Abortion and child support

[cosmosdan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think that caught early enough abortion can be as simple as taking a pill.
.

Except we know that won’t always be the case.

But otherwise I guess you’re right. My hang up is that the legality and simplicity of an early abortion ultimately puts the choice in the woman’s lap. How does eliminating child support in the case of an unwanted child “reverse” the situation? The woman STILL has the ultimate choice of whether to keep or abort the fetus, she simply doesn’t have the right to rely on child support from an unwilling father. She makes her choice in that light.

I think more accurate language would be sharing the responsibility. Now it’s shared. You’re suggesting that men have little or none and even more be given to women, and society and the child suffer the consequences of men having less responsibility for their willing and even sought after role in procreation.

You’ve mentioned several times that it seems like men are be punished for wanting sex. Your answer seems to be that women should be punished for for being the one that actually carries the fetus by bearing even more responsibility.

[cosmosdan]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah so you are saying if you don’t want to risk paying child support then don’t have sex. How is that NOT suggesting abstinence?

Right now men share the concern and responsibility for contraception. You’re suggesting they needn’t be concerned at all if they don’t want to be.

[villa]

@Damuri_Ajashi

Yeah so you are saying if you don’t want to risk paying child support then don’t have sex. How is that NOT suggesting abstinence?

I’m done with you. You are making things up and claiming I have said them. You are ignoring what I say and inventing what you would rather I had said. There is a very common four letter word for what you are, but I am not allowed to use it here.

[robertliguori]

@cosmosdan

You’ve mentioned several times that it seems like men are be punished for wanting sex. Your answer seems to be that women should be punished for for being the one that actually carries the fetus by bearing even more responsibility.

Again, with choice comes power, and with power comes responsibility. The reality is that while there are many things a man can do to drastically lower the odds of not getting a woman pregnant, if said woman ends up pregnant, the ultimate choice (assuming she is capable of procuring an abortion) rests with her.

Therefore, so should responsibility. We go after fathers for child support not because they are responsible (because we do so when they clearly aren’t), but because children need support, and fathers and mothers give it together the vast majority of the time, and times when they don’t are sufficiently uncommon to accept an approximate alternative.

[bengangmo]

@cosmosdan

As it is now, men and women share the responsibility for contraception and the care of children they have with the state and our tax dollars willing to step in when necessary.

Under your suggestion men would have no responsibility for contraception or supporting the children they sire. Rather than power, let’s use responsibility. You’re suggesting we shift all the responsibility to women. I can’t see that as reasonable or making things more fair for those involved, the women, the children and society as a whole. It’s what I’ve been saying all along. You can’t make it equitable in any ideal sense because of the biology, all the suggestions offered merely shift the responsibility around and create a system that is less equitable than the one we have.

because the alternatives are even worse, and that’s been explained to you repeatedly. I guess it will just take time to sink in.

Earlier I broke it into three sections , 1. conception, 2.pregnancy, and 3.childbirth and rearing,
Right now men have equal responsibility in stage one and stage three, but not in stage 2, because of the biology. You’re suggesting that because women have the choice, and the responsibility in stage two, they should bear all the responsibility in one and three as well, and men bear none. They get to have all their sex they can manage with no concerns about contraception or the welfare of their children. I don’t see any way that is equitable to those involved or an improvement for society in general.
While you recognize that giving a birth and child rearing are no walk in the park
you’re also treating abortion as if it’s a very minor thing, and paying child support as if it’s a gigantic unfair burden.
Remember, men can and do choose to just send a check, which represents their share, and take on no other responsibilities of child rearing. In those cases the woman is still , by far, bearing much more of the burden. You’re suggesting she should bear even more, or the state {taxpayers in general} should bear the father’s portion.
Any attempt to try and give men some choice equal to termination only shifts the responsibility , allowing men to be essentially responsibility free, while women, society, bear more, and children have less opportunity for support.
Making men less responsible for their actions in procreation doesn’t make it more equitable or promote a better society. If you can’t see it now further posting isn’t going to help.

Wht if the father was made responsible for the pregnancy, but not the child rearing? Which, in today’s world, with the abundance of people willing to adopt there is really not a need to raise the child.

In other words, mistake happens. Mum says “I hate abortion”, dad says “I don’t want a kid”. dad then has to pay mum a salary while she’s pregnant, plus half the medical costs, plus maybe some figure for pain. Baby is adopted, no child support. If mum wants to keep and raise the child, which would be her right, there is no further financial commitment from daddy, UNLESS he does want to be a part of the kid’s life.

And when I say salary, I mean, maybe half of what the mother would otherwise be capable of earning. (the other half is her commitment)

[Polerius]

@jsgoddess

I love how women who don’t want to have abortions are basically being ignored by the “men are victims” crowd.

The right to choose means the right to choose an abortion OR to choose to carry the pregnancy to term.

With rights come responsibilities, at least where adults are concerned.

I have the right to choose to buy a Ferrari or not buy a Ferrari. But if I choose to buy a Ferrari, then I will have the responsibility of paying for it.

Is my “right to choose to buy a Ferrari or not buy a Ferrari” diminished because I can’t pay for one?

Is a woman’s right to choose an abortion or carry the baby to term diminished because she can’t pay for the upbringing of the baby?

ETA: And if my right to choose action A or B is diminished because I can’t afford action A, should society force other people to pay for my choices so that I can choose A or B unfettered by the cost of those two choices?

[cosmosdan]

@robertliguori

Again, with choice comes power, and with power comes responsibility. The reality is that while there are many things a man can do to drastically lower the odds of not getting a woman pregnant, if said woman ends up pregnant, the ultimate choice (assuming she is capable of procuring an abortion) rests with her.

I don’t agree, since she doesn’t get pregnant by herself.
She only has a choice the man doesn’t have, because of biology, but it takes a man for her to even be in a situation to make that choice. So she never bears all the responsibility that you seem to be implying.

We go after fathers for child support not because they are responsible

Wrong. That’s why we do. It’s true that the child needs support, but when it comes time to decide who is legally responsible for that support it’s the two people whose genetic code came together to create that unique individual. Both Mom and Dad are responsible.

(because we do so when they clearly aren’t),

When does that happen?

[cosmosdan]

@bengangmo

Wht if the father was made responsible for the pregnancy, but not the child rearing? Which, in today’s world, with the abundance of people willing to adopt there is really not a need to raise the child.

In other words, mistake happens. Mum says “I hate abortion”, dad says “I don’t want a kid”. dad then has to pay mum a salary while she’s pregnant, plus half the medical costs, plus maybe some figure for pain. Baby is adopted, no child support. If mum wants to keep and raise the child, which would be her right, there is no further financial commitment from daddy, UNLESS he does want to be a part of the kid’s life.

And when I say salary, I mean, maybe half of what the mother would otherwise be capable of earning. (the other half is her commitment)

What if we just leave it the way it is, because that’s the most equitable in light of biological differences and the people involved.

[marshmallow]

The woman’s insistence on wanting the baby is probably as non-negotiable as the men’s wanting the sex for the sake of sex. IOW, if we could wave a magic wand and make men be the ones who get pregnant from sex I suspect the abortion rate would skyrocket to unprecedented levels. Because of the following scenarios:

A. The woman wants the baby, the man does not
B. The women does not want the baby, the man does

I imagine, although can not prove, that scenario A is far, far more common. If this is about correct then yes, the current system is about as good as it’s going to get. The proof is already there in that the women still want to be single parents, full speed ahead. A little less money won’t mean much to them, in the same way it won’t deter horny men.

[even_sven]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think that caught early enough abortion can be as simple as taking a pill.

For the sake of education, the morning after pill is relatively simple, but an actual abortion using RU-486 is not “as simple as taking a pill.” It’s an induced miscarriage, and it is as physically traumatic as a miscarriage. There is heavy blood loss and lighter bleeding that can last as longer than a week. The process can be physically quite painful, to the point where they often prescribe pain pills with it. It requires a follow-up doctor’s visit, and has a 3% failure rate. It’s not a walk in the park.

[pravnik]

@Damuri_Ajashi

That is inconsistent with your argument for why we need to impose child support on the biological father. The most your arguments support is some fixed amount of child support that would relieve the state from having to support the child (and its mother while she cares for the child), it doesn’t support the percentage of income approach.

You’re changing the subject. The debate is over whether men should be allowed to opt of paying child support altogether. You’re debating what the payment rate should be. Whether the law should require a flat rate or an income based rate is a subject that could be reasonably debated, but that’s a matter for a different thread.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@cosmosdan

As it is now, men and women share the responsibility for contraception and the care of children they have with the state and our tax dollars willing to step in when necessary.

Under your suggestion men would have no responsibility for contraception or supporting the children they sire. Rather than power, let’s use responsibility. You’re suggesting we shift all the responsibility to women. I can’t see that as reasonable or making things more fair for those involved, the women, the children and society as a whole. It’s what I’ve been saying all along. You can’t make it equitable in any ideal sense because of the biology, all the suggestions offered merely shift the responsibility around and create a system that is less equitable than the one we have.

Responsibility is probably a better word.

because the alternatives are even worse, and that’s been explained to you repeatedly. I guess it will just take time to sink in.

And I’ve heard you every dingle time. perhaps I need to make my response to that more clear. ITS BULLSHIT!!! The alternatives are only worse IN YOUR OPINION. I think that the alternative to forcing men to pay for children they don’t want would be women having abortion for children they cannot afford.

Earlier I broke it into three sections , 1. conception, 2.pregnancy, and 3.childbirth and rearing,
Right now men have equal responsibility in stage one and stage three, but not in stage 2, because of the biology. You’re suggesting that because women have the choice, and the responsibility in stage two, they should bear all the responsibility in one and three as well, and men bear none.

There is a concept of “least cost avoider”. In economic terms we like to put the responsibility of poor results on the least cost avoider, the person who can most easily avoid a poor result.

IN this case I believe the least cost avoider is the person who has the choice to have an abortion. Sure, not having sex is a lower cost than having an abortion but that is not the proper comparison, the proper comparison is being abstinent (and not risking pregnancy at all) or having an abortion and avoiding the problem after we know there is a problem.

They get to have all their sex they can manage with no concerns about contraception or the welfare of their children. I don’t see any way that is equitable to those involved or an improvement for society in general.
While you recognize that giving a birth and child rearing are no walk in the park
you’re also treating abortion as if it’s a very minor thing, and paying child support as if it’s a gigantic unfair burden.

Some posters have said that men can choose not to fuck crazy chicks. why is that an easier burden than women only fucking guys that aren’t assholes? Is there anything more compelling about fucking guys that are assholes than there is about fucking crazy chicks?

Remember, men can and do choose to just send a check, which represents their share, and take on no other responsibilities of child rearing. In those cases the woman is still , by far, bearing much more of the burden. You’re suggesting she should bear even more, or the state {taxpayers in general} should bear the father’s portion.

No I’m saying she should get an abortion rather than have a child that she cannot support without the help of a father that doesn’t want the child. BUT if she wants to have the child anyway, she is on her own.

Any attempt to try and give men some choice equal to termination only shifts the responsibility , allowing men to be essentially responsibility free, while women, society, bear more, and children have less opportunity for support.
Making men less responsible for their actions in procreation doesn’t make it more equitable or promote a better society. If you can’t see it now further posting isn’t going to help.

I can see the point you are making but you seem to be incapable of seeing the point I am making. You don’t even want to contemplate how the world might work if we told pregnant women that they cannot rely on the biological fathers. The only part of that world that you seem to be able to understand is that somehow men would be able to have sex with whoever they want when ever they want as if women would have almost no say in the matter.

What kind of assholes would suddenly run around having sex irresponsibly simply because they were no longer going to be liable for child support? Is child support truly the only reason you think a man might act responsibly? Is it even a major reason? I don’t believe that for a minute.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@cosmosdan

The point being that the responsibility to make responsible choices about contraception should be shared, while you’re suggesting men should have none. See any equity in that?

I don’t think that the threat of child support is a major contributor to people behaving responsibly. Your arguments for the behavioral effects of child support is similar to people who think that increasing the tax rate on the rich from 35% to 39.6% is going to make a lot of rich people leave the country. It simply isn’t that big a factor.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@villa

I’m done with you. You are making things up and claiming I have said them. You are ignoring what I say and inventing what you would rather I had said.

Where have I made stuff up? I even quoted your words to show how you are saying that if you don’t want to risk being a father, you shouldn’t have sex.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@bengangmo

Wht if the father was made responsible for the pregnancy, but not the child rearing? Which, in today’s world, with the abundance of people willing to adopt there is really not a need to raise the child.

In other words, mistake happens. Mum says “I hate abortion”, dad says “I don’t want a kid”. dad then has to pay mum a salary while she’s pregnant, plus half the medical costs, plus maybe some figure for pain. Baby is adopted, no child support. If mum wants to keep and raise the child, which would be her right, there is no further financial commitment from daddy, UNLESS he does want to be a part of the kid’s life.

And when I say salary, I mean, maybe half of what the mother would otherwise be capable of earning. (the other half is her commitment)

I wouldn’t even need to go that far. I would be OK with a cap on child support payments equal to the cost to the state for supporting the woman in raising that child.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@even_sven

For the sake of education, the morning after pill is relatively simple, but an actual abortion using RU-486 is not “as simple as taking a pill.” It’s an induced miscarriage, and it is as physically traumatic as a miscarriage. There is heavy blood loss and lighter bleeding that can last as longer than a week. The process can be physically quite painful, to the point where they often prescribe pain pills with it. It requires a follow-up doctor’s visit, and has a 3% failure rate. It’s not a walk in the park.

Well, I’m not trying to be flip but it is still a pill. The side effects are as bad as an induced abortion but it is still an ingested abortifacient.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@pravnik

You’re changing the subject. The debate is over whether men should be allowed to opt of paying child support altogether. You’re debating what the payment rate should be. Whether the law should require a flat rate or an income based rate is a subject that could be reasonably debated, but that’s a matter for a different thread.

No, I think its related. Part of the inequity is that the child support payment is not the cost of raising the child the child support payments is based on what these reluctant fathers earn.

Part of the argument is that if the father doesn’t support the child then the child becomes a burden on society. Well, the solution is not geared towards relieving that burden on society the solution is geared towards taking a piece of the father’s income. I am just highlighting how unprincipled the current situation is.

[even_sven]

@Damuri_Ajashi

No, I think its related. Part of the inequity is that the child support payment is not the cost of raising the child the child support payments is based on what these reluctant fathers earn.

For the love of all that is holy, can you please stop using “father” and “mother” as substitutes for “non-custodial” and “custodial” parents. Women pay child support, too.

The child support system was not designed for the rare and easily preventable situation of a crazed woman purposefully getting knocked up by a man who abhors the idea of having a kid. It was designed for the far more common situation where a couple has a child together, and then decide they’d rather be doing something else. The theory is that a parent’s romantic decisions should not have as small as possible an impact on their kid’s life. If you are enrolling your kid in boarding school and setting up college funds, it’s not cool to renege all of that just because you’ve decided you’d rather be banging your secretary.

Of course, all of this is a different argument all together.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@even_sven

For the love of all that is holy, can you please stop using “father” and “mother” as substitutes for “non-custodial” and “custodial” parents. Women pay child support, too.

The child support system was not designed for the rare and easily preventable situation of a crazed woman purposefully getting knocked up by a man who abhors the idea of having a kid. It was designed for the far more common situation where a couple has a child together, and then decide they’d rather be doing something else. The theory is that a parent’s romantic decisions should not have as small as possible an impact on their kid’s life. If you are enrolling your kid in boarding school and setting up college funds, it’s not cool to renege all of that just because you’ve decided you’d rather be banging your secretary.

Of course, all of this is a different argument all together.

So how many children are born to women who don’t want them who then have to pay child support?

TRY TO REMEMBER, we’re not talking about child support generally, we’re talking about child support where one of the parents don’t want the child to be born. The day that a woman is forced to have a child against her will because the father wants the child AND she is forced to pay child support, I will stop using the words father and mother.

If you are asking me whether a father of a family can simply abandon his family, then of course not. He presumptively was part of the conversation when the couple decided to have children. He can’t turn around and suddenly walk away from the responsibility that he assumed. The position expressed by some on this thread has been that he assumed that responsibility as soon as he ejaculated in a woman’s vagina, that if he didn’t want the risk of that responsibility, he shouldn’t have had sex.

[pbbth]

@Damuri_Ajashi

TRY TO REMEMBER, we’re not talking about child support generally, we’re talking about child support where one of the parents don’t want the child to be born. The day that a woman is forced to have a child against her will because the father wants the child AND she is forced to pay child support, I will stop using the words father and mother.

This actually happened to a woman I worked with in 2005. She ended up pregnant and didn’t want the baby but didn’t consider abortion a reasonable option. She ended up giving birth and wanted to put her son up for adoption but his father wouldn’t sign over his parental rights so he ended up with custody and she paid about $150 a month in child support and was required to keep the baby on her health insurance.