You’re not securing any rights until after its born. The father has no financial responsibility during pregnancy.
Sorry, messed the post and missed the edit.
This:
Was in response to this:
The man DOES have the ability to opt out by not ejaculating in someone else’s body.
Is this whole thread really just some kind of roundabout anti-abortion thread for you?
Would you favor making abortions free to women or forcing the sperm donor to pay for it?
Regulating sex lives is not the government’s business. Holding people accountable for their offspring is. A woman who gets an abortion IS taking responsibility for a consequence of a sexual decision. She just has the ability to take that responsibility at a later date.
But he is committed to those financial responsibilities during all the time while the woman can still opt out.
This is the whole point of my question. Why does the woman have the option to opt out of something to which the man cannot. So far most responses read to me as “because that’s the law”, which I understand but does nothing to explain why that law is fair.
To the answers of “women should have the option because they shoulder the risk”, I reply that because women have the option (and I agree it should be their option), they should shoulder the cost of that option.
But that post didn’t respond to a single one of my questions. If you really want to relieve men of financial accountability for babies they don’t want, then you have to answer those questions. If you’re really just trying to argue that women shouldn’t be allowed to have abortions, then your entire premise for debate is disingenuous.
No he isn’t. He isn’t committed unless and until there is a live birth.
The man CAN opt out, by not ejculating in another person’s body. The woman can make her decision later in the process because her BODY is invlved later in the process. The biology dictates the time at which accountability must be taken.
That has not been the response at all.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Any woman who wants to choose an abortion already HAS the financial responibility to pay for it.
Are you saying that a guy who knocks up a woman should have no responsibility either for a potential child OR for a termination? That the woman should have 100% responsibility to either pay for her own abortion or to have the child alone?
What happened to your statement that both are equally responsible for those blue lines? It sounds like you don’t really believe that at all. It sounds like you think the responsibility lies solely with the woman.
The only time I can see a man not being responsible is when there was fraud involved - such as assurance of birth control use when none was being used. Accidents however are not absolution from responsibility.
Ideally, this would all be worked out before. As a thought experiment, would there still be male financial responsibility if a pre-intercourse agreement were signed (think prenup) where the woman either agreed to terminate a pregnancy or assume financial responsibility?
They are opting out of pregnancy, which is something men just can’t do. The issue here is not law, it’s biology.
Opting out of childrearing is no different for men and women.
Good because that has nothing to do with anything I have said or what this thread is about.
Yes, but that is besides the point. Just as women have the right to opt out by not letting such man ejaculate in her body.
That all happens before what we are talking about. At that point a pregnancy is just a vague risk probability. My question is about what happens once there is a pregnancy that was not anticipated by both/either consensual sex partner.
??? What could possibly make you think so? That might be an easier fight for you to win, but it is not this fight. As I said in my OP, this is not about me wanting to defend any thesis, it is about me understanding something. Even if you know you are right in whatever it is you are thinking, that does nothing for me until you manage to put it in a way that I can understand.
Would you favor making abortions free to women or forcing the sperm donor to pay for it?
I don’t see the obvious connection to what I am asking and I am sure my question can be answered without stopping for this tangent.
Yes - the man would still have financial responsibility towards the child. Whether he could sue the woman for breach of the agreement is a different question. I think he would almost certainly lose, in particular as an agreement to have an abortion would almost certainly be ruled unenforceable as contrary to public policy.
The state, by requiring child support, is representing the interests of the child, not those of the mother.
Which the mother can completely abdicate by dropping the newborn off at a hospital and walking away. Have you not heard of so-called ‘Safe Haven’ laws?
It’s an injustice, and I think that he should have 12 weeks from the time he finds out about the pregnancy/child to determine whether or not he wants to permanently sever all his rights and responsibilities with respect to any potential or actual child.
One of them can. She can walk into a hospital and hand the infant over.
Guess which one?
Why do you think men can’t do this?
If a woman doesn’t want to raise a child and she has it and wants to give it up, can the man raise it and then ask her for child support?
That is, both the man and woman have the option of giving up child rearing, but both have the option of support if they want to care for it.
But women can opt out of childrearing by ending the pregnancy. Not only that but they can prevent the father from having a baby (by having not meaning delivering it, of course). This is all fine, of course (villa’s post #39 nailed it). The decision of carrying a pregnancy to term should be the mother and the mother’s only. My problem is how that decision also affects a person who is not able to make any decisions at all (even worse when courts mandate parents to care for the children of their underage children, but that is an extreme outlying case).
My point is that since the woman has the right to decide whether there will be a baby, and the decision is hers 100%, hers should also be the consequences of that decision in 100%.
Voyager is pointing in the direction I am thinking right now. If the father has somehow signed in on the risks of a potential pregnancy and accepted the responsibilities of it, then he is in. Otherwise, I don’t see why he should.
It is really not different from one person buying something on credit and then expecting someone else (who didn’t cosign) to pay for it.
The misconception is that the woman has a choice to deal or not deal with a pregnancy.
What you fail to realize is that whether she chooses to abort or chooses to have a child, a medical and financial sacrifice will be made. She WILL have a medical procedure. She WILL be paying financially. She WILL be putting her health at risk.
She may also get the added bonus of being hissed and spit at by abortion protestors or being stigmitized for being a single mother, depending on her choice. Biology isn’t fair and pregnancy leaves both parents without “rights”, so to speak.
Neither party has the right to simply not deal with the pregnancy, although technically a man could conveniently disappear and hope that no one finds him. But short of going on the lam, both parents are on the hook to some extent.
Can the mother hand the baby out for adoption without consent of the father?!
And if the father wishes custody at that point, he will be entitled to it. I don’t know to be honest what the financial ramifications for the mother are. I sincerely doubt it is a situation that has come up often if at all.
And the second quote in your post isn’t from me. By adding the poster’s name to the first quote and the third, it kind of implies the second quote is from the same person as the first.
I don’t see why people find this so hard. Child support laws are written with the best interest of the child in mind. Abortion laws are written to balance the rights of the fetus against those of the mother. They are separate things based on separate situations.
I was responding to your direct quote about people being more responsible for their sex lives.
The woman’s body is still involved beyond that point, hence her rights and options are involved beyond that point.
The man knew the risks. He knows that he is responsible for whatever happens to his own sperm. Once his body is no longer involved, he no longer has any options. Both partners are making decisions which involve the disposition of their own physical bodies. Their is no inequity exceot for that which is dicated by biology.
The post where you answered my questions about legal practicalities by suggesting that the “opt out” for women be eliminated.
That’s not an easy fight for anybody. This one is much easier than that one. Holding parents financially responsible for their children is a no-brainer.
Your question HAS been answered, and the connection is obvious. I’m asking exactly what financial responsiblity you think a man should have for an unwanted pregnancy. You said before that you think both partners should be equally responsible. Do you really believe that or don’t you, and if you do, what should the man’s responsibility be?
Either one can.