CurlTalk

Heated Debate

KCLKCL Posts: 1,663Registered Users
with a friend on the topic of child support and abortion.

Her stance was that men should not be forced to pay child support because a woman can choose to have or not have the child (via abortion) and the father gets no say in that so if she chooses to have a child produced out of a casual sexual encounter then the onus of supporting that child should be on her.

I don't see any merit whatsoever to this argument, can any of you make sense of it?
If there were more people on earth who desired their own happiness more than the unhappiness of others we would have a paradise ~ Bertrand Russell
«1

Comments

  • DarkAngelDarkAngel Posts: 2,671Registered Users Curl Neophyte
    That's the argument that places greater weight on the rights of the parents than on the right of the child to support.
    image.php?type=2&o=5&c=1&date=2009-10-07&babyname=Sebastian

    "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." -- Theodor Seuss Geisel
  • yagottaloveyacurlsyagottaloveyacurls Posts: 5,766Registered Users
    Her stance was that men should not be forced to pay child support because a woman can choose to have or not have the child (via abortion) and the father gets no say in that so if she chooses to have a child produced out of a casual sexual encounter then the onus of supporting that child should be on her.

    I don't see any merit whatsoever to this argument, can any of you make sense of it?

    Such a strange world we live in, isn't it? That we have to argue with a person to help take care of a child that they helped to create.
    Strange, sad world indeed.

    By the way, he DID have say...the moment he took it out of his pants.
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    I don't agree with your friend and I think both parties in casual sexual encounters should be more aware of the possible consequences, and no one should have to choose abortion or child support. Child support is for the benefit of the child, not the parents, and shouldn't be attached to moral choices made by the parents or moral judgments of their actions.

    BUT... the biological reality is that if pregnancy occurs from a casual hookup, the woman is the one faced with all the physical and lifestyle changes and hard decisions, and the man can cut and run and deny (and sometimes the woman doesn't even know for sure who the father is.) So, while men SHOULD do the right thing and take responsibility, this doesn't always happen and it can be hard to force them to do so, (or maybe they have no means of supporting a child) so women need to realize this and be smarter about their sex lives.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    i agree with yagotta.

    if you're gonna have consensual sex, in my mind it's like signing a waiver:

    "I understand that in consenting to this procedure there is a risk of disease, procreation and future support of the life of that offspring, heart break, future years in therapy, and possibly death. For some minutes of whoopee, I am willing to take on those risks."

    if you can't agree to that, you should probably put your clothes back on and get a pet or go for a run or something.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    curlyarca wrote:
    i agree with yagotta.

    if you're gonna have consensual sex, in my mind it's like signing a waiver:

    "I understand that in consenting to this procedure there is a risk of disease, procreation and future support of the life of that offspring, heart break, future years in therapy, and possibly death. For some minutes of whoopee, I am willing to take on those risks."

    Yep! Men need to understand that they are responsible for every sperm that leaves their body. And in their defense, I know some women who have lied about being on the Pill, or were on it but didn't take it correctly or it failed, or were told or thought that they had medical issues preventing conception, who then got pregnant. So regardless of what the woman says, and in the interest of preventing disease, men should be carrying and using condoms and not leaving birth control up to the woman. And any time anyone has sex, regardless of their relationship status or age or relationship to the person they are sleeping with, regardless of what birth control is being used, they need to understand that pregnancy is a possibility and have some idea of what they would do and how the other person would act if that were to happen.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • KCLKCL Posts: 1,663Registered Users
    Her stance was that men should not be forced to pay child support because a woman can choose to have or not have the child (via abortion) and the father gets no say in that so if she chooses to have a child produced out of a casual sexual encounter then the onus of supporting that child should be on her.

    I don't see any merit whatsoever to this argument, can any of you make sense of it?

    Such a strange world we live in, isn't it? That we have to argue with a person to help take care of a child that they helped to create.
    Strange, sad world indeed.

    By the way, he DID have say...the moment he took it out of his pants.

    Yes, I agree. The conversation ended with me hanging up on her which is sad.

    But this makes me so angry.

    It really is looking at the rights of the parents over the rights of the child.

    And the really ridiculous thing is that she gets child support from her husband whom she is currently separated from....and I am sure she would take him to court if he stopped sending it.
    If there were more people on earth who desired their own happiness more than the unhappiness of others we would have a paradise ~ Bertrand Russell
  • internetchickinternetchick Posts: 6,191Registered Users
    curlyarca wrote:
    i agree with yagotta.

    if you're gonna have consensual sex, in my mind it's like signing a waiver:

    "I understand that in consenting to this procedure there is a risk of disease, procreation and future support of the life of that offspring, heart break, future years in therapy, and possibly death. For some minutes of whoopee, I am willing to take on those risks."

    if you can't agree to that, you should probably put your clothes back on and get a pet or go for a run or something.

    My thoughts exactly. Men know sex can result in a pregnancy, and that the woman he impregnates may choose to keep that baby. I think choosing sex means choosing to support any child that may be conceived.
  • BefrizzledBefrizzled Posts: 3,854Registered Users
    I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. I think child support is a good thing, because both parties helped create the child, so both parties should care for s/he in some form. What's sad is when a father really wants to keep the baby and the woman aborts it. That's when I feel bad for the fathers. They're expected to take responsibilty when the woman wants to keep the child, but when they want to take responsibility and the mother doesn't want to, the fathers are out of luck. Either way, he has no real say in the baby's future, since his role is just laid out by the law. He's at the mercy of the mother, essentially.

    Just my .02.
    Under construction.
  • curlyarcacurlyarca Posts: 8,449Registered Users
    Befrizzled wrote:
    I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. I think child support is a good thing, because both parties helped create the child, so both parties should care for s/he in some form. What's sad is when a father really wants to keep the baby and the woman aborts it. That's when I feel bad for the fathers. They're expected to take responsibilty when the woman wants to keep the child, but when they want to take responsibility and the mother doesn't want to, the fathers are out of luck. Either way, he has no real say in the baby's future, since his role is just laid out by the law. He's at the mercy of the mother, essentially.

    Just my .02.
    That is sad.

    Also, I think that waiver goes for men and women both.

    "In the depth of winter, I finally learned that within me there lay an invincible summer."

    4a, mbl, low porosity, normal thickness, fine hair.
  • KCLKCL Posts: 1,663Registered Users
    Befrizzled wrote:
    I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. I think child support is a good thing, because both parties helped create the child, so both parties should care for s/he in some form. What's sad is when a father really wants to keep the baby and the woman aborts it. That's when I feel bad for the fathers. They're expected to take responsibilty when the woman wants to keep the child, but when they want to take responsibility and the mother doesn't want to, the fathers are out of luck. Either way, he has no real say in the baby's future, since his role is just laid out by the law. He's at the mercy of the mother, essentially.

    Just my .02.

    Well that was kind of what she was saying except she extended that to say that fathers shouldn't have to pay child support because they have no choice in whether the child is born or not.

    But in reality, they do have a choice before conception.

    The abortion debate is a separate issue.

    Of course, all of this is not really the issue anyway....because child support is supposed to be for the benefit of the child and not a right of a parent.
    If there were more people on earth who desired their own happiness more than the unhappiness of others we would have a paradise ~ Bertrand Russell
  • BefrizzledBefrizzled Posts: 3,854Registered Users
    Befrizzled wrote:
    I wrote a paper on this a few years ago. I think child support is a good thing, because both parties helped create the child, so both parties should care for s/he in some form. What's sad is when a father really wants to keep the baby and the woman aborts it. That's when I feel bad for the fathers. They're expected to take responsibilty when the woman wants to keep the child, but when they want to take responsibility and the mother doesn't want to, the fathers are out of luck. Either way, he has no real say in the baby's future, since his role is just laid out by the law. He's at the mercy of the mother, essentially.

    Just my .02.

    Well that was kind of what she was saying except she extended that to say that fathers shouldn't have to pay child support because they have no choice in whether the child is born or not.

    But in reality, they do have a choice before conception.

    The abortion debate is a separate issue.

    Of course, all of this is not really the issue anyway....because child support is supposed to be for the benefit of the child and not a right of a parent.

    I used her argument in my paper to point out the double standard when it comes to responsibilty--if he doesn't want the baby and she does, tough, if he wants the baby and she doesn't, tough.

    They do have a choice before conception--which is why I won't knock child support. I just think that women have had their rights settled in a Supreme Court case, yet fathers haven't had this issue tackled in the same forum. There have been plenty of smaller lawsuits where the father sued to keep the child. There are enough bad parents that when someone REALLY wants a child and will take care of it (you'd hope), they get denied their own child. To me, that's for the benefit of the child, not just the right of the parent, although that's in there.
    Under construction.
  • M2LRM2LR Posts: 8,630Registered Users
    I asked my hubby about this...he said that the man should still have to pay, even if he didn't want to have the child. He made that choice before having sex with the girl, and it's something that he can't "take back." As for the abortion piece of it, he more or less said that the man/father is pretty much at the mercy of the mother, and it's her body, her choice.
    IT's sad, but it is true.
    :rambo:
  • 2happy2happy Posts: 5,138Registered Users
    It's a slippery slope with all these issues. Many a man have been tricked/trapped. Some women HAVE gotten pregnant on purpose. That sucks - for all parties involved, especially the child. Thank goodness they are coming out with the male pill. Maybe between that and condoms, men will take/get a little more responsibility.

    The bottom line, since only abstinence is 100% - if you play, you will pay. No matter the circumstances. No matter the womans right.
    Handle every stressful situation like a dog. If you can't eat it or hump it.....Piss on it and walk away.
    Location - WI
  • three rivers curlythree rivers curly Posts: 994Registered Users
    All parties responsible for creating the child should have to pay. Period.

    What if the mother were to hand the child over and simply say - I didn't want the child, but don't believe in abortion. This is your kid too, you raise it. Then what? If more women would do this (not suggesting that they should this is just for sake of discussion), then more men would be willing to pay.

    Many (certainly not all) men who live with the mother of their children don't do anything to help raise the kids, how many single guys are going to want to do it all on their own?
    Better everyone think your a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them right.

    Perception is not reality.

    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic.fotki.com%2Fhmiklos" class="Popup
  • internetchickinternetchick Posts: 6,191Registered Users
    2happy wrote:
    It's a slippery slope with all these issues. Many a man have been tricked/trapped. Some women HAVE gotten pregnant on purpose. That sucks - for all parties involved, especially the child. Thank goodness they are coming out with the male pill. Maybe between that and condoms, men will take/get a little more responsibility.

    The bottom line, since only abstinence is 100% - if you play, you will pay. No matter the circumstances. No matter the womans right.

    But, can men really be tricked when they know even if the woman says she is on birth control that it can still fail? Aren't they still agreeing to support a oopsie?
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    2happy wrote:
    It's a slippery slope with all these issues. Many a man have been tricked/trapped. Some women HAVE gotten pregnant on purpose. That sucks - for all parties involved, especially the child. Thank goodness they are coming out with the male pill. Maybe between that and condoms, men will take/get a little more responsibility.

    The bottom line, since only abstinence is 100% - if you play, you will pay. No matter the circumstances. No matter the womans right.

    But, can men really be tricked when they know even if the woman says she is on birth control that it can still fail? Aren't they still agreeing to support a oopsie?

    Exactly. Men always have the option to a) use a condom and b) only have sex if they understand that even with all the precautions in the world there is still a chance of pregnancy and a chance they could be asked for child support - no matter what the woman tells them. Why leave something that weighs so heavily on their future up to someone they don't even know? That's not very smart.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • redcelticcurlsredcelticcurls Posts: 17,502Registered Users
    All parties responsible for creating the child should have to pay. Period.

    What if the mother were to hand the child over and simply say - I didn't want the child, but don't believe in abortion. This is your kid too, you raise it. Then what? If more women would do this (not suggesting that they should this is just for sake of discussion), then more men would be willing to pay.

    Many (certainly not all) men who live with the mother of their children don't do anything to help raise the kids, how many single guys are going to want to do it all on their own?

    You must know my BIL.
    Kiva! Microfinance works.

    Med/Coarse, porous curly.
  • curlylauracurlylaura Posts: 8,352Registered Users
    Amneris wrote:
    2happy wrote:
    It's a slippery slope with all these issues. Many a man have been tricked/trapped. Some women HAVE gotten pregnant on purpose. That sucks - for all parties involved, especially the child. Thank goodness they are coming out with the male pill. Maybe between that and condoms, men will take/get a little more responsibility.

    The bottom line, since only abstinence is 100% - if you play, you will pay. No matter the circumstances. No matter the womans right.

    But, can men really be tricked when they know even if the woman says she is on birth control that it can still fail? Aren't they still agreeing to support a oopsie?

    Exactly. Men always have the option to a) use a condom and b) only have sex if they understand that even with all the precautions in the world there is still a chance of pregnancy and a chance they could be asked for child support - no matter what the woman tells them. Why leave something that weighs so heavily on their future up to someone they don't even know? That's not very smart.

    Agreed.

    Both parties should take responsibility for contaception or the outcome of not using it. It's kind of annoying how contraception is nearly always made out to be the responsiblity of the woman.

    Also if people are going to sleep with multiple partners they need barrier protection to protect them from the whole alphabet of diseases that are out there.
    Fat does not make you fat. It's actually pretty important.
  • M2LRM2LR Posts: 8,630Registered Users
    2happy wrote:
    if you play, you will pay. No matter the circumstances. No matter the womans right.

    This is how I feel too.
    :rambo:
  • rainshowerrainshower Posts: 4,420Registered Users
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.
    "Dogs stink too, but I like dog stink." ~ rileyb
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I don't support abortion, but even if the man is prepared to do all that, the woman still has to go through pregnancy and labour, which is NOT easy when you want the child - who's going to do it when they don't? That's just the way biology works and both men and women have to just accept it - women bear the children. If a man wants a child, then either get involved in a relationship with someone else who does or adopt or whatever. It doesn't make sense to have a fling with someone and then suddenly you decide you want her to have the baby when things have not been discussed beforehand.
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • three rivers curlythree rivers curly Posts: 994Registered Users
    Amneris wrote:
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I don't support abortion, but even if the man is prepared to do all that, the woman still has to go through pregnancy and labour, which is NOT easy when you want the child - who's going to do it when they don't? That's just the way biology works and both men and women have to just accept it - women bear the children. If a man wants a child, then either get involved in a relationship with someone else who does or adopt or whatever. It doesn't make sense to have a fling with someone and then suddenly you decide you want her to have the baby when things have not been discussed beforehand.

    Amneris - you're on a roll. I agree with this completely. :lol:
    Better everyone think your a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them right.

    Perception is not reality.

    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic.fotki.com%2Fhmiklos" class="Popup
  • internetchickinternetchick Posts: 6,191Registered Users
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I honestly don't think many men would do this, which is why I don't think it's really been addressed legally. I don't think there are enough men who would want to raise a child without a woman to help to get the wheels of change moving.
  • AmnerisAmneris Posts: 15,117Registered Users
    What about the flip side , which I have actually seen happen more than once, where the woman does not want the child and wants to abort or adopt and the man talks her into it, says he will support them, help them etc. etc. and then the child comes and he bails and the woman is left exactly where she did not want to be - on her own with a child?
    Get used to me. Black, confident, cocky; my name, not yours; my religion, not yours; my goals, my own; get used to me. -Muhammad Ali


    .png


    534Pm5.png





  • GuardianBGuardianB Posts: 1,818Registered Users
    All parties responsible for creating the child should have to pay. Period.

    What if the mother were to hand the child over and simply say - I didn't want the child, but don't believe in abortion. This is your kid too, you raise it. Then what? If more women would do this (not suggesting that they should this is just for sake of discussion), then more men would be willing to pay.

    Many (certainly not all) men who live with the mother of their children don't do anything to help raise the kids, how many single guys are going to want to do it all on their own?

    This would be an interesting precedent is this happened. Would the mother be responsible for child support in this case?

    Should be.

    The male should be allowed to have a say in the abortion process if he is against it and willing to care for the child. Then he should have the ability to receive child support from the mother.

    Like said. It is a 2 way consensual encounter for both.
    ~Two friends, one soul inspired~ anonymous
  • three rivers curlythree rivers curly Posts: 994Registered Users
    Absolutely. Everyone involved is responsible for the child.
    Better everyone think your a fool, than to open your mouth and prove them right.

    Perception is not reality.

    /home/leaving?target=http%3A%2F%2Fpublic.fotki.com%2Fhmiklos" class="Popup
  • GuardianBGuardianB Posts: 1,818Registered Users
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I honestly don't think many men would do this, which is why I don't think it's really been addressed legally. I don't think there are enough men who would want to raise a child without a woman to help to get the wheels of change moving.

    I'd have trouble with the breast feeding part but I would be all over the rest. Now or when I was 19. And its not about pro or anti abortion for me. Of course for me it would have been about what the woman wanted most anyway. But if she couldn't abort but didn't want to be involved I would probably rather choose to be the father and not place the child up for adoption. That outcome scares me.
    ~Two friends, one soul inspired~ anonymous
  • BefrizzledBefrizzled Posts: 3,854Registered Users
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I honestly don't think many men would do this, which is why I don't think it's really been addressed legally. I don't think there are enough men who would want to raise a child without a woman to help to get the wheels of change moving.

    It has been addressed legally, but not in a high court.
    link

    There are other cases too, all with similar rulings.
    Under construction.
  • internetchickinternetchick Posts: 6,191Registered Users
    GuardianB wrote:
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I honestly don't think many men would do this, which is why I don't think it's really been addressed legally. I don't think there are enough men who would want to raise a child without a woman to help to get the wheels of change moving.

    I'd have trouble with the breast feeding part but I would be all over the rest. Now or when I was 19. And its not about pro or anti abortion for me. Of course for me it would have been about what the woman wanted most anyway. But if she couldn't abort but didn't want to be involved I would probably rather choose to be the father and not place the child up for adoption. That outcome scares me.

    I know there are men out there that would, just not too many. And I am not saying that because I think men can't do it, but because I think many men are not secure in their parenting abilities. I think that comes from the bumbling father stereotype that just won't die.
  • internetchickinternetchick Posts: 6,191Registered Users
    Befrizzled wrote:
    rainshower wrote:
    i wonder how many women have aborted against the wishes of their boyfriends, who would have been prepared to pay the prenatal/medical expenses and be single dads, if only the women had simply carried the babies to term.

    I honestly don't think many men would do this, which is why I don't think it's really been addressed legally. I don't think there are enough men who would want to raise a child without a woman to help to get the wheels of change moving.

    It has been addressed legally, but not in a high court.
    link

    There are other cases too, all with similar rulings.

    Well, I was meaning a law being put into effect. It's sad that these issues are not given more attention.
«1