The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    PLEASE READ: To register, turn off your VPN (iPhone users- disable iCloud); you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

  • Hi Guest - Did you know?
    Hot Topics is a Safe for Work (SFW) forum.

Why should men pay child support if they choose not to?

KrisHawkXXX

KrisHawkXXX

JUB Addict
Banned
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Posts
3,550
Reaction score
12
Points
0
Location
La Grange
Feminists are legitimately concerned that, if abortion were banned, the government would be exercising control over a very intimate and important part of a woman's life. But when a woman forces a man to be responsible for a child only she wants, and when the state child-support apparatus takes a third or more of his income and jails him if he comes up short, isn't the government exercising control over his life?
Click to expand...

30 Years After Roe v. Wade, How About Choice for Men?


This is really true!!
 
There is a choice for men. If a guy chooses vaginal sex the assumption needs to be that he may be paying child support for 18 years. It makes sense to be that there's shared consequences. Let's face it if it were men who got pregnant not many of us would be here.
 
I think the OP makes a valid point.

I understand a woman's right to choose and agree that it is necessary. However, I believe that one parent's insistence in keeping a largely unwanted child should alleviate some* legal responsibility for the unwilling other parent.

Flame away.

-d-
*A flexible amount; I'm willing to entertain options
 
Well, the guy's choice was whether or not he should fuck the girl as Seasoned said. If you're willing to fuck, you better help some part with the responsibilities. Raising a child with little to no child support...that must be difficult. Otherwise just get a fleshlight or something. And if that's expensive, invest in birth control.
 
On the assumption that this OP is serious: if you have children, intended or not, you should foot the bill. What right have you to make me subsidize its upbringing.
 
Nope. The men should have to pay child support. It's not like these women went to a sperm bank to have children. The reason these men don't want to pay child support is because they feel it's the woman's fault they got pregnant. It's all cool to bust a nut in a woman's vagina, but dear God if she would become pregnant, she's on her own. These so call men think it's okay to knock every hot girl the get with, but when children are in the picture, these cowards make a run for it. I 100% agree men who willingly have unprotected sex with a woman and leave them to be responsible for paying child support for THEIR child. The only way a man shouldn't be responsible if a woman either pays him to get her pregnant or goes to a spern bank to become pregnant.
 
You know who probably has some interesting thoughts on this matter? Bulge.

Lex
 
I think a lot of the people commenting didn't fully read the article. There was no suggestion that a guy can carelessly fuck who he wants and just walk away leaving the woman to bring up the child alone. If a guy is responsible and uses the only feasible option of contraception (a condom) and it fails then he is doomed to 18 yrs of financial responsbility if the woman wants to have the child. This seems fair, it was his decision to fuck and he has to accept the consequences (though he took all responsbile measures i.e. safe sex). However if a woman forgets her contraceptive pill and gets pregnant, she gets the choice of being able to walk away from all parental responsbility. Is it fair that the man gets absolutely no choice and is burdened with parental and financial responsbility for a child that was never planned because his condom broke when a woman can just have an abortion and be free?

I'm not saying I agree but its an interesting viewpoint.
 
The question of choice, in the context of Roe v Wade, is the choice over your body... not over the consequences of your actions. A woman has the right to choose whether or not to remain pregnant; a man's choice of what to do with his body ends when the sperm leaves it and enters the woman.

Both parties are responsible for preventing pregnancy, but only the woman can choose whether or not to carry that pregnancy to term; and both parties are legally responsible for any children resulting from that union, just as both parties are responsible for any STDs that are transmitted during that union. If the man wants the child, and the woman does not want to carry it, her choice trumps because it's her body. But that weighted authority over the pregnancy does not relieve the man of his responsibility if the child is carried to term. Half that DNA is his, and in all fairness he has to help support it if it lives.

Children, like STDs, are the risk you take when you have sex; even the best contraceptives are only 99.9% effective, so you're spinning the wheel and taking your chances whenever you stick sperm and eggs anywhere near each-other. If one wants to guarantee one's self free of the burden of children or STDs, one can only abstain from heterosexual genital coitus; and if that's not reasonable, each partner must take whatever preventive measures they reasonably can; but if there's an accident, it belongs to you both.
 
maybe wen men is eva be a men they manage tie own shoes befor shit in um haaaa

ans females get move on ya woozys

there go giv humans of twat lands sumthang ta do fa 21 st century

yawn

his ans hers condoms on spacestation how cute
% aww ans little picture ofs spacestation print it %
@ dat sweet @
no forgat pack their milk bottles cause
! AYE AYE! !

ha
 
It is grotesquely unfair. Unless a man has consented to paternity of a child that is not biologically his, by way of adoption, he should bear no liability. And he should be entitled to compensation froma lying or deceptive mother if paternity is revealed after the fact.

Also, responsible men can control their fertility autonomously as well as women. If a man does not want to pass on a genetic disorder and a woman agrees to this and hey mutually agree to terminate an affected fetus, she cannot be permitted to retroactively overrule his consent by changing her mind. At the very least he should bear no obligations to such a child, but I'm not sure why the mother should have custody either given her gross capacity for betrayal and deception.
 
My reply to that would be if you don't want a child, don't put your penis in a woman. You dint even need birth control for that strategy to work. That should cover it for most cases. I do think men need better defined rights for the extremes and the unusual situations.
 
If a man is unwilling to pay child support when he is able to, there must be other issues too. We seem to hear about men paying child support yet having very little access to the child he is help raising financially. Too often, the conflicting interests of the biological parents get in the way of actual care for the child. If one party is unwilling to give access yet demand maintenance from the child's other parent, this imbalance also will affect the child's upbringing, and ultimately how he/she views his parents to come. It is demoralising to see humans at their worst using their children as pawns and bargaining chips.
 
Kris, I read the article, and I have to say, it didn't change my mind.

Anytime one person agrees to sex with another (regardless of sexual orientation), there are certain risks and pitfalls that are associated with that. If it is straight sex, STDs and pregnancy are a real danger. In gay sex, STDs are still there. I see others making the argument about condoms not being there, and how some cultures don't allow their usage.

Call me old fashioned, but I think that each person has control over their sexual destinies. It's easy for me to preach "self control" when I am not the one in the situation, but it's also a conscious choice. I can choose to fornicate with someone, or choose not to. I can choose to use a condom, or choose not to. Granted, there are situations of sexual acts of violence, where there is no choice on one partner's behalf. In those cases, nobody should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. But I do believe in the concept of "manning up." If you take the risk to have sex and the result is pregnancy, then it is your responsibility to step up and support the child financially, even if you are not ready to commit to it emotionally. If I were straight, I would be even pickier than I am as a gay man, with who I'd have sex with.....

Thanks, my friend, for bringing this subject up. You made me think tonight...:D
 
I laughed.

Of course a man should pay child support if he fathers a child. He was willing to gamble.

You don't get to take back your bet in a real poker game if you legitimately lose.
 
mitchymo said:
If you can give away your children at no cost, then one parent should have the right not to be involved AT NO COST (provided that was the position prior to the birth).
Click to expand...

You can't always give away your child at no cost, nor should there be carte blanche for a man to help with procreation without sharing responsibility for that action. If you can't care for a child don't have it - that hatchet swings both ways at both parties at all times. It's sad that people seem to think child support is "free money"; it's equally sad when some people use it as such, and they, just like deadbeat sperm donors(we'll not call them fathers, because if they were child support would be "dad helping to raise his seed"), should be punished.

If that one woman decides to have a child on her own... that's an entirely different story, done in a totally different way. I'm just talking about guys that wanna get laid and end up fathering a kid and don't want to be responsible.
 
"It's not fair! Wah-wah-wah!" When men can carry the child, too, then it will be fair.

As it is, you stick your dick in a cooch and you're taking a chance on creating a child. Your let your sperm out, you no longer have rights over it; the woman hasn't let the egg out, she still has rights over it, whether to have it removed or carry it to term.

People keep harping on women having a "get out of jail free" card with abortion. But I can assure you that in all but the most extraordinarily depraved cases, the decision to have an abortion is not only incredibly difficult, but it will haunt you for the rest of your life. It is not something women do lightly, so just put that out of your mind. Neither is giving a child up for adoption. No man has any right to say what a woman should or shouldn't do, because he doesn't have that choice to make, he doesn't get to carry the child, he doesn't have to go through the pain and hormonal changes and the post-partum depression, and so he doesn't get to abort the child or give the child up.

The man only has to ejaculate, and so he only gets to take responsibility for his half of the conception... and if that conception goes through, he should help bring that child up. That is as fair as life gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top