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

[MoufOfKhaos]

How does such a guys position, bear any influence on a womans decision to keep the baby? Surely, such a guys decision would more likely have influence over a womans decision to abort or have the baby adopted.

He helped to cause that baby to happen, did he not? It can't all fall on the woman because it may or may not have been a fling, and if she doesn't keep the child, whether by abortion or adoption, then what are we arguing about here?

Why do men need to be equal in the aftermath when they can choose not to father the child in the first place? If you don't want to be responsible for raising a life, be responsible enough not to create one. Yes, I realize that i've evidently said "don't gamble" twice, but it really is that simple - use a condom, take precautions, don't bang random girls you can't trust.

And women DON'T have all the rights - if they did there wouldn't have to be laws ensuring that men would take responsibility for their actions; men are paying for the mistakes of other who decided what you're suggesting - that they wanted nothing to do with it at all, emotionally AND financially. My feelings for kids having dads aside(I would rather have one loving parent than one that felt he was being lead by a leash to see me, personally), the other is a shitty way to be.

 

[evanrick]

i think we should remove all support from a lot of groups, i consider myself liberal but we have to teach responsibility not dependency.

im also pro life, i think women using "its my body" as an excuse is too convenient.

yes we do have personal liberty but i think men are suffering as a whole because of their diminished role in their childrens lives which you could argue is made worse by allowing less-than-rational precedences currently in place.

if you chose to have a child, your having a child. grow up and take some responsibility. its not up to the state to raise your child.

 

[bankside]

The article does lead me to think of several anomalies affecting parental rights and responsibilities.

As long as one parent is responsible enough to care for the child, the other parent is obligated to a lifetime of support. If both parents are simultaneously unfit parents, or even if they just don't want to be parents, they can give the child up for adoption and they'll have no further obligations toward it as son as it is a ward of the state.

That's is convenient for some couples who may not be ready for parenthood, but not for situations where only one parent sees it that way. Too bad; they're trapped. The parent who wants to make a go of it has a veto over the adoption and an automatic right to a lifetime of support.

Finally, the mother can abort as a matter of convenience during the pregnancy but never the father. If the man woman aborted at 4 months because she decided motherhood didn't suit her lifestyle, the man would be powerless to prevent it. If the woman delivered the baby and then abandoned it to the father he'd also be stuck. There is no consideration made in society or the law to protect his interests. He ha no choice but to make the right decision for his future at the time of conception. The mother can dither and dawdle and hold all the cards over the next several months. It's unfair that we do nothing to balance the situation.

 

[evanrick]

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...

yes men should pay but that doesnt mean women should have the right to take away a mans child. its half his, and i would never even consider sex with a woman whom i thought would have an abortion.

 

[evanrick]

The article does lead me to think of several anomalies affecting parental rights and responsibilities.

As long as one parent is responsible enough to care for the child, the other parent is obligated to a lifetime of support. If both parents are simultaneously unfit parents, or even if they just don't want to be parents, they can give the child up for adoption and they'll have no further obligations toward it as son as it is a ward of the state.

That's is convenient for some couples who may not be ready for parenthood, but not for situations where only one parent sees it that way. Too bad; they're trapped. The parent who wants to make a go of it has a veto over the adoption and an automatic right to a lifetime of support.

Finally, the mother can abort as a matter of convenience during the pregnancy but never the father. If the man woman aborted at 4 months because she decided motherhood didn't suit her lifestyle, the man would be powerless to prevent it. If the woman delivered the baby and then abandoned it to the father he'd also be stuck. There is no consideration made in society or the law to protect his interests. He ha no choice but to make the right decision for his future at the time of conception. The mother can dither and dawdle and hold all the cards over the next several months. It's unfair that we do nothing to balance the situation.

quoted for truth. and men are suffering because of their diminished role in their children's lives as a result. if a boy doesnt have a father do you really expect him to be better off without?

 

[Swellegant]

So let me get this straight: because a woman has a right to choose to not have the child, the man has the right to choose to not support the child. He can choose to be responsible or not for an actual live person whom he had an integral part in creating. Since he doesn't have the right to stop it from happening after it's gotten started, he shouldn't have any responsibility for it if it goes through. You only have responsibility for your actions if you wish to?

That's not how life works.

I know that the child support laws in this nation are skewed and sometimes bizarre; I know that men sometimes get "trapped" by women who've assured them that they're on the pill and it's OK to have unprotected sex (that's why my parents got married, after all). But these are pretty small compared to the number of men who have agreed to support children they've fathered and then don't.

But look... the act of childbearing is unfair in and of itself: only a woman has to carry it. The man's part of the act of creation is a few minutes, the woman's part is nine months and then some. There is absolutely no way of equalizing that imbalance; and therefore there is no way of equalizing the roles when it comes to choice of remaining pregnant and choice of supporting a child you caused to happen. The woman will always have the greater degree of choice because she bears the greater workload in creation; while both parties are equally responsible for conception, only the woman can be responsible for gestating the result of that conception. She therefore has the greater choice.

But having less choice in gestation does not relieve the man of responsibility for his half of the conception.

 

[Taz]

I am SO glad I'm gay lol.

My friends have talked to me about their pregnancy scares before. I wouldn't want to deal with that.

Mind you when the time comes that I want kids I'll probably feel differently

 

[JayHawk]

The item that is complete crap is Alimony. A man should pay for what he brings into this world. But why should he pay to maintain the lifestyle of an unfaithful twat?

Meh.

Society can not afford to pay for all of the children that the women would choose to keep with no means. The solution is to charge them a fine for neglect.

 

[youfiad]

I actually had a discussion about this with a feminist friend of mine. I told her that it should be possible if the guy doesn't want the child yet the woman wants it for the man to get out of paying child support...

 

[youfiad]

I have read a few comments, and I must say, I think a large majority of you guys are missing the point.

OPs intention was this:

Abortion is a complex issue and must be thought of from all angles.

What if the mom wants the baby and the dad doesn't?
What if the dad wants the baby and the mom doesn't?
What if neither want the baby?

In the second scenario, it is the most common, because the male has ABSOLUTELY NO CHOICE as to whether or not the baby will be born. In all pro abortion laws, they fail to acknowledge that there may be an emotional attachment for the father once he finds out that he is a future father. Why should the woman be the sole decision maker in this scenario?

Feminists have been claiming that it's their body and they should be able to choose what happens with it. To which, anti-abortionists usually reply, don't have sex. To which, they reply, it's our right to have sex with whomever we please. Why can't this same argument be used for the man? The man should be able to have sex with whomever he pleases. And if contraception doesn't work, as many feminists use in their argument, why does the male have to be legally obligated to support something he didn't want in the first place whereas the woman, if she so pleases, has the choice to not?

I am playing devils advocate here, as I will probably never have to worry about this in my lifetime. But they are completely legitimate questions to ask.

I hope what I wrote made sense. I am sort of falling asleep while typing.

 

[blackbeltninja]

I'll admit I thought I'd be getting hellfire and brimstone for my post; glad to see there are likeminded JUBbers out there.

Further to Swellegant's post re the emotional issues around abortion, I agree fully - it must be an incredibly difficult decision and one which has a lot of second-guessing attached to it. I'd like to suggest that this is true for the father as well.

I'm not sure complete absolution for the father is a good idea - I think it probably is easier for a guy to insist on an abortion than it is for a woman to even think about it, so saying that these are options (and of course they are) does not make it as emotionally easy as buying a loaf of bread, even though physically it probably is.

I would suggest that a significantly diminished financial role for the father should exist - not an even 50-50 split (or whatever the current ratio is; no idea how it is determined) if the father is suggesting ending the pregnancy and the mother insists on carrying the child to term. However, because if you watch enough Springer/Mathis/Cheaters you realise there are these guys who have 10 illegitimate children running around with 10 different mothers, the ratio is shifted the other way for each additional child to prevent this sort of thing from happening and prevent abuse the system.

It's basically like a 1-use-only get out of jail half-free card. By the time you hit illegitimate kid #2 that you don't want, you get a ton of bricks dropped on you financially and are legally obliged to support BOTH children equally along with the support from their mothers. I would also attach a court order to the payment so it comes off the guy's salary automatically before he gets paid. The first accidental pregnancy is an accident; every subsequent one is simply neglectful, I reckon.

Interesting thread.

-d-

 

[Beachguyj]

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


This is really true!!

Obviously you are joking. At least I hope you are.

 

[fetaby]

Glad to see life being reduced to a financial burden. Society is surely improving.

 

[blackbeltninja]

^I think you'd find that if people ran their lives like successful businesses were run, we'd be in a lot less mess than we are.

-d-

 

[Taralen]

Because formula, huggies, food is expensive as shit that's why. A depressive single mother cannot do it by herself. She needs the help of the idiot that refuses to be a good father figure.

 

[Asenath]

No matter what misogynist conservatives and Men's Rights goons tell you, there isn't a conspiracy of women looking to get knocked up so that they can have a dedicated income source for 18 years. Getting pregnant for a woman, especially if there isn't a pre-existing legal arrangement like marriage or common law marriage, is one of the riskiest situations she can find herself in when it comes to long-term financial stability.

Contraception does fail. Women who have no intention of being mothers find themselves pregnant. And they didn't get that way by themselves.

 

[blackbeltninja]

I can't believe some of the posts I'm reading.

The man does have a choice. He can cover with a wrapper before he uses that zapper.

The woman has no choice, of course.

She couldn't possibly even contemplate using female condoms, combined or single compound contraceptive pills, vaginal rings, intrauterine devices, slow-release implants or patches, diaphragms, or of course the Morning After Pill.

Fact is, even in the face of all this, if Accidents Happen - and they do - there is still the option to abort. Should one party refuse to consider that option while the other party is willing to do so, I'm not sure the other party should be (entirely) liable.

-d-

 

[fetaby]

^I think you'd find that if people ran their lives like successful businesses were run, we'd be in a lot less mess than we are.

-d-

Do you really want to open that can of worms?

 

[fetaby]

Yeah, but on the plus side, as gay men, we'd enjoy a lot more Grand Openings!

A successful business only has one grand opening... unless you're talking about the cans of worms and they just have worms inside.

 

[fetaby]

Treating a human life as nothing more than a financial obligation or a sperm repository is, IMO, the reason for many of the ills our societies face.

We can't even contemplate the successful navigation for the continuation of our species because we're too busy arguing over who is going to be left holding the bag.

If there any out there,