Legalized abortion makes having a child soley a decision made by the pregnant female. Man cannot demand a woman have an abortion, nor can he prevent her from having one.
It seems to me, that since abortion makes having a baby a matter of “Choice”, the one making the choice should have the sole obligation to provide for this offspring.
What are your thoughts? Do men have un-equal protection under the law? By getting a women pregnant does a man now have to let the woman decide the course of the rest of his life? If it truly is a choice, shouldn’t the chooser live with the decision, regardles of whether it is to have, or have not?Choice? For who?
The fallicy in your argument is the baby does not get a choice. It does not fall on the rest of society to bring up your offspring if it is aborted. Once there is a baby it has to be brought up. It is in societies best interest to make sure that it is fed and clothed and housed. There is no way to make this situation fair so the law has determined that it will do its best to make it as fair as possible for the child. And btw having been a single parent, I have to tell you, being only made to contribute money lets you off easy.
This has been done befoe, but I’m too lazy to search for it. I think it was titled “The Male Abortion” or some such.
Personally, I don’t think it’s unequal protection at all. By having sex with someone, both men and woman give each other the power to cause uncomfortable, undesireable situations. When I have sex with a man, I give him the power to put me in a situation where I have to make the agonizing decision about whether to give birth or have an abortion. Either decision is going to expensive and painful and have affects that last the rest of my life. When a man has sex with me, he gives me the power to decide whether I abort or he pays child support for the next 18 years.
If I’m uncomfortable with giving someone this kind of power over my life, well, I have a vibrator. If a man is uncomfortable giving me that kind of power over his life, well, he has a hand.
What Crazy said. A man gives his consent to be a father when he has sex with a woman. The problem in our society is that men (and boys) are not taught that there may be serious consequences to having sex. Most of the time, the woman bears one hundred percent of the responsibility. I have a hard time crying over the fact that the law is such that a man might pay for the consequences for his actions.
However, just like iin previous threads on this subject (and there have been a few) some men don’t see it this way. And I’m sure they’ll be along shortly, to bellyache about how tough their lot in life is, since they may actually be expected to help support the children they may father.
I think this quote from chula sums it up:
And so some men think that because this is the way it often has been (women bearing 100% of the responsibility) then they (men) should be off the hook, by default. And like chula, I have a hard time dredging up any sympathy for the men who are unpleasantly astonished when they discover that the law actually expects them to be responsible too.
It’s true that it isn’t fair. Women can behave however they want, have an abortion, or, if they are morally opposed to abortion, they can put the child up for adoption. Men can be held hostage for 18 years because the birth control broke, with no say in the matter. Not exactly an even situation.
However, the problem is really logistics. In a perfect world, both parties would have a choice. But in the real world, how else are these children going to be cared for? Taxes? Welfare? If men did not have to pay child support, you can be sure that a lot more women would put their children up for adoption. How many children can that system take? My guess is, not as many as it would be asked to take care of if there was no child support. Making the man pay makes sense, because it makes them more wary, and thus less children will be born to parents who do not want them. It isn’t fair, but I think it is currently the best option. Although, the child support system does need reform.
Even if he uses a condom? This is exactly what is unfair. A woman has abortion and adoption as options. A man should not have to risk the next 18 years of his life, and everything he has worked for up to that point, just to have sex, especially if he uses a condom. It is disheartening that so many people seem to think it is a good thing, rather than just a currently necessary thing, that he must do so.
What did I tell ya? Just like clockwork, some guys come along to complain about how “unfair” it is.
Let me tell you—biology is not fair. Having a period every damned month is unfair. Pregnancy and morning sickness are unfair, but women are stuck with them. Those are the breaks. ::shrug::
All rich people should be killed, liquified, and fed to the poor. And watch, I betcha some rich SOB is gonna say I’m wrong!
And yet… if there was a medication that would allow women to eliminate periods if they so desired, or to eliminate morning sickness, or to make sure they did not get pregnant… wouldn’t you say that was a good thing?
Or would you say that women should not have the choice to eliminate these things?
How is that different from it being a good thing if men had the choice not to risk the next 18 years of their lives just because they did something so natural as having sex, even if they used birth control? It seems like you are just so bitter, and so focused on things that are unfair to you, that you lash out at anyone else who has the audacity to try and fix something that is unfair to them.
Ha, talk about the pot callin’ the kettle… The whole issue of modern-day feminism is built on “victimization”. Hell, there are even whole cable channels dedicated to the “women are victims” genre. Look, just spare us with the “biology is unfair” whining. Women, on the average, live about ten years longer than men. Is that fair?
Even the issue of abortion came about as the result of life being unfair to women. It was “unfair” that they were “burdened” with the birthing process and were not on equal footing with men with regards to casual sex. Well, what to do? Go to the court and get the law to recognize a woman’s pregnancy to be a “private” concern. But, you see, they really don’t want it to be truely recognized as a “private” issue, no that was just the ruse used to get what they want. For when it comes to making the man to support the child that the woman unilaterally makes the “choice” to have, noooo, it ain’t “private” then. That’s when you start hearing the phrase, “He got me pregnant”. Which, again, insinuates victimization.
Of course, you don’t hear anything of the sorts when it is the man that wants to be a father, but the woman wants to continue her life without being inconvenienced with the burdens of parenthood.
See, this is where an inequity of law exists to the degree that it is repugnant to the American system of jurisprudence, which is supposedly based on “Equal Justice Under the Law”, that is inscribed on the portico of the Supreme Court Building itself.
Under feminist ideals, a man cannot require even his wife to bear his child to term, but a woman can require a man, with whom no relationship existed other than a consentual sexual encounter, to be financially responsible for the “private choice” that she unilaterally makes.
“100 percent of the responsibility”? Are you serious? In many cases the State will provide the birth mother’s part of the parental obligation with a cornucopia of social entitlements. Cash benefits, housing allowances, food stamps, Medicaid, etc. Then the State will confiscate the biological father’s income and sanctimoniously chastise him about his parental obligation.
So, back to the original question, should men have to pay child-support? Yes, but there are stipulations.
Irrespective of one’s personal opinions concerning the issue of abortion, it has to be acknowledged that a Supreme Court ruling has certain legal ramifications. As a result of the Roe vs. Wade decision, a woman’s pregnancy was determined to be autonomous and protected by a constitutional “right to privacy”. The Supreme Court ruled that it is solely a woman’s personal “choice” to either bring a child into the world, or to terminate a pregnancy without any regard for the wishes of the man involved.
Therefore, for child support laws to be consistent with the application of law that our system of jurisprudence demands, a certain relationship must exist between a birth mother and a biological father. If the birth mother has the legal means of a “contract” of marriage or an “implied contract” of a sustained relationship with the biological father of her child, only then should the law be applied to require that man to provide support for a child that is the result of that relationship. If a birth mother does not have the obligatory contract with the biological father, then that man should not be required to support a child that the birth mother unilaterally chooses to bring into the world. The only other scenario that would justify the application of child support law is if an adult male impregnates a girl under the age of consent.
For the State to require an individual, not bound by contract, to be financially responsible for a “private” concern of a second party, not only violates the rule of law, it violates the very essence of freedom, liberty and justice that America stands for.
I’m a man paying child support and I side with CCL, chula, & yosemitebabe. I didn’t always feel this way, but through time and maturity I’ve come to believe that there isn’t any other acceptable option, at least until such time as a fetus can be transferred to a man to be carried to term.
I think people who feel that the world should always be perfectly fair need to pull their craniums out of their midbody cavities.
So the basis of your argument that men shouldn’t have to pay is because they have no ‘power’ over whether the child is born or not, they should not be made to provide for it if it it?
He doesn’t get a say in one side of it, so it’s unfair to force him to be ‘responsible’ about the outcome? He was there at the conception, I think that puts him it a completely equal place regarding supporting his child.
Could you imagine what would happen if men did have a legal say in abortion, either forcing a woman to do it, or forcing her not to.
Abortion is a horendous and highly emotional thing to go through as it is (YMMV), why would anyone one want to make it even more so by demanding that men must have a fair say in the proccess. At the end of the day, the woman is going through the greater trauma here (eg, physical & emotional, whereas a man may just feel emotional trauma).
[sub](I appreciate the point of your arguement is not to give men a say about abortion)[/sub]
While in some ways I do agree with you, yes it would be awful to make the ‘mistake’ of knocking someone up and then finding out she intends to have it and you’ve gotta pay for it. But if people are really worried about this, then perhaps they should check out better ways to prevent this happening - eg, check she’s on the pill, use protection, etc.
What if she has to make a certain choice, for example - she’s prolife, and although she doesn’t really want a child, she cannot terminate it.
Or for godknows whatother reason the child is born. Is it fair to make the woman not only in the greater degree of cases the sole carer for it, but also the sole provider?
As I stated before, I think being a party in the act of making the child, fully qualifies you to be a party in the act of raising the child.
On the reverse, I know there are cases where the child is born, handed to the father, and the mother pays the child support. The ladylady at one of my locals was in exactly this situation.
Yes, even if he uses a condom. Men (and women) need to realize that no form of birth control is 100% safe. (How many “vasectomy babies” are out there?) I would stand by the original statement – you agree to the risk of creating a baby when you have sex, regardless of whether Mr. Johnson is wearing his little hat.
I just had a revelation about the whole abortion issue. Please tell me if this has any insight, or if it’s just random neurons firing because of lack of sleep.
I think it’s a process vs. product issue.
Most pro-choice folks focus on the process (i.e. the pregnancy). They don’t like the idea of a woman having to bear a child. It’s primarily the morning sickness, swollen ankles, awkward questions, labor pains and such that they object to. If a woman got pregnant and suddenly poof! there was the baby, there would be less objection. Then they could give it to the father if he wanted it, or put it up for adoption. But in our present reality, the pregnancy itself is the most objectionable part.
Pro-life folks, on the other hand, focus on the product (i.e. the baby). They see the pregnancy as a possibly unpleasant, but necessary part of achieving the goal of having a baby. To all of the pro-choicers’ objections to the pregnancy, the pro-lifer will respond, “Yes, but it’s a baby.”
So, to relate my ramblings to the actual OP, it seems that the fathers want a say in the product, they may want the actual baby. But the pro-choice woman might answer that since she alone has to go through the process, and the product isn’t possible without the process, that she alone can decide whether or not to proceed.
Complete losers don’t pay child support for their children. Whether or not they wanted the child. Why are they complete losers? Because like it or not, their child’s here and their lack of support hurts that child.
The law is there to keep people from being such complete losers. Or at least, to lessen the harm of the actions of complete losers.
Of course, there are lots of ways you can support your child. For example, my ex doesn’t pay me child support because he is very involved in our kid’s life, and we split time with our child about 50/50.
Sex is the implied contract. When you have sex with a woman, you assume the potential financial liability for fatherhood. If you don’t want that liability, don’t enter into the contract. Whether or not she aborts is her decision, not yours. If she chooses to keep it, then you’re going to support the child. If you want sex without responsibility, then use the hand. Otherwise, be prepared to face the consequences like an adult.
When you have sex, you assume the potential financial liability for motherhood. If you don’t want that liability, don’t enter into the contract. You’re going to support the child. If you want sex without responsibility, then use the vibrator. Otherwise, be prepared to face the consequences like an adult.
The man has to be prepared to face the consequences like a man and support the baby, but the woman does not have a corresponding obligation. She has an ‘out.’
I agree with autz. The woman should have the same obligations under that implied contract. If the man wants his child, I don’t believe the woman should have the right to tell him no since she participated in the act that created the child in the first place. Afterwards, she should be forced to pay child support if she isn’t the primary caregiver. Rape and such being obvious exceptions.
Once the child is in the world, I believe it is the responsibility of both parents to give that child the best opportunities that they can.
In a perfect, logical world, you have a point, autz. But the woman assumes all of the physical risk of pregnancy and thus should logically have sole discretion on its completion. If the woman assumes the physical responsibility, then the man assumes the financial responsibility. If you let the man bail out, then the result hurts the innocent child.