I think that it is totally different. For one thing it isn’t the women demanding financial support from man. It is the child demanding financial support from the father. You don’t pay child support until after a child is born.
Is it some how more fair to make the taxpayers pay for the support of the child. Then you are taking my wallet to pay for a child that I have zero interest in creating. At least the man had played some part.
I don’t see Robert Liguori arguing that the taxpayers should pay for anything.
Is it so outlandish to suggest that a woman should not have a child if she has no way of supporting it?
Debaser,
The State/taxpayers have no interest in what the woman should or should not do or how outlandish it is.
The child has a father. The State/taxpayers do not wish to support children just because the father does not wish to.
The State/taxpayers have the right to veto any scheme you come up with that puts the financial burden onto the State/taxpayers. The State/taxpayers have every right to pursue the father to force him to carry this financial burden. He may not want to be the father or be involved with the child but he will pay for it regardless.
For the record:
Taxpayers involuntarily paying for non-common use things like armies and roads == bad. Individuals being forced to support things they don’t want with money or nutrients == bad.
So did the woman. We DON’T say that because Mrs. X had sex, she must therefore support a child. Why should we say so for Mr. X?
Actually, once the child is born we do say that.
And before the child is born we say Ms X, you can wipe the slate clean or choose to have and support(or give up for adoption) a child. We also say to Mr Y, Dude, if she decides to keep the child we’re coming for your ass.
Regardless of intent, the law has created an inequity between the male and female in regards to reproductive rights. Women have choices post-fertilization(thereby allowing them to seperate the act from its biological consequences) and men do not.
Enjoy,
Steven
That was poorly phrased. Let’s try again.
Regardless of intent, the law has created an inequity between the male and female in regards to reproductive rights. Women have choices post-fertilization(thereby allowing them to seperate the act from its biological and legal consequences) and men do not. I do not see the OP as calling for a man to be able to have the ability to remove the biological consequences, such an act would force an abortion and at least be violative of the woman(to say nothing of the unborn). Still there seems to be reasonable arguements that a man should be able to seperate the act from its LEGAL consequences without violating anyone else. If this declaration is made during the period when an abortion would be possible the woman continuing to carry the child would clearly indicate intent to support the child without help from the father.
Arguements against this position so far seem to hinge upon the assumption that such an unsupported mother would become a burden upon the tax base. Surely we recognize that single mothers are capable of raising children on their own? Some will succeed and not become a burden on the taxpayer, some will fail and become a burden on the taxpayer. This is the case with almost any individual/family. Some will require support to maintain a healthy life, some will be self-sustaining. It would be up to the opponents of the man being able to sign away his liability to prove this liability would necessarially fall upon the taxpayer if the woman decides to continue the pregnancy.
Enjoy,
Steven
andymurph64, I am not saying that the financial support the fathers are currently paying should be instead paid by the state.
I am saying that no one. Not the father, if he wants to abort it. Not the state. Should pay the woman and child.
Then many less women would have children that cannot afford to provide for them.
Debaser,
I believe you understand what you are saying.
I am not arguing from a ‘fairness’ standpoint.
If the father is allowed to give up his financial responsibilities by wanting an abortion and the women chooses not to have an abortion AND THEN needs public assistance/welfare…
The State/taxpayers have every right to pursue the father for $$$.
Is that fair? Well, it’s not fair for taxpayers to be on the hook for a man’s child either. Better to err with unfairness against the biological father than the taxpayers who had nothing to do with it.
It gets even ‘worse’. The mother may not need public assistance at the time but need it in the future. It is better to make the father pay now then attempt to collect when the mother needs it in the future. Plus, lower SES children are more consuming of public resources and tend to have more problems not beneficial to society than ones who don’t. Better for all involved (except the father) to make him cough up the $$$.
Is it fair? I don’t know.
However, Debaser, the perception I have is that you would like guys to be able to freely pursue sex without having to worry about the consequences. If the woman gets pregnant, that’s great! Just refuse to support the kid and she’ll get an abortion or raise the kid herself. That way the guy gets to breed without sacrifice.
The whole possibility of being on the hook for child support for 18+ years really puts a dent in that freedom, huh?
Or Debaser many children would starve.
A women can not separate herself from the physical and psychological consequences of pregnancy. Either choice she makes has potential serious physical and physiological consequences. Allowing a man to separate himself from the legal consequences of impregnating a women does not make things equal. The only way to make things equal is to figure out a way to make men grow a womb.
Legalized abortion gives women an additional choice and an additional consequence. Men have not had any choices taken away from them or any additional consequences added. Allowing men to seperate themselves from the legal consequences of fathering a child does violate someone else. It violates the legal rights of the child to be supported by his or her parents.
Just out of curiosity, how would you handle a situation where a man does not know he impregnanted a women until after it is too late for an abortion?
Yep, thats it. Without the governments help people couldn’t take care of themselves. :rolleyes:
When you are in a debate it is really rude to use the roll-eyes smiley just because you have run out of good arguments.
Not all women unable to support a child will opt for abortion. Some will have a child anyway. Some will think they are able to support a child and then for some reason not be able to.
Children are not able to “take care of themselves”. They need someone to do it for them. What do you think will happen if the mother is unable to provide support, the father is unwilling and the government absent? Do you think a three year old is going to learn how to grow his own food or do you think he might starve?
Yep.
Uh-huh.
Huh? Wait a minute.
The father doesn’t want the child to be brought into the world. The mother refuses to have an abortion so she is now resposible for providing for it without the fathers help.
Where does the government get involved here?
Do the State/taxpayers have every rigtht to pursue me for $$$ if I lay off my employees who then go on public assistance/welfare?
The state can pay people welfare, or it cannot. But, it’s crazy to somehow claim that the father is responsible for any welfare payments made by the state. This is just a new way of arguing that he should be paying child support whether he wanted the child or not.
But, you are the only one saying that the taxpayers should be on the hook.
I do know. It’s not.
This last argument makes much more sense.
You’re right. If this new theoretical law were are discussing was passed, then fathers would become much more careless about safe sex. The burden would shift to women to be more worried about getting pregnant than they already are.
But, IMHO, the current system is worse.
It’s not fair to the men at all. They have no choice, only the women do. Under the new system, both father and mother get a choice.
The way it currently works encourages women to keep pregnancies that they have no ability to support. The same way that handing out welfare feeds poverty, the current system encourages single mothers to have children.
The new system would discourage single moms from having children.
Keep in mind, that nothing would change for willing dads. Married or not, if you didn’t insist on an abortion and declare that you didn’t want the child during the pregnancy then you will have to pay to support it. This wouldn’t be perfect. Some men who don’t want children would have to pay because they don’t know about the pregnancy. You would probably get some women deliberately hiding a pregnancy for this reason. But, it would still be better than the way it works now.
It seems to me that the thrust of this thread has been to try to establish that men’s responsibilies to the child have always and should always be to provide for this child the means to survive. This is something that ought not even merit debate – OF COURSE a father should provide for his child!
However, it does seem that the current abortion laws are skewed in the favor of women who, in the name of personal control, have every option for themselves. The father’s “options” are nil during the time of pregnancy. To wit:
Men who do want to have the child have had ALL choices taken from them when the mother “opts out” of the pregnancy. He has absolutely no say in the decision of the mother to terminate the life of his child. How is this fair?
Allowing women to separate themselves from the moral obligations of giving birth to a child obviously violates the rights of the child to have life at all!
You know, the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”…
[/quote]
Allowing men to seperate themselves from the legal consequences of fathering a child does violate someone else. It violates the legal rights of the child to be supported by his or her parents.
[/quote]
Thought experiment, Lamia. What if I stole one of your eggs, fertilized it, implanted it, and then claimed that you should owe child support because the child is half genetically yours?
And before you start crying strawman, I would point out that theft of reproductive material (or use in an unauthorized manner) should have similar legal consequences, regardless of the number of orders of magnatude more reproductive material one person puts out.
(Heh heh heh…putting out)
As I have said before, I am pro-life myself. However, the OP asked us to assume status quo. If abortion were illegal obviously we would be arguing completely ideas.
Your argument, if it can be called one, was so foolish it didn’t deserve a response.
Yes, some mothers will continue to have children that they cannot provide for. But, less will then currently are. This is a good thing.
And, yes, some currently are able to support a child and then for some reason will not be able to. So what?
What do you think is happenning now for mothers who have no father paying child support. There are many deadbeat dads, fathers who die without life insurance, or any other scenario where a mother has to raise a child without the support of a father. None of them are starving to death. I am not proposing any changes to the welfare system, in this thread anyway. The same safety nets that exist now will continue to, for purposes of this debate. The only thing that changes is the father isn’t forced to provide for a child he doens’t want.
Your idea that this will cause children in America to literally starve to death is justs silly. Plenty of children are in this exact situation now and are not starving.
Thought experiment, Lamia. What if I stole one of your eggs, fertilized it, implanted it, and then claimed that you should owe child support because the child is half genetically yours?
And before you start crying strawman, I would point out that theft of reproductive material (or use in an unauthorized manner) should have similar legal consequences, regardless of the number of orders of magnatude more reproductive material one person puts out.**
[/QUOTE]
It is a straw man. If you chose to have sex with a women and chose to deposit your sperm in her then what has she stolen? What was unauthorized? A zygote isn’t sperm. A child isn’t sperm. By the time a women has abortion (or decides not to) your sperm is long gone.
A discussion of rape or the actual theft of sperm is going on right now in another debate and is a totally different issue.
** Debaser **, you said
That is what I was responding to. My discussion with you in this thread is now over since you obviously do not even know how to be civil.