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

[Kulindahr]

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.

You've just made the argument for criminalizing all abortion.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

Bravo.

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.

It makes plenty of sense.

I pissed off a feminist and a Creationist pro-lifer at the same time once by saying look, there are two possibilities: that's not a person in there, in which case it must count as property, and if it's property, then it belongs exactly as much to the guy as to the gal; but if it's a person, then since both of them made it, both are equally obligated to stick around a nurture it.

The feminist position basically boils down to considering the unborn a person if she wants, or declaring it property if she wants, but allowing no one else any input on any decisions. That reduces men to tools, sex toys, objects. It's a situation that to me, if being gay really was a choice, about half the men in America would choose it just to not to have to deal with the power games.

 

[Telstra]

Sperm donors have a legal contract exempting them from fatherhood. It also exempts them from having parental rights. It's a pre-arranged contract matter. Totally different from some guy who impregnates a woman and skips out on his responsibility.

It doesn't matter.
If you want to have a black and white argument. Here it is.
Zero tolerance for all LOL

 

[Kulindahr]

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-

I know an exception to that: a gal drugged a guy at a party and used him like a toy, and got pregnant -- and he was already paying child support for two kids after a divorce and then another from a fairly long relationship that went sour.

He was making $130k/yr when I knew him, but his share was $25k. Of course the wife had gotten their $250k house along with the kids, the GF had gotten the second house he'd managed, so he was living in a cheap apartment in a complex filled mostly by college types.

The system needs to change: child support should be enough to SUPPORT a child, not to allow hiring a baby-sitter and providing the woman with an unearned income. If according to the federal figures it costs $4500/yr to raise a kid, that should be the number -- or less if it's gonna put the guy on the street.

 

[Kulindahr]

Really? You think these citizens of third world countries with starving over-populations and the GDP of a small US-neighbourhood 7-11 should think even LESS about the financial implications of having 13 children and expecting governments and foreign donations to come to the rescue?

Argghhh. Which fallacy is this?

Because he said we should treat kids as more than a financial interest or whatever does NOT mean he suggested treating them as less than that. Children have always been an economic matter, but the point is that they have to be more than that. I've talked to too many kids who see themselves as something it was useful for mom to churn out, but now they're an inconvenience, and it does horrid things for their self-images. So he's right -- we have to stop seeing them "as nothing more than a financial obligation or a sperm repository".

 

[Kulindahr]

This post angers me to no end, because it places more value on money than on the welfare of the child.

"The love of money is the root of all sorts of evil."

Corrected to an accurate translation.

Wow. I still can't believe some of the shit I'm reading. I really can't. What's wrong with some of you people?

I came from a family where the father didn't want to pay child support and had to be forced through court-ordered payroll garnishment. It's not fun. And it's not fair to the women and children to heap such burden upon them, especially when men on average make more money than women, and should be stepping up and taking care for the humans they help bring into this life.

So how is it that every gal I know who gets child support lives in a nice house and owns a car, but of the five guys I know who are paying child support one lives in his truck, another lives in a broken-down van, and the others are in subsidized housing? And of those three, one lost his job because his wife walked off and took the kids, and his company had a "no divorce" policy?

 

[blackbeltninja]

Argghhh. Which fallacy is this?

So he's right -- we have to stop seeing them "as nothing more than a financial obligation or a sperm repository".

I disagree.

I think - and it relates to the slightly off-topic point which was raised about societies, plural, being in a bit of a mess because some of us see humans as a financial figure and not a person - that if people in general (societies here being multinational and multicultural entities) minded their finances and lived within their means, INCLUDING having only enough children as you YOURSELVES can reasonably afford, societies would be better off.

Maybe you don't see enough starving street kids in your neck of the woods every day to agree with me, I don't know. I do know that we're having too many kids, and it's usually the people who can't afford kids who are popping them out like rabbits and hoping that somehow magically food and money to feed, clothe and educate them will fall from the sky.

-d-

 

[blackbeltninja]

his company had a "no divorce" policy?

How is this even slightly legal?

-d-

 

[Kulindahr]

I disagree.

I think - and it relates to the slightly off-topic point which was raised about societies, plural, being in a bit of a mess because some of us see humans as a financial figure and not a person - that if people in general (societies here being multinational and multicultural entities) minded their finances and lived within their means, INCLUDING having only enough children as you YOURSELVES can reasonably afford, societies would be better off.

Maybe you don't see enough starving street kids in your neck of the woods every day to agree with me, I don't know. I do know that we're having too many kids, and it's usually the people who can't afford kids who are popping them out like rabbits and hoping that somehow magically food and money to feed, clothe and educate them will fall from the sky.

-d-

If you disagree, that means you think we should see people as less than just a financial obligation -- which would make them like throw-away property, something that if it becomes too expensive you just get rid of it because it's not as important as the money.

 

[Kulindahr]

How is this even slightly legal?

-d-

BTW, what the fuck is a "no divorce policy"? I sometimes question the crap you post.

Stipulation in the contract -- they were a "family company".

The stupid part is that it wasn't his choice -- he was penalized for someone else's choice and action.

I don't think a company could get away with that today, but twenty-five years ago they did. Frak, I even worked for a huge apartment outfit that in the early '80s still had a "no mixed couples" policy for tenants! At least, they had it until a back guy with a white wife applied and I patiently explained to the lady manager that despite what she may have been told in church, God only sees one race -- the human race -- and so does the law.