With legal abortion, should men have to pay child support?

Great Debates
81

Several years ago, in my last year of university, I discovered I was pregnant. I had been using birth control - I’d been on the pill for four years and never forgot to take it - but it had failed because I’d had amoebic dysentry and the pill couldn’t take effect. It didn’t occur to me at the time that this would make the pill ineffective, partly because I was so very ill. I was in a stable relationship, which broke up when my partner, who was Croatian, was forced to return to his country and rejoin the army (he had used student status as a get-out but they didn’t count his studies in Germany). He went missing while in action - I never found out what happened to him.

I continued being very sick and put it down to the dysentry, not realising that I was so sick because I pregnant and still taking the pill. Missed periods also didn’t strike me as odd under these circumstances. Thus it took three months for me to realise I was pregnant, and I had to wait abother six weeks before I had the abortion. The radiographer mistakenly let me see the image on the scan before the operation, which required an overnight stay and two weeks of recovery due to blood loss.

I suffered depression for a long time afterwards. I still feel extremely guilty for aborting the foetus, even though the circumstances made it the best option. It’s my greatest in life.

Thus when I fell pregnant again a year later, while using a condom, taking the pill, and only a day after my period, (I’d only just started back on the pill, which explains why it didn’t work; I’m not sure what happened with the condom), I could not go through with an abortion. The father was not interested, and in his words he ‘would have no problems having an abortion.’ Except for the lack of a womb, that is.

So, in my situation, would you say he would be justified requesting that I have an abortion? Would really say that abortion was an ‘option’? Some of you seem to be assuming that abortion is easy, straightforward, a preferable choice. It really, really is not.

Yes, a woman is ‘lucky’ enough to have the choice. She can choose between having a child and all that entails, or having major surgery with (often) severe psychological repercussions. Neither is fair, but that is life. A man can choose between being involved with his offspring’s life or having nothing to do with the child, but paying some money towards it. Neither is fair, but that is life.

I do, however, think it is unfair that the laws in at least some states in the US simply take 50% of the father’s income. In the UK his contribution is based on how much he earns and is reduced if he has other children.

FWIW, I have never asked my daughter’s biological father for child support. He is not someone I would want involved in her life right now. But I do think it is right that legally, I can ask him to support a child that he helped create. I may have to utilise that ‘option’ at some point down the line.

The only true contraceptives are: not having sex, hysterectomies (or only choosing partners with hysterectomies or post-menopause), or going gay. I’ve done the latter, it’s much better, and no more babies!

82

Do you honesty believe that fathers who are required to pay a portion of their income are covering even a small part of the childs upbringing? In this state the state will order 15% of a fathers income for one child. The lowest cost child care in the area I needed it ran about 125$ a week which means that in order to even be covering childcare the father would need to be making over 1000$ a week, and we still aren’t talking food or clothing or other expenses. I have absolutely no data or site to base my strong suspicion that many of the men who find themselves in this position are making the kind of money that they are really making more than a token dent in the financial requirements of childrearing.

83

That should read ‘it’s my greatest regret in life.’

84

furlibusea - that doesn’t make it fair that it should always be half of the father’s income either. He does still have himself (and possibly another family) to support. I see no reason at all why there should be any blanket percentage taken. Cases should be assessed individually.

85

Men have this option as well I should know because my 3 year olds father gave up his parental rights and I have NO legal recourse for child support. My new husband has adopted him and if we ever get divorced HE has to pay child support. :eek:

This is a sad reflection of our civilization but it’s not a “new choice” Women have been abandoning their children for EONS. Look at the Vietnamese convents in the 60s. Our fighting men over there got NUMEROUS women pregnant and the only thing they COULD do with these babies was to “abandon” them at these facilities. ESPECIALLY if the child was a GIRL. :frowning:

Men have the ULTIMATE choice… KEEP IT IN THEIR PANTS :smack: But I know for SOME guys THATS NOT an option :rolleyes:

86

Oh, so long as a birth mother can perpetrate and maintain a fraud against a man for four years, then it’s acceptable for the courts to require that man to continue to support someone else’s kids until they reach adulthood.

Hmmm… that’s just more evidence illustrating how the courts are skewed to favor birth mothers at the expense of the men.

Let me ask you, are you defending this practice, since it seems to be in the “best interest of the child”?

87

Here in America, there was a widespread and long-standing social consensus backed up by government mandate that black people were not entitled to various legal protections that white people were. This did not make said consensus right or just.
This is not to compare the plight of deadbeat dads to that of pre-Civil Rights minorities. I’m just pointing out that just because the people decide it will be so does not make their decision right.

There are some moral obligations that I do want the government to adopt as legal obigations, and “Don’t take my fucking money” is definitely one of them.

I think we are at a fundamental disconnect here. Some of us believe that the right of caring for a child balances out the wrong of doing so with stolen money. (Loaded and technically inaccurate word, I know, but ‘money that was taken unwillingly without a clear moral reason’ is too long.) Some of us do not.

88

This idea has some merit. Let men who do not want kids to have a vasectomy! I am somewhat reticent to think that a woman would be left in the lurch if his vasectomy failed, but you know what? I, as a taxpayer, would seriously consider embracing this idea if it got the “unwilling father types” to get a vasectomy once and for all.

89

I’m truly sorry you went thru such a trying ordeal. I respect your strength in sharing this with us and ITA with your statement above… LOL you go girl!! You forgot one contraceptive tho… only having anal sex. THATS a sure way to not have younguns lol

90

The phrase, “a child’s right to support from it’s biological father” continues to be used in defense of forcing unmarried men to subsidize the “choice” of a second party, when it is evident that no such right exists.

A birth mother has the right to refuse to disclose the identity of the biological father of a child that she bears. The birth mother has the right to raise a child that she bears herself. The birth mother has the right to be the sole guardian of her child. And sometimes birth mothers make those choices out of sole consideration for their own desires. Ergo, the child does NOT have the “right” to support form it’s biological father.

The ONLY time that a birth mother is required to reveal the identity of a biological father is if and when the birth mother petitions the state for financial assistance. Then and only then does the state sanctimoniously recognize the legislated “right of the child”, which is NOT a “right” but a statute that fails to meet the standard of justice. It was a deliberate strategy to declare this legislated statute a “right” to make palatable, legislation that is otherwise repugnant to the “rule of law”.

Prior to the American Revolution, while still under the reign of the King of England, the colonists were subject to the arbitrary law of “rule by decree”. Post Revolution, the Founding Fathers, having been previously subjected to the tyranny of monarchial rule-by-decree, created a justice system based on the “rule of law” and “equal justice under the law”.

The concept of “freedom of choice”, as it relates to “Roe vs. Wade”, is repugnant to the tenets of the American justice system and is more closely akin to the tyranny of “rule by decree”.

91

Not so. Where do you think lawyers come fro- no, put the morningstar down! Augh!

[Sound of severe beating]

My innards have become my outards.

92

:stuck_out_tongue: lol

93

That’s a fine solution for men who have no plan to ever marry and have children. What of young men who simply aren’t ready for children yet?

Once again I return to the thinking that this is the primary reason why most major religions have always taught that sex should be reserved for marriage. These kinds of problems are greatly limited in that context.

94

While the concept of “freedom of choice” is compatible with the ideas of individual freedom and liberty that are the foundations of American society, the concept of “a woman’s right to choose”, as it relates to “Roe vs. Wade”, is more closely akin to the tyranny of “rule by decree”.

The “pro-choice” orthodoxy not only demands that a pregnancy be deemed a “choice”, but also a “civil-right”.

Case-in-point: While under contract to a television studio to portray a role in a daytime television drama that involved scenes depicting partial nudity, the actress, Hunter Tylo, became pregnant. Rather than making the “choice” to terminate the pregnancy, Ms. Tylo chose to continue her pregnancy to term. As a result of the “choice” that she made, her obvious pregnancy prevented her from portraying the role in which she was under contract to fulfill and the studio properly terminated her contract.

Subsequently, Ms. Tylo sued the studio for wrongful termination and, in an act of judicial insanity, was awarded a multi-million dollar judgment.

The two definitions, one being a “choice” and the other being a “civil-right”, for the same human condition, is not compatible in a society that bases it’s legal system on the “rule of law”. This is an example of arbitrary law.

95

Oh, so you really didn’t give up your “legal recourse for child support”, you just transfered it to another man.

96

No, another man willingly took on that responsibility by choosing to adopt said child. By making the choice to become the kid’s legal parent, her husband committed himself to making sure the kid was fed, sheltered, and clothed to the best of his financial abilities.

97

What do you mean by “requesting”? Certainly he can’t force you to do anything.

But yes, it’s definitely an option. You may not have wanted to do it, but then a man probably doesn’t want to give up a big chunk of his income to pay for a child that only exists because the mother wanted a baby. It’s a tough choice, but it’s still a choice.

98

That is why I said ‘would he be justified.’ If men could opt out of parenthood, then that would amount to a request for me to have an abortion. Of course it still couldn’t be forced on me - but it would be practically mandatory.

I seriously cannot understand why you think abortion is a ‘choice.’ Even after everything I’ve said, and other people have said in similar threads, you still don’t understand how little of an option abortion is.

99

SciFiSam - why couldn’t you have put the baby up for adoption?

100

I’m trying to be realistic. Right now vasectomies are likely the only method of birth control that is effective enough and provable enough for it to work under my plan. However, it is likely that another effective and provable method of birth control would be created for men if there is demand.