Abortion and child support

Great Debates
761

[QUOTE]

Bollocks yourself. That’s equivalent to saying “I NEVER wanted to get lung cancer just because I wanted to enjoy the pleasure of smoking. It’s not FAIR that I got lung cancer anyway. I made it very CLEAR that I didn’t want lung cancer. Lots and lots of people smoke all the time and NEVER get lung cancer.” Cigarette smoking will always be a risk for lung cancer, no matter how much you don’t want them to. You smoke, you assume the risk. Period.

Condoms fail at times; you know that. Female birth control (short of ovary removal) fails at times, you know that. When you have an orgasm inside a woman’s vagina you are taking a risk however small** that one of your sperm will fertilize an egg, you know that.

Your penis becomes the delivery system for exactly half the risk of producing a fertilized egg.

You know ALL of that prior to intercourse. When you then make the decision to have intercourse, the decision for your involvement in the creation of another person has already been made - no matter how much you don’t want that to be the case.

The fact that a woman has one more opportunity than males do for a choice of whether or not a child enters the world should be of no concern to you.

You still have a SOLID, risk-free choice you can make.

So quit whining.

762

I would have a time limit for men to file for a paper abortion roughly the same in length as what a woman has to decide if she wants an abortion or to carry the pregnancy to term. Once the time has expired just as with the physical limitations of abortion, there is no going back and he could not decided years later that no he doesn’t want to be father. The only exceptions I would make are cases where the men were not legally informed of possible paternity prior to birth. In such cases there would have to be a small grace period to make a decision (be a father or not) after which it could not be changed.

763

All of which you have volunteered for by choosing to have a baby. What is sociopathic is the notion that a man getting stuck with child support payments when he is not given an option on whether or not a pregnancy will continue. Since forced abortions do not seem to be an acceptable option, giving him a financial release from responsibility is the only moral solution.

764

That’s still a choice. A choice that men do not have.

765

You could have had an abortion and avoided that. A man doesn’t have that choice.

You have succintly presented every argument that your side has put forth.

You are effectively saying “Don’t have sex if you don’t want to have a baby” Imagine if we applied that rationale to women in an abortion debate.

Why does the burden fall on the man to keep his dick out of the crazy instead of on the woman to keep the penises of jerks out of their vaginas? I mean after all, they are the ones that have the ability to abort pregnancies if they were wrong about the man being an jerk.

“The rest of us should not have to pay the tab in child support for men who want to fuck around irresponsibly” Just listen to yourself. I could just as easily say that the rest of us should not have to pay child support for for women who have babies they cannot afford.

Child support is not designed to prevent burdens on the state. If it were we would make disclosure of the biological father a condition to receiving state aid for single mothers.

Its not sociopathic to imply that women should bear the responsibility for children they choose to bear. Particularly because we have so many safety nets for children that the number of children that slip through the cracks are almost entirely the result of not applying for the benefits.

766

Then stop using “burden on the state” as an excuse.

I agree that part is a different debate but when your side keeps trotting out “burden on the state” as THE reason for forcing men to pay child support when a woman who cannot afford a baby decides to have the baby anyways, I feel it is relevant.

767

I think you’re missing the point entirely.

The woman can have an abortion if she can’t or doesn’t want to take care of a child.

768

The potential burden that doing away with all child support altogether would place on the state is a compelling argument for not doing so. You can’t legally do away with child support for children born outside marriage and keep it for children born inside marriage; it’s an all or nothing proposition. You have to have it for all children, or none. You really can’t argue for or against the abolition of all child support without considering what the impact would be in social services and costs to the state, since the potential economic implications are serious. Given that, instead of arguing for or against the abolition of child support you could mount an argument that another way of figuring child support would be more equitable to the parties involved, but as we’ve discussed that’s another argument.

769

A man volunteers to have a baby by having sex with a woman and not using a condom. If he doesn’t want the responsibility of supporting his offspring he should be careful about choosing his sex partner. What is sociopathic is the notion that our laws should be about letting him financially walk away from any resulting children.

A man doesn’t have the choice to get an abortion because a man doesn’t get pregnant. The woman gets to have an abortion because the baby is growing inside of her. My husband sits here and watches my belly expand, my back ache, my breast swell, my breathing get difficult. None of this affects him so why should he get a say if I choose to go through with a physically difficult act?

You are placing ALL the burdens of pregnancy on the woman. She’s supposed to be responsible for birth control, gestation, childbirth and then raising the child. The man, in your view, should be allowed to assume none of them.

Men don’t get pregnant. Women do. Fairness dictates that women should be allowed to avoid a pregnancy by using safe birth control and having an abortion if the birth control fails. Fairness dictates that if men don’t want children they should either avoid sex with the crazy or use birth control when they do because they don’t get pregnant.

You’re basically arguing that men should be allowed to have all the fun with sex and none of the ultimate responsibilities. That doesn’t make moral or ethical sense.

770

[quote=“lurking_guest, post:761, topic:563985”]

That would be a much better analogy if women had the ability to cure cancer.

But it is of concern to me. It makes all the difference in the world.

Yep, just another variation of “don’t have sex if you want kids” How about we make abortion illegal and apply the same standard to women?

771

Of course you can do away with child support for children born outside of marriage. There are all sort of distinctions we make between children born out of wedlock. I don’t know what the law is today but there was a time when intestacy laws did not consider illegitimate children.

So if we can in fact distinguish between children born inside and outside of marriage and we can even distinguish between a child that a man renounced while it was still in the womb and a child they raised before changing his mind about having a family, why do we have to conflate situations that we are talking about here (men who reject fetuses in the womb) and the situations where the current child support laws make sense (where a man has raised before divorcing his wife).

772

Damuri,

Men don’t get pregnant.

They don’t get nauseous. They don’t get backaches. They don’t get stretch marks. They don’t get high blood pressure from pregnancy, or literally risk their lives during a painful and dangerous labor and delivery. They don’t get drooping leaky breasts or headaches or thicker thighs and upper arms from pregnancy. They don’t get to heal from a c-section.

This is biological fact.

Women get two forms of backup because women pay for babies in two ways. They get to bear them physically and then they get to support them when they show up.

If men want to change this then they can get pregnant. Since they can’t get pregnant they should either make sure they have a willing partner to breed with or use twenty forms of birth control.

That is the only fair rule.

773

And why can’t we tell the woman to only have sex with men that wilkl suppoirt any children that result from their union?

He doesn’t and shouldn’t but if you weren’t married, why should he have to pay child support for a child that you cannot afford without his help… a child he does not want.

He can assume them if he wants just like you can choose to terminate a pregnancy if you want.

Women don’t want children, they can have all the (safe) sex they want and then get an abortion if they get pregnant anyways. Men don’t want children, then don’t have sex. I don’t see how fairness dictates that.

Men don’t get to have all the fun sex unless the woman also wants to have sex. Don’t women get an “out” from “ultimate responsibility” by getting an abortion? If you don’t want to raise a child on your own (and you don’t want to get an abortion) then don’t have sex outside of marriage.

774

So the fuck what? The woman has the extra option because it’s in her damn body. Sentient Sea Horses might do things in reverse, birds could do it either/or, but humans gestate their young internally in the female. Nature’s a bitch, and cares fuck all if you think it’s fair or not. Abortion is about right to control one’s own body.

Child support is about a child’s right to be supported by the people who brought the child into the world. The child had no choice about coming into the world. However both the parents did.

Men don’t get periods, but enjoy the fruits of females maintaining fertility such as the continuation of the damn species. In fairness than, using your logic, shouldn’t men have a tampon tax imposed for redistribution to even out that externaliaty for hygiene products, pain and suffering? If not, again, using your logic, why is it fair to stick women with those costs when the functions generating them are necessary for both groups?

775

Because, and this is something you have staggeringly failed to notice, girlie bits are different to boy bits. We don’t force people to have invasive medical procedures. It’s not considered a nice thing to do. It’s a product of biology (and civilization) that women have longer to determine whether a particular sexual act will result in a child, because their bodies are involved in the process longer.

However, both parties chose whether to accept the risk of creating a child. You just want to run away afterwards and deny your responsibilities.

776

Are you on some kind of loop? Or is the needle stuck in a scratch. saying it hundreds of times the same way doesn’t mean people will agree with you. They might, on the other hand, walk away from boredom.

777

I’d almost suggest you had an ulterior motive for the sneaky little change you made in here…

We start with a man’s “responsibility to a fetus or child” and end with a woman’s “responsibility to a fetus.”

Significant difference there, I think. There is no child support responsibility to a fetus. Hence the man and woman have the same responsibility - to support the child, if a child emerges as a result of the sexual act. Now, you many (and clearly do) think that a person shouldn’t have any responsibility to a child produced as a result of his or her sexual activity, and that it should be permissible to dump that child in the trash, or leave it to starve on the mountains, hoping wolves come to raise it and eventually, when the child founds a city that goes on to become an Empire, the child forgives you and does not throw you to the lions in the Colliseum. Most of us would view that as a sociopathic view, on the other hand.

778

Damuri, I think some people in this thread will never see the argument you and others are trying to make. They are too blinded by the “men and women are different by nature” argument to see beyond that.

Of course men and women are different by nature, and therefore their role in a pregnancy is vastly different. This is not a big revelation. The question is how does society handle this difference?

What is funny, is that with a change in laws we are having the same set of arguments that people used to make to get women to not have sex, applied now to men.

1950s:
[ul]
[li]Abortions are outlawed and women are legally obligated to give birth to children they don’t want. [/li][li]Women: “But we want to be able to have sex only for pleasure, and if a baby results we want to be able to get away from the responsibility of having a child”. [/li][li]Society: “Sorry, you can have sex for pleasure, but if you 100% don’t want a baby, don’t let a man insert his penis into your vagina. A woman volunteers to have a baby by having sex with a man and not using a condom.”[/li][/ul]

2010:
[ul]
[li]Abortions are legal and men are legally obligated to pay for children they don’t want. [/li][li]Men: “But we want to be able to have sex only for pleasure, and if a baby results we want to be able to get away from the responsibility of having a child”. [/li][li]Society: “Sorry, you can have sex for pleasure, but if you 100% don’t want a baby, don’t insert your penis into a woman’s vagina. A man volunteers to have a baby by having sex with a woman and not using a condom.”[/li][/ul]

In both the 1950s and 2010, the human body is the same, nature is the same. It’s only the laws and people’s attitudes that changed. So, saying that the way things are is an immutable fact of nature, based on the anatomy of men and women, so “just suck it up, men”, is obviously wrong. It’s based on the anatomy of men and women, plus any laws we put in place.

In the 1950s, the laws went one way. Today, they went another way. Most people see the 1950s end of the spectrum as unfair to women, and some see today’s end of the spectrum as unfair to men. What people are proposing in this thread are some potential other legal frameworks that try to even things out, while still trying to keep in balance with the rest of our laws and freedoms.

TLDR version: If you are uncomfortable with someone in the 1950s telling a woman “A woman volunteers to have a baby by having sex with a man and not using a condom, and that’s just a fact of nature, so suck it up” maybe, just maybe, you can take a second to understand why some people maybe uncomfortable when someone in 2010 tells a man “A man volunteers to have a baby by having sex with a woman and not using a condom, and that’s just a fact of nature, so suck it up”.

779

Brilliant and concise.

One nitpick: in 2010 the message is closer to: “A man volunteers to have a baby having sex wsith a woman and not using a condom or using a condom that breaks (he is suppose to magically know which condoms will always be perfectly effective), and that’s just a fact of nature, so suck it up.”

780

No, the law can’t treat children born in and out of wedlock differently. You can’t legally do away with child support for illegitimate children and keep it for children born in wedlock. It’s a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to provide child support for on class of children but not another. You have to make it available for all children, or none.

Gomez v. Perez, 409 U.S. 535 (1973). I pointed exactly this out to you back on page 9 in post #405. If you’re sensing a tone of exasperation in those responding to you, having to repeat the same thing over and over is exactly why these threads are so frustrating.