Oops, my bad.
For the 843rd time in this thread, the policy rationale is that it works better than the alternative. Having children doesn’t make the overwhelming majority of women better off. The father makes a contribution towards the support of the child, but from this thread it would seem people imagine single mothers living in the lap of luxury from child support payments. Yes there are women who don’t spend them on the child, but they are few and far between, and are massively outnumbered by women simply trying to do the best by their kid. Hell, I will bet they are massively outnumbered by women who have to fight tooth and nail to get a red cent from the male who provided half the genetic material for the child.
Are you under the impression that these children will starve without child support? Certainly some of them would never have been born but if a child is born in this country, it doesn’t go hungry for lack of resources.
I’m not focused on the rare case where women get intentionally pregnant with some rich guy’s child in order to coerce child support from him. I am asking why we tell women who are pregnant that if they choose to have the child rather than get an abortion, then the biological father of the child will have to financially support the child.
With all this said, I am OK with the way things are, I only got dragged in because of posters who insisted that the man made his choice when he had sex and it was only fair to make him live with the consequences of his action. I agree its the best we can do but its not “fair” its just the best we can do.
Let’s have a little reality check here. This should be a vanishingly rare situation. Sperm does not just leap into the fertile wombs of vindictive, pro-life women. Birth control is very effective, and if you double up in your birth control methods there is very little chance of accidentally impregnating anyone. Furthermore, even a small amount of sexual discretion can weed out most of the crazy baby-hungry partners.
So it’s not like any woman can just randomly ruin a guys life. There are plenty if simple precautions a man can take to make sure this never happens to him.
Because there is no way to allow men an “out” from paying child support without shifting a disproportionate responsibilty of childrearing to women and the rest of society.
Because there’s no easy way for the law to make exceptions for the rare and conveniently sympathetic “she poked holes in my condom and lied when she said she was on the pill” scenarios. Most times the situation is more like “I’m too lazy/stupid/deluded/horny to put on a condom…now hold my beer cuz I’m about to bust a nut”.
And sometimes the scenario is even more ambiguous. A couple in a long-term committed relationship eventually get careless with contraception. Why does this carelessness occur? Maybe assumptions start getting made in the absence of explicit communication. If a man never lets a woman know that he absolutely has no desire to father children with her, at least in the near future, and on top of that, he stops protecting himself, why is it her fault for assuming that fatherhood is non-objectionable to him? This is why I’m in favor of pre-sex contracts. It takes out the ambiguity and makes it clear to both parties where the other stands.
Didn’t say that. The point that has been made 1000 freakin times is that the biology makes equity impossible. Suggesting men escape all responsibility isn’t close to anything like equity. No thanks , isn’t really the same as a surgical procedure is it? Let’s just be total hard asses and if people have an unplanned pregnancy and don’t agree together to support the child, we’ll sterilize them both.
Did you read the post you responded to? Encouraging men to be even more irresponsible, and making society as a whole pay for that, does not promote equity either.
Until Roe vs. Wade society had voiced the opinion that in most states a woman was compelled to physically support a fetus with a body. We changed that. Now we need a financial Roe vs. Wade for men.
Forcing a woman to touch your hand is a physical act in the continuum of violence against woman just like rape. Shooting a pregnant woman or a child to avoid paying child support may in some circumstances be the moral equivalency of shooting a burgular breaking into your home or a mugger that tries to rob you on the street. Whether or not it’s murder, well that depends on whether or not you consider it moral to defend property. Some of people do, especially in circumstances were property is shared among family members and the loss of one members property can effect the lives of many.
If you get drunk and have an accident in your car, as you less responsible?
You haven’t convinced me responsibility is a red herring. The laws have always been based on the concept of personal responsibility. We assume unwanted pregnancies will occur, so we have laws to deal with it.
What is moral about that? Once again, it’s encouraging irresponsible behavior in males because it doesn’t require them to be concerned about unwanted pregnancies at all. How is it moral to have society pay for the offspring of irresponsible men? Doesn’t that mean people who have kids and are financially responsible for them now are paying a tax to support kids for people who want to avoid that financial burden?
which has zero relevance to this thread.
Yes, and so what?
Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with responsibility, finances, child-bearing. etc. It was not an “out” for women, an equalizer, or anything even remotely like that. The decision was based on the right to privacy and the fact that the government does not have the right to intrude on medical decions. It had nothing to do with making things “fair.”
You are confusing arguments used during the court proceedings with the effect the ruling had on the larger society. Surely, you don’t want to imply that only consideration in reproductive freedom is medical privacy. Roe vs. Wade had the effect of liberating generations of women from the tyranny of enforced pregnancy. It was the Emancipation Proclaimation for women of child-bearing age.
Well obviously, duh.
Hey, can’t have those women or those children grow up to be sociopaths.
I thought the title of this thread was abortion and child support.
:smack:
So why are you holding men to a standard that you would be called a mysogynist if you held women to the same standard? If you said that a woman’s choice was made when she opened her legs, why would that be any worse than saying that the man made his choice when he came in the vagina?
Maybe. But that wasn’t its legal function, and so it doesn’t automatically follow that now things need to be “evened up.” Anyway, abortion existed before Roe v. Wade, so it’s not like it created anything new- it just legalized a biological reality that has existed for centuries.
As mentioned earlier, it really isn’t that difficult not to knock up a vindictive pro-life woman.
Why do you want to punish the child for the transgressions of the mother?
I don’t know how many times it has been stated in this thread but I’ll try again - it is impossible, due to the facts of biology, to treat men and women as equals in this scenario. It can’t be fair until men are able to carry a foetus to term.