t heterosexual, cisgender (not transgender/sexual) people. I’m rather getting that I’m making references you don’t understand; imagine how it comes across when I (a queer) tell you that an argument you are making is homophobic, and you respond by telling me the laws in your country are less homophobic than my country’s (note: not that I’m saying your country isn’t more tolerant in a legal sense, which I don’t know the specifics enough of to comment upon, but rather that it is irrelevant to this conversation, and totally misses my point. I wish I could respond in GIF form on Fluther).

You will notice I never, ever, ever, said that I support paper abortions. I said that I find the main arguments against them to be uncompelling at best, and rather insidiously harmful to many women, men, and others. Why are those the only arguments? Couldn’t there possibly be other arguments against paper abortions, ones that don’t define sex as heterosexual penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex, ones that don’t promote biology over all else? And I never said you, specifically, supported anything; my comment was a more general postulation on an argument I have seen pop up many, many times before you.

cazzie's avatar

Strange how this conversation suddenly turned into a discussion about gay rights. It was very much about PIV.

blueiiznh's avatar

It is not about money.
Plain and simple it is responsibility for your actions. You brought a child into the world.
You made a choice and you now have the responsibility and reward to raise this child as best as you possibly can.
If you make a choice to shirk your responsibility, be prepared to have a court of law make the choice for you.

jca's avatar

Wasn’t there a similar question asked about 8 months ago?

pieceofapuzzle's avatar

Are you serious? ” a woman has unprotected sex and gets pregnant” Are you suggesting she is capable of doing this all by herself or if she isn’t, that the man did not play a role in the unprotected sex and resulting pregnancy?

It is the oldest story in the book- blame the woman and allow the man to escape responsibility. Disgusting!

Woman, please, for the sake of the future- don’t encourage jerks by rewarding them with sex and creating a new generation of jerks. Men that have respect for woman are where it’s at.

blueiiznh's avatar

@pieceofapuzzle while I agree with your statement of responsibility I have a bit of a problem in saying sex is a reward or should be held back.
Sometimes you just really do not know what a person is about or like until the hard stuff sets in. Sadly too many flee and those are the jerks.
It is a mutual choice.

Answer this question




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

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther