If a man requests, but woman won't have abortion, should he be freed of obligation?

[pervert]

*Originally posted by DrLizardo *
**Pervert:

I think the analogy is great. At any time you mention, the man could, by completely giving up his interest in the business, be freed of future liability. **

Of course. I was attempting to link the man’s business rights, that is his stake in the business, with the man’s obligations in procreation. My only point being that simply because the woman has ultimate power over the business in an early stage doesn’t change in any way the man’s rights to his portion of the business.

Just as IMO men have certain rights and responsibilities in the act of procreation. Whatever power the woman has over the product in its early stages do not “completely remove” those rights and responsibilities. Therefore to answer the OP, and once again IMO, whether or not the woman chooses abortion does not effect his rights or responsibilities concerning the child since it was a necessary component of the act of procreation that the woman have such power to begin with.

I guess I’m trying to say that the bargain a man makes with a woman in order to have a child includes the biological fact that she will become pregnant. The law of the land demands that during the first 3 months or so of the pregnancy the woman has an opt-out clause. But once again, the man has to know this beforehand. If he wants to have a child he must risk that the woman will change her mind even 3 months after she is pregnant. Conversly if a man does not wish to have offspring but still wishes to have sex he risks a child resulting. The fact that the woman has to get pregnant and might have an abortion is not relevant to this risk. The idea that the pregnancy removes all obligation to the man for the child is just as silly as saying that the fact that the zygote temporarily has a tail means it cannot have come from him, so he is not obligated to it. And I have to say that this is just as silly as proposing that the desicion to have an abortion or not is the act which creates the child. The biological relationship between pregnancy and children makes this laughable.

OK. One last thing I would like to say. Thank you very much for the excellent discussion. I have especially enjoyed robert’s willingness to discuss principles. That is a rare skill. DrLizardo, thanks for the excellent question in the OP.

[you_with_the_face]

Mr2001

The only way it doesn’t follow is if he picked shooting at random. In any situation where there are several options, and you choose one option because it’s preferable for some reason, it’s fair to say you “want” that option more than the others, is it not? Whether you’d prefer a different option that’s unavailable to you is irrelevant.

I guess you just don’t understand that being forced to choose the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as freely choosing what is best for all parties involved. Not just one.

I imagine my estate would be able to sue the pilot for breaching our contract, and at least recoup the cost of my funeral (that is, the financial consequence of the pilot’s failure to catch me).

If this contract was made five minutes before the jump, with no witnesses, with not even a handshake, it would basically be your estate’s word against the pilot. The pilot could easily cite technical difficulties or some other problems that prevented him from swooping down and catching you. He could say there was some kind of misunderstanding. So your estate could try to get compensated, but it probaby wouldn’t succeed. And guess what? It wouldn’t really matter anyway because you’re dead. Once you’re dead, nothing short of a miracle will bring you back.

More times than not, in these unwanted pregnancy situations there is no agreement beforehand that the women will “swoop down and rescue” the man. So the man is like the sky-diver who presumptiously believes that if his parachute doesn’t work, someone else will save his ass. What a dumbass thing to believe!

quote:

If you have sex with a woman without making absolutely sure that your sperm stays away from fertile ground, it doesn’t matter what she said she’d do. You’re the only person that is going to pay the price for your lack of contraception.

Only because that’s how our law works today.

So what if she actually is using the pill or whatever, and it fails? Is it still all of her fault that your sperm found its way to her egg? If a baby results from a lack of contraception (not abortion!), the price will and should be paid by both irresponsible parties. Not just by the woman.

Haven’t we been over this? The health consequences of abortion are comparable to the health consequences of pregnancy. My proposal makes an exception for the few cases where abortion poses a significantly higher risk.

There’s more to abortion than just health consequences and financial expense. But I think this is another thing you just don’t “get”, and no amount of words will convince you otherwise.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
No, I didn’t miss it at all. I just don’t think the analogy fits. I’ll be no longer pregnant when the kid is born, won’t I?

Indeed, that’s another possible resolution. That’s the solid gold fender.

His life? Am I proposing that it be taken away? I find it telling that you are unwilling to fulfill a simple obligation, (especially when you knew ahead of time what the consequences could be) because your wallet is more sacred than being honorable.

I simply don’t believe that obligation exists. The consequences you speak of only exist because of our current laws; I wouldn’t try to evade the law, but I’ll certainly speak out against it, which is what I’m doing on this very thread.

And, I hasten to add, the money all us taxpayers give out to support other men’s children, that money represents time too.

I suspect that if all those mothers knew they would have to raise the kids themselves, there would be a lot fewer children born to single poor mothers, which means fewer welfare payments, and less bureaucracy for processing child support and tracking down “deadbeat dads”. The taxpayers could at least break even.

And yet men pay child support right now. And I don’t see them dying from it.

Yes, and I imagine they’re just ecstatic about spending most of their time working to support a child that never should have existed. I’m sure their standard of living hasn’t been affected at all, they’ve only been inconvenienced. :rolleyes:

Abortion, even if it is not immediately harmful, can have psychological consequences.

Like postpartum depression? Oh, wait…

Or could it be more like the realization that you’re going to have to sell your car and work two jobs to support a kid that was brought into existence on the mother’s whim? That even though you’ve been trying your hardest to advance at work, not saving a cent, barely managing to pay your bills on time, now even that isn’t enough?

Oh wait, that’s just money. That’s just convenience. He ought to just be a man, buckle down, and take one for the team. I mean mother. I mean baby.

Certainly, no one has ever been driven to suicide because of child support payments, right? It must be totally unrelated to the much higher rates of suicide among males.

Originally posted by you with the face
I guess you just don’t understand that being forced to choose the lesser of two evils is not the same thing as freely choosing what is best for all parties involved. Not just one.

Remind me again, how is it best for the child to be raised by a mother who only wanted a child if someone else would pay for it?

The way I see it, the only one coming out ahead is the mother, who gets to have a cute cuddly baby at someone else’s expense.

If this contract was made five minutes before the jump, with no witnesses, with not even a handshake, it would basically be your estate’s word against the pilot. … More times than not, in these unwanted pregnancy situations there is no agreement beforehand that the women will “swoop down and rescue” the man.

Yes, but at least if I had gone to the trouble of arranging a contract before hand, it would be held up in court.

The way our law stands today, you could have a notarized contract signed before the President, the Pope, and Cecil himself, and it would mean absolutely dick when it came time to collect child support–I suspect that is why there aren’t many such agreements.

So what if she actually is using the pill or whatever, and it fails? Is it still all of her fault that your sperm found its way to her egg? If a baby results from a lack of contraception (not abortion!), the price will and should be paid by both irresponsible parties.

Of course it’s not her fault that the sperm and egg united. That’s an inherent risk of sex; no form of contraception is perfect.

But you must realize, a baby doesn’t result from failed contraception, a zygote does.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Indeed, that’s another possible resolution. That’s the solid gold fender.

No, it’s not a “solid gold fender” merely because you don’t want to pay for it. A “solid gold fender” might be childbirth at the most expensive hospital, or child support of $5,000 a month when you only make $3,000 a month. But just allowing the child to be born? That’s one of the several options open to the woman, and might just be the best for her body, her psyche, or whatever. And since it’s her body, she ought to know (better than you, who is only motivated by your pocketbook) which choice is best.

I simply don’t believe that obligation exists.

Your wallet tells you the obligation doesn’t exist, I’ll warrant. Like pervert said before, it’s like you think that the creation of the child is “started” at the time when the decision to abort (or not) happens. But that’s simply not how it is.

I suspect that if all those mothers knew they would have to raise the kids themselves, there would be a lot fewer children born to single poor mothers,

My frustration with irresponsible single moms is the topic of another thread. This thread is about “deadbeat dads” who refuse to acknowledge their responsibility for their own offspring.

Yes, and I imagine they’re just ecstatic about spending most of their time working to support a child that never should have existed.

What? “Should have never existed”? Who are you to decide who should or should not exist? And I might remind you, any man who gripes about having to support a child that “should have never existed” should have never “donated” his sperm to the mother of that terribly inconvenient child. He helped get it started, but it “never should have existed”? Give me a freakin’ break here. :rolleyes:

I’m sure their standard of living hasn’t been affected at all, they’ve only been inconvenienced. :rolleyes:

Oh, cry me a river. Once again, don’t engage in certain behavior if you can’t afford it.

Like postpartum depression? Oh, wait…

Do you really want to go down the road where we exchange cites endlessly trying to “prove” which option (abortion or childbirth) is less palatable? Please. They both have their plus and minus sides. And you know what the common denominator is with both of them? THEY DON’T HAPPEN TO MEN. Yeah, that’s it. They are a female phenomenon. And so maybe, just maybe, the female in question gets to decide which option is best, healthiest (both for body and mind) for her. His sacred wallet doesn’t (and should not) trump that.

Or could it be more like the realization that you’re going to have to sell your car and work two jobs to support a kid that was brought into existence on the mother’s whim?

The mother’s “whim”? He had nothing to do with it? He was in another county when the child was conceived? Her decision to do what was best for her health and body are a “whim”? :rolleyes:

That even though you’ve been trying your hardest to advance at work, not saving a cent, barely managing to pay your bills on time, now even that isn’t enough?

You are straying into different territory here. And I’ve already conceded earlier, that the system (at least in the USA) is screwed. There are plenty of examples of dads getting screwed over by the current child support system, and there are moms being screwed over by the system. One of my friends is currently being screwed over royally by his bitch of an ex-wife who makes much more money than him, and yet expects him to cough up extraordinary amounts of money from his meagre income. And I also have a friend whose deadbeat husband wanders from job to job to avoid supporting his kid, while his mom (my friend) works way too hard and goes without health insurance just to make ends meet. You wanna talk about how screwed up the system is? Start a new thread, and I’ll commiserate with you. But that’s not what we’re talking about here. We’re talking about the basic obligation of a man to his offspring.

Remind me again, how is it best for the child to be raised by a mother who only wanted a child if someone else would pay for it?

:rolleyes: You mean he’s going to pay for 100% of the child’s support? Is he going to stay awake at nights when the kid is sick, bathe the kid, wash the kid, take the kid to the doctor? Is that what you think happens? You think the mom’s sit back and do nothing while dad does it all?

All the single moms I know struggle to make ends meet and work very hard to support their children. And maybe, just maybe, they’ll get a few hundred from the dad now and then. Are there abuses to the system? Of course. And as I’ve already mentioned (twice) that’s a topic for another thread.

The way I see it, the only one coming out ahead is the mother, who gets to have a cute cuddly baby at someone else’s expense.

Oh, this is the ultimate of absolute presumptuous ignorance. A “cute cuddly baby”? OH MY GOSH. What are you smoking? Ever even seen a baby? Do you have even the remotest of CLUES about how far off the mark you are about the details of taking care of a baby? What? Do you think they are like a little cute fuzzy bunny rabbit or something? Did you get “babies” and “baby dolls” mixed up somehow? This is really hilarious. This tips your hand completely. You haven’t even the remotest of clues about this, do you? Oh. My. Gosh. :rolleyes:

Yes, but at least if I had gone to the trouble of arranging a contract before hand, it would be held up in court.

And see how many times you get laid if you expect that.

But you must realize, a baby doesn’t result from failed contraception, a zygote does.

A baby in 9 months. If the woman is stranded on a desert island then the only thing that will happen is that she’ll get a baby from that zygote. Oh wait! Maybe it’ll turn into a fuzzy bunny rabbit! Or a baby doll! You seem a little unclear here. You seem to think (as pervert said above) that the baby is “created” at the time when the woman decides that she won’t abort. This is ignorant and absurd.

[you_with_the_face]

Remind me again, how is it best for the child to be raised by a mother who only wanted a child if someone else would pay for it?

Remind me again, how is child support a one-way street? I must have missed the part where you showed how women do nothing but sit back and watch their children magically raise themselves, without shelling out one dime of their own money because daddy is expected to do all the work. Please enlighten me here.

The way I see it, the only one coming out ahead is the mother, who gets to have a cute cuddly baby at someone else’s expense.

The more you keep posting, the more I realize you have no idea what you are talking about.

Yes, but at least if I had gone to the trouble of arranging a contract before hand, it would be held up in court.

The way our law stands today, you could have a notarized contract signed before the President, the Pope, and Cecil himself, and it would mean absolutely dick when it came time to collect child support–I suspect that is why there aren’t many such agreements.

Well, I’m starting to think such a contract is a really good idea. I can think of no better way to keep deadbeat dads out of the gene pool than having them basically shoot themselves in the mojo with a pre-coital abortion contract.

So by all means, be a pioneer and require all your prospective lovers to sign a contract stating that any pregnancies resulting from your coital relationship must either be aborted or carried term with the expectation that you’ll be an absentee father. To endear the ladies to you even further, talk a lot about your wallet and how important it is to you that nothing “unfair” threatens its contents. Like parental responsibility. Let them know how you really feel about it.

The girls will love this! I guarantee it. Let us know how it all goes.

::gives thumbs up sign::

But you must realize, a baby doesn’t result from failed contraception, a zygote does.

No really? Get outta here!

[yosemite]

you with the face wrote:

The girls will love this! I guarantee it. Let us know how it all goes.

::gives thumbs up sign::

you with the face, you are my new hero. I love this. Yes, you are absolutely right. I think this is exactly what Mr2001 should do. And he’ll see how nicely his wallet keeps him warm at night.

[you_with_the_face]

The stupid thing about it, yosemite, is that these guys actually think this contract will work. Even if the powers-that-be decide such a contract is binding, what makes anyone think that the girls just won’t say “gee, I didn’t know I was pregnant until I was eight months along, sorry”. I mean, a lot of women don’t find out that they’re pregnant until the baby is practically crowning. But somehow these contractees are supposed to not only know that they’re preggers at a reasonable month; they’re also supposed to admit that they know they’re pregnant at a reasonable month.

But by all means, guys, go ahead with the contract idea. It is brilliant.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by yosemitebabe *
No, it’s not a “solid gold fender” merely because you don’t want to pay for it. … But just allowing the child to be born? That’s one of the several options open to the woman, and might just be the best for her body, her psyche, or whatever. And since it’s her body, she ought to know (better than you, who is only motivated by your pocketbook) which choice is best.

Wouldn’t a doctor be in a better position to judge that?

I don’t know where you get this idea that women have an inherent right to bring children into the world when nobody wants to support them.

Give me a freakin’ break here. :rolleyes:Oh, cry me a river. Once again, don’t engage in certain behavior if you can’t afford it.

Unless that behavior is carrying a child to term, you mean.

Oh, this is the ultimate of absolute presumptuous ignorance. A “cute cuddly baby”? OH MY GOSH. What are you smoking? Ever even seen a baby?

Matter of fact, I have. I even used to be one.

I know a lot of girls and women have romanticized ideas about being a mother. How else do you explain the bounty of baby dolls available at any toy store? If the media can twist girls’ ideas of fashion and beauty, it can certainly get them thinking that babies = cute and fun.

And see how many times you get laid if you expect that.

Do you seriously think that if it were possible to opt out by signing a contract, most guys wouldn’t do it? Do you think they like playing roulette with their future?

A baby in 9 months. If the woman is stranded on a desert island then the only thing that will happen is that she’ll get a baby from that zygote.

And in that case, there would be no laws to force anyone to pay for it. But in America, where these laws do exist, abortion is legal and available in major cities.

You seem to think (as pervert said above) that the baby is “created” at the time when the woman decides that she won’t abort.

No, the baby–as an entity that needs financial support–is created at birth. The decision whether or not to abort is what determines whether that birth will take place.

Originally posted by you with the face
Remind me again, how is child support a one-way street? I must have missed the part where you showed how women do nothing but sit back and watch their children magically raise themselves, without shelling out one dime of their own money because daddy is expected to do all the work. Please enlighten me here.

Well, you’ve got me there. The amount of work a single mother does is no laughing matter. But I don’t see her hardship as a justification to impose more hardship on the father - after all, the amount of work it takes to raise a child is hardly a secret, and she made the decision to give birth with that in mind.

So by all means, be a pioneer and require all your prospective lovers to sign a contract stating that any pregnancies resulting from your coital relationship must either be aborted or carried term with the expectation that you’ll be an absentee father.

Sounds like a deal - you change the law so the contract will be meaningful, and I’ll have my girlfriend sign one. I’ll even fax you a copy.

[robertliguori]

I don’t know where you get this idea that women have an inherent right to bring children into the world when nobody wants to support them.

They have the idea because it’s their damn bodies and provided they have a source of sperm, they should be able to breed like rabbits with nary a legal check on their behavior. On the other hand, the utter lack of legal checks therefore implies that they should be the ones responsible for the results of said rabbitlike behavior.

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
Wouldn’t a doctor be in a better position to judge that?

A doctor usually has input into her health decisions, yes. You know who doesn’t have input into her health decisions? Yeah, that’s right—you. You and your precious pocketbook. Do you really think that your idea about what is a “solid gold fender” is going to carry any weight with a doctor? Or the woman whose body is actually pregnant? Yeah, that’s right—not much weight at all. Because you and your pocketbook don’t have to have a medical procedure.

I don’t know where you get this idea that women have an inherent right to bring children into the world when nobody wants to support them.

Well, obviously she wants to help support the child, which is why she’s actually carrying it to term and is planning to raise it. She just happens to think that since she didn’t get pregnant by herself, she shouldn’t support it alone. And she also probably figures that the guy who helped get her into her pregnant state knew the stakes beforehand, which is why he took the risk that he’d impregnate her… Kinda makes sense.

Unless that behavior is carrying a child to term, you mean.

Unless that behavior is ejaculating a sperm into a fertile woman who may have the audacity to carry the child to term, you mean.

Matter of fact, I have. I even used to be one.

Prove it. You show no comprehension of what it takes to raise a newborn. None at all.

If the media can twist girls’ ideas of fashion and beauty, it can certainly get them thinking that babies = cute and fun.

Maybe when they are 15. And the same media tells young men that sex is recreation and that there are no consequences. And I’ll bet some of their young cronies think that ought to have no responsibility for the entity that is created when their sperm fertilizes an egg, because she can abort, so it’s all her problem. Too bad that it’s not the truth, isn’t it?

Do you seriously think that if it were possible to opt out by signing a contract, most guys wouldn’t do it? Do you think they like playing roulette with their future?

Oh yeah, we see it. Pick a girl up at a bar. Get a few drinks into each other. Go up to her room. Start to make out. Start to rip each others’ clothes off. Stop mid-stream, and whip out the legal documents. Oh yeah. We all see this happening. Really sexy. Sets the mood.

But as you with the face said, go for it. ::thumbs up::

And in that case, there would be no laws to force anyone to pay for it. But in America, where these laws do exist, abortion is legal and available in major cities.

So are vasectomies. Pray tell, why don’t more men who are so protective of their wallets avail themselves of this procedure? Why play Russian Roulette? Why “give up a major portion of their lives” to child support? Why not beat these chicks who want to reproduce like rabbits at their own game? Why are you wasting time posting your opinions on a message board? Why aren’t you making the doctor’s appointment for the vasectomy right now? Time’s a wastin’!

No, the baby–as an entity that needs financial support–is created at birth. The decision whether or not to abort is what determines whether that birth will take place.

Ejaculating into her and fertilizing her egg creates the thing that will be a baby, or not. No sperm, no zygote, no baby. She’d have nothing to abort (or carry to term) if not for his sperm. See how nicely we go around in circles with this?

But I don’t see her hardship as a justification to impose more hardship on the father - after all, the amount of work it takes to raise a child is hardly a secret, and she made the decision to give birth with that in mind.

After all, the amount of child support that it takes to raise a child is hardly a secret, and he made the decision to have sex with that in mind.

Sounds like a deal - you change the law so the contract will be meaningful, and I’ll have my girlfriend sign one. I’ll even fax you a copy.

So what’s stopping you from trying to make some agreement now? I mean, seriously? Have you discussed this with a lawyer? Your girlfriend? What does she say? Is she a Doper? Want to invite her to this thread and contribute her opinion? (Seriously. I’m all curiosity as to what she thinks.)

robertligouri wrote:

They have the idea because it’s their damn bodies and provided they have a source of sperm, they should be able to breed like rabbits with nary a legal check on their behavior. On the other hand, the utter lack of legal checks therefore implies that they should be the ones responsible for the results of said rabbitlike behavior.

You know, there is this stray cat that wanders in the neighborhood. His name is “Fluffy”. We are currently taking care of 3 fluffy kittens that are most certainly the offspring of Fluffy. We found them in our garage. We dearly would love to catch Fluffy and get him fixed, but it’s been a problem catching him. (Besides, we think me might sorta belong to the neighbors.)

So, pray tell, if Fluffy were fixed, how would all the neighborhood female cats get pregnant? How come the kittens we found in our garage are fluffy? Do you see a connection there? How can you dare talk about women “breeding like rabbits” when there will always be men waiting in line to screw them and get them in a pregnant state? Give me a frickin’ break!

Why don’t you “fix” yourselves, the way that Fluffy should be fixed? At least you’d remove yourself from the gene pool, and your precious wallet would be preserved.

[yosemite]

I probably should clarify and say “fixed like Fluffy” I don’t mean literally, but instead, a vasectomy. There are different kinds of “fixed”!

[catsix]

You want a kid that nobody else does? You support it.

Don’t be foisting off half the bill on someone who doesn’t want a kid because you’re seflish enough to want what you can’t afford.

So long as women can dump babies off at hospitals without a question asked or a dime coming from them for the next twenty years, men should have the same option to wash their hands of the whole deal.

If some woman wants the kid enough to be single mommy, let her take care of it. There is no reason to force someone else to foot the bill for a kid they don’t want.

[DrLizardo]

I nominate catsix for the “tell it like it is” award. Bravo!

[yosemite]

*Originally posted by catsix *
You want a kid that nobody else does? You support it.

Don’t be foisting off half the bill on someone who doesn’t want a kid because you’re seflish enough to want what you can’t afford.

It also can be said—Don’t go impregnating women if you don’t want a kid you can’t afford. Don’t go impregnating women when you can’t control what they do (like, God Forbid, carry the child to term). Basically, don’t be such a stupid dolt as to think that your actions don’t have consequences. Don’t be so stupid as to think that someone else will clean up your mess. Because you know what? They don’t have to.

So long as women can dump babies off at hospitals without a question asked or a dime coming from them for the next twenty years, men should have the same option to wash their hands of the whole deal.

We’ve already covered this! If a man is tempted to dump his newborn child in a dumpster (i.e. kill it) then he is MORE THAN WELCOME to dump it off at a hospital instead. We don’t want anyone killing babies. And no questions asked of him, no more than from her, if he is so tempted to kill the little tyke—we’ll all be ever so grateful if he took the kid to a hospital instead. But that policy isn’t about avoiding child support, it’s about avoiding infant death.

If some woman wants the kid enough to be single mommy, let her take care of it.

And did the kid get any say in this whole deal? Y’know, since they are the ones actually needing the support.

There is no reason to force someone else to foot the bill for a kid they don’t want.

Damn straight! We taxpayers are sick and tired of supporting these deadbeat dads’ babies! Why are we being forced to help support them while their dads kick back and evade their responsibilities? Let them take care of their own offspring! They knew going in what the deal was when they had sex! They knew they were taking their chances! If they didn’t want to risk being a father, they should stay away from a woman who might carry the child to term!

Oh, wait…

[robertliguori]

How can you dare talk about women “breeding like rabbits” when there will always be men waiting in line to screw them and get them in a pregnant state? Give me a frickin’ break!

Because, as I have said umpty-bajillion times, the state of pregnancy does not equate to a state of child, and the woman is the one who gets the pregnancy to that state.

You know, we could silence the “save the children” and the “not in the taxpayers’ backyards” people by mandating that if a woman does not get consent from the father, she must have an abortion. That would result in fewer starving children to be supported.

Oh! Are you saying that just because you get pregnant, that does not mean that I should have any right to your property, including your body?

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**Because, as I have said umpty-bajillion times, the state of pregnancy does not equate to a state of child, and the woman is the one who gets the pregnancy to that state.
**

Nature gets pregnancy to the state of a child.

[Lightnin]

*Originally posted by In Conceivable *
**Nature gets pregnancy to the state of a child. **

So are you saying that the woman’s decision to have (or not have) an abortion has no effect upon the development of a child?

:rolleyes:

[catsix]

No, this taxpayer is sick and tired of her money being spent to track down and badger some guy who never wanted a kid in the first place.

If someone gets pregnant, she’s got 3 choices. Have an abortion, give the kid up, or keep the kid. Those are all choices that she can make, and none of them can be made by the man, so if she chooses to keep that kid and be Ms. Single Mom, she should foot the bill for her choice to keep the kid, not someone who had no say in the matter and doesn’t want a child.

if he is so tempted to kill the little tyke

Who said anything about killing? I sure didn’t. I specifically mentioned the ‘Safe Harbor’ laws that allow a woman to walk up to a hospital and dump off the kid with hospital personnel, such as at the emergency department, no questions asked and never a dime more out of her pocket. As long as that’s an option for women, then leaving the kid with whoever wants it, no questions asked and not a dime from him, should be an option for a man.

And did the kid get any say in this whole deal? Y’know, since they are the ones actually needing the support.

Nope, kid gets no say. Kids don’t sue for child support, checks aren’t made out to kids, they certainly don’t cash them and they don’t spend them. I have never heard a single mother that I’ve spoken to (and where I work, I encounter a lot of them) refer to child support as anything other than money the man has to pay to her. Many of them would sneer about it and brag about how much money they managed to weasel out of the guy who had been up front from minute one that he didn’t want anything to do with a kid. Some of them bragged about filing PFA (Protection From Abuse) orders against men they had absolutely no contact with, who had never been one bit abusive to them just so there was no way the man could actually see the kid, but it was guaranteed the money would be in their accounts every month.

Excuse me, but I’m not signing on for this. If you (general) want a kid and choose to keep that kid knowing that you’re going to be Ms. Single Mom, then that means you’ve agreed to support a child. It doesn’t mean you have a right to anyone else’s money to do it.

[In_Conceivable]

*Originally posted by Lightnin’ *
**So are you saying that the woman’s decision to have (or not have) an abortion has no effect upon the development of a child?

:rolleyes: **

Please don’t use that stinking rolleyes at me. It is rude.

A planned abortion is not a natural act. Pregnancy naturally leads to child birth (barring complications). A women’s decision to have a abortion causes the pregnancy to end. However a women’s decision not to have an abortion isn’t what causes a child to occur. Pregnancy causes a child to occur.

[Lightnin]

If the decision to have an abortion prevents a pregnancy from resulting in the birth of a child, In Conceivable, then the decision to NOT have an abortion results in the pregnancy coming to term (barring complications, of course).

To say anything else is merely semantics.