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

[deborak]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *
**If the man’s “best effort” is a vasectomy, then shouldn’t the woman’s best effort be a tubal ligation?

I’d be more sympathetic to a woman who really tried everything possible (short of celibacy, obviously) to keep an unwanted pregnancy from occurring, rather than one who might do the oral contraceptive thing and then think that she’s done her part.
**

No. The best efforts are based on failure rates. Of the two options men have - condoms or vasectomy - condoms have an 11% failure rate, while vasectomy has a 1% failure rate. Big difference, true? Especially when 18+ years of child support are on the line.

However, women have a number of options for birth control that will achieve that same 1% failure rate, or better. They include:

-oral contraceptives (1% failure rate)
-patch (1% failure rate)
-vaginal contraceptive ring (1% failure rate)
-injection such as Depo-Provera (less than 1% failure rate)
-Implant such as Norplant (less than 1% failure rate)
-IUD (less than 1% failure rate)
-tubal litigation (less than 1% failure rate)

Source is FDA site

So, there are many options available to a woman that, IMO, constitute her “doing her part”, with success rates matching those of vasectomy. But yes, I have the same expectations for women as I do for men - to prevent unwanted conception to the best of their ability by using the most effective forms of birth control available or by practicing abstinence.

[Yeticus_Rex]

*Originally posted by Philly Style *
**Freedom comes with costs. Control comes with a cost. I don’t see how one can support total equality in the eyes of the law yet still bind another to their decision.

If it is control you want, it is responsability you accept. If I have to pay, I get to have a say. **

Just an idea,

Men, if you want control of the situation, this is what you do. Ask the woman (BEFORE the swapping of bodily fluids) that if she were to get pregnant from this exchange, what would she do? (abort, joint custody, adoption, etc.)? If you don’t like her answer, walk away now. If you do like her answer (whether its abortion, joint custody, adoption, etc.), get it in writing before the exchange (Is this a contract? - I believe so IMO, but I’m not a lawyer. If she deviates from the agreement, then she assumes full responsibilty for her breach. You must keep your end of the agreement as well also.) If she is unsure or even appalled by your approach, then she wasn’t worth the potential strife that she would have caused you - walk away. I know, your chances of having sex with women will go down drastically, but THE REST OF YOUR LIFE will improve dramatically. You do have a say in the matter, you just have to speak up sooner. Think before the act, that should help reduce the number of child support issues.

Go ahead, bash away…

[Cavalier]

*Originally posted by deborak *
Yes, a man who decides to have sex with a woman is risking financial hardship if a child is conceived. But - a woman is risking both physical (either with abortion OR pregnancy) hardship no matter WHAT decision she makes, and also risks financial hardship if she keeps the child. So why so much emphasis on how unfair it is for the man, when the woman has a lot more to face no matter what she decides to do?

Well, that’s biology. We don’t give the father control of whether an abortion occurs because biology has treated him unfairly, we shouldn’t give him obligations based on the mother’s choice because of the misfortunes of her biology.

She knows where babies come from, she has partaken of The Act of her own free will. If she wants to avoid the cruelty of mother nature, she can always have a hysterectomy, or just not have sex at all.

In the end it is her decision to bring a life into the world, so it is her responsibility.

He takes part in an activity that is responsible for creating a foetus, as does she. Only she is responsible for bringing it into the world, he has no realistic hope of custody when it is born, no rights you see. He should have no responsibility to something he has no rights to and had nothing to do with bringing into the world.

Thats exactly why I put the little :eek on there. I didn’t know that he would have to pay CS until the judge told us. I was shocked to say the least. I thought it was ONLY the bio father that had to pay but since my DH has taken the reins as far as caretaker of my son I guess it’s only right.

Have you heard of Presumption of Paternity laws?

*yosemitebabe: *
So, I will once again reiterate that I think the idea of vasectomies for men as an effective way of getting them “off the hook”.

That would be very effective, but why should he have to have surgery to avoid becoming a lsave to someone elses choices just because he had sex with them?

Men ordered to pay child support can be imprisoned for being underemployed or unemployed, which means they are practically being forced to work by the government, which then takes their money and gives it to someone else because of a choice they had no control over at all, even if the father is 12 years old or has no biological relationship to the child.

[robertliguori]

And the guy is upset because he willingly partakes in an activity that he knows MAY result in a child, yet acts so shocked and outraged when the activity does indeed result in a child and he is required to accept the consequences of his activity and support that child?

If you walk around outside willingly, knowing that there are pickpockets out there, why do you act shocked and outraged when someone lifts your wallet?
(Because the fact that you made it possible for someone to harm you does not alleivate them of the blame from harming you. It may make you bloody stupid, but it doesn’t make you responsible for their actions. IMHO.)

[Zoe]

Silly hypothetical: What would happen if Roe v. Wade was reversed, but to balance things out the fathers would be required to be the primary caregivers?

[monday_jones]

*Originally posted by Blalron *
**You want full and complete control of your uterus? Fine. Consequently, you should have full and complete responsibility for whatever you allow to grow in your uterus. **

Yet would this be for only single mothers? What about married men or ment that want the child? Would they no longer be considered a legal guardian of the child?

[deborak]

*Originally posted by robertliguori *
**If you walk around outside willingly, knowing that there are pickpockets out there, why do you act shocked and outraged when someone lifts your wallet?
(Because the fact that you made it possible for someone to harm you does not alleivate them of the blame from harming you. It may make you bloody stupid, but it doesn’t make you responsible for their actions. IMHO.) **

Well, first, to make the analogy just a little more similar, I would have had to have society/parents/teachers telling me constantly that there were pickpockets out there, so that getting my pocket picked was a very REAL possibility, so don’t go walking around with anything in my pockets that I wasn’t prepared to lose.

If I walked around willingly and knew there were pickpockets, I sure as hell wouldn’t be walking around with my money hanging out in full view, especially if it was an amount of money equivalent to eighteen years of income. Five bucks, a hundred bucks, yeah it sucks, but it won’t ruin my life or anything.

If I willingly chose to walk around with such a large sum of money, I would make damn sure to take the best precautions available to keep the money safe - hidden in my shoe, attached to my body in some way, guarded by a doberman, etc. - so as to best ensure that no crime occured.

And, if I thought that huge amount of money was of enough importance that I didn’t want to take that risk, I just wouldn’t go outside with that money. It’s not worth the risk to me, knowing that somebody might take action against me that, while I’m not responsible for said actions, * will result in serious detriment to me and my financial security for quite a long time*.

[deborak]

*Originally posted by Cavalier *
Well, that’s biology. We don’t give the father control of whether an abortion occurs because biology has treated him unfairly, we shouldn’t give him obligations based on the mother’s choice because of the misfortunes of her biology.

She knows where babies come from, she has partaken of The Act of her own free will. If she wants to avoid the cruelty of mother nature, she can always have a hysterectomy, or just not have sex at all.

In the end it is her decision to bring a life into the world, so it is her responsibility.

He takes part in an activity that is responsible for creating a foetus, as does she. Only she is responsible for bringing it into the world, he has no realistic hope of custody when it is born, no rights you see. He should have no responsibility to something he has no rights to and had nothing to do with bringing into the world.

You are complaining about the lack of choice that men have, but until men are kidnapped and forced to have sex at gunpoint, they WILL and DO have the choice to NOT HAVE SEX. Men know where babies come from, they have partaken of The Act of their own free will, and if they want to avaoid the cruelty of mother nature, they can always have a vasectomy, or just not have sex at all.

I don’t care if the friggin’ June Playboy bunny is sitting naked on his lap begging for his manhood, if he does not want to risk having a child, he needs to not have sex. It’s HIS choice to take the risks, knowing FULLY the potential consequences of his actions.

Many are so upset about the lack of choice the poor man suffers, fully ignoring the fact that he has the choice, from the very beginning, to ensure that no conception occurs, thus freeing him from the rest of the process, under which he has no choice.

As for having “no” rights once the child is born, could you please provide a cite for that? Having two very close male friends who have undergone custody fights, I know anecdotally this is not true, and my understanding is men have a much better chance of getting custody than they did twenty or thirty years ago.

That would be very effective, but why should he have to have surgery to avoid becoming a lsave to someone elses choices just because he had sex with them?

Do you want the men to take ANY amount of responsibility here? Or is it the woman’s job to make all the birth control arrangements, too, in addition to all of the other crap she has to face (because of her biology) if a child is conceived?

Please explain if you meant this differently, because what I’m hearing is that you think that men should be able to knowingly walk in the bedroom, have sex bareback if they so feel like it, then stroll back out knowing they have no responsibility for anything that might come next? Could you make it any easier on the men by placing every bit of choice/responsibility on the woman?

Men ordered to pay child support can be imprisoned for being underemployed or unemployed, which means they are practically being forced to work by the government, which then takes their money and gives it to someone else because of a choice they had no control over at all, even if the father is 12 years old or has no biological relationship to the child.

There are times, sure, when I don’t agree with the specific actions undertaken by the court, but I still agree with the underlying concept that fathers are responsible for the children they beget.

[catsix]

SciFiSam said:
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.

It’s actually quite an attractive option. More attractive than either of the others by far, for me and for quite a few others.

I do think it’s a significant majority though (I will try to look up some statistics on that; haven’t had any luck so far and it’s very late at night).

Yeah, I’d be interested to see the statistics on that too. It’s been my personal experience that this is not the case.

deborak said:
they have partaken of The Act of their own free will, and if they want to avaoid the cruelty of mother nature, they can always have a vasectomy, or just not have sex at all.

Then I guess the women could just have a tubal ligation or not have sex at all. Because you might as well not be sexist in your high expectations.

Do you want the men to take ANY amount of responsibility here? Or is it the woman’s job to make all the birth control arrangements, too, in addition to all of the other crap she has to face (because of her biology) if a child is conceived?

Do you comprehend at all that there are means of birth control existing somewhere between ‘none’ and ‘surgery’ or are you so hung on your false dichotomy because it’s easier to demonize men as horrible selfish creatures who want to do nothing to protect themselves?

Why is it that in your world if the man didn’t have surgery to make himself permanently sterile (and vasectomies are most certainly not reccommended for anyone who is considering children later in life) he didn’t take ‘any amount of responsibility’? Putting on a condom is making it all ‘the woman’s job’ to you?

But hey, I guess all the ‘crap she has to face’ includes the ability to rake in half of someone else’s paycheck because she wanted to play mommy but would like someone else to pay for it all. On what plane of existence is that even close to being equitable?

Could you make it any easier on the men by placing every bit of choice/responsibility on the woman?

The choice that matters is the one that one person makes unilaterally and expects someone else to pay for. If you choose to have a kid knowing you’re the only one who wants it, then it stands to reason you’re the one person who unilaterally supports that kid.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by Yeticus Rex *
Men, if you want control of the situation, this is what you do. Ask the woman (BEFORE the swapping of bodily fluids) that if she were to get pregnant from this exchange, what would she do? (abort, joint custody, adoption, etc.)? If you don’t like her answer, walk away now. If you do like her answer (whether its abortion, joint custody, adoption, etc.), get it in writing before the exchange (Is this a contract? - I believe so IMO, but I’m not a lawyer. If she deviates from the agreement, then she assumes full responsibilty for her breach. You must keep your end of the agreement as well also.)

The consensus in past threads has been that this isn’t a valid contract. You can get it in writing, you can have her sign a contract saying “if I become pregnant, I will (abort / give it up for adoption / raise it on my own)”, but A) she isn’t required to actually do it, and B) you can still be forced to pay child support.

Of course, it’s still a good idea for a couple to be on the same page before they have sex… the problem is, she can change her mind at any time and he just has to suck it up. One of my friends is in this very situation right now. They discussed what would happen if she became pregnant, they both agreed that abortion was the only reasonable choice, and then a little while later, she’s saying “I hope it’s a boy.”

Originally posted by deborak
**Many are so upset about the lack of choice the poor man suffers, fully ignoring the fact that he has the choice, from the very beginning, to ensure that no conception occurs, thus freeing him from the rest of the process, under which he has no choice. **

Of course, the very same thing could be said about the poor woman before Roe v. Wade. She had the choice not to have sex, she decided to have sex, so why is she upset that she doesn’t want to be pregnant?

The only difference is that the law says it’s unreasonable to impose 9 months of physical hardship on the mother, but not to impose 18 years of economic hardship on the father.

[deborak]

*Originally posted by catsix *
Then I guess the women could just have a tubal ligation or not have sex at all. Because you might as well not be sexist in your high expectations.

I already addressed this, if you’d care to go back and read my prior post on the subject (I think it was in response to Mr2001). Let’s just say that I’m comfortable that my position is pretty far from sexist.

Do you comprehend at all that there are means of birth control existing somewhere between ‘none’ and ‘surgery’ or are you so hung on your false dichotomy because it’s easier to demonize men as horrible selfish creatures who want to do nothing to protect themselves?

I comprehend perfectly, but I don’t think that you comprehend my point (already explained in prior posts, but I can explain again if you’ll tell me which part you I’m not being clear about). But, to summarize about options - condoms have an 11% failure rate - would you play Russian Roulette if you had an 11% chance of scoring a bullet?

My point is not that men are horrible selfish creatures, as you are apparently eager to believe of me, but rather that it behooves men (and women) to try to prevent contraception to the best of their ability, especially if eighteen years of financial burden lie in the balance.

You think the woman has her “out” via abortion. All I’m saying is, if it’s that big a deal (and I agree that child support is a huge deal), the man has his “out” as well.

Why is it that in your world if the man didn’t have surgery to make himself permanently sterile (and vasectomies are most certainly not reccommended for anyone who is considering children later in life) he didn’t take ‘any amount of responsibility’? Putting on a condom is making it all ‘the woman’s job’ to you?

That was in response to an earlier poster’s statement that I felt implied that men should take/have no responsibility. I even pointed out to the poster that it was possible that I misunderstood, and if so to let me know (because, you know, there really ARE men out there who DO believe it is 100% the woman’s responsibility to “take care of things”). It doesn’t really have anything to do with what you’re talking about here, it was just the way the particular statement read to me.

But hey, I guess all the ‘crap she has to face’ includes the ability to rake in half of someone else’s paycheck because she wanted to play mommy but would like someone else to pay for it all. On what plane of existence is that even close to being equitable?

Oh, yes, the “she’s sitting on easy street with her illegitimate brat, watching TV and eating bonbons while the poor downtrodden father works 80 hours a week to support the child” argument. My answer to your question is that on the CHILD’S plane of existence, having BOTH parents support that child is the most equitable solution.

Because even with the man providing child support, being a single mom isn’t a walk in the park, it isn’t “playing mommy” (how offensive), and it isn’t about “raking in half of someone elses’s paycheck”.

The choice that matters is the one that one person makes unilaterally and expects someone else to pay for. If you choose to have a kid knowing you’re the only one who wants it, then it stands to reason you’re the one person who unilaterally supports that kid.

Of course, that’s only the choice that matters to those who want to be able to have sex without worrying about the consequences. Because, I’m sorry, there IS another choice that matters. It’s the choice about whether or not to have sex.

And there is another option, if vasectomy is not an option you agree with. It’s called abstinence. Believe it or not, it’s a method I myself have practiced when I have had reason to believe my birth control was not adequate (even with the guy using a condom, that just isn’t enough protection for me), or when I was just not comfortable with the situation (i.e. felt that this might be a guy who would cut and run in case of accidental conception).

I may not be saying what you like, but at least I’m not the sexist you’re accusing me of being - I practice what I preach.

[deborak]

*Originally posted by Mr2001 *

Of course, the very same thing could be said about the poor woman before Roe v. Wade. She had the choice not to have sex, she decided to have sex, so why is she upset that she doesn’t want to be pregnant?

The only difference is that the law says it’s unreasonable to impose 9 months of physical hardship on the mother, but not to impose 18 years of economic hardship on the father. **

This is all true. And prior to Roe v. Wade, my response to the woman would be “suck it up, you’ve got a child to support”.

But Roe v. Wade isn’t about babies, it’s about a woman’s right to self-autonomy over her body. It wasn’t put into place to give women an “out” from child support - it’s a completely different issue.

Yes, I’m in full agreement of the right to abortion, and yes, I think it sucks - for both the man and the woman - when an unexpected pregnancy occurs. I don’t have the magic answer here, I’ve admitted that.

But as far as the man is concerned, worrying about his rights post-conception is shutting the barn door after the horse escapes. IMO.

[SciFiSam]

Catsix: Abortion as an ‘attractive’ option? That makes it sound as though it’s something you’d love to do! As if you’d go out and get pregnant just so that you can have this ‘attractive’ abortion! Whatever the statistics on the psychological consequences of abortion, I’m fairly certain most women don’t consider it ‘attractive’. (You are female btw I take it?)

[SciFiSam]

Catsix: Abortion as an ‘attractive’ option? That makes it sound as though it’s something you’d love to do! As if you’d go out and get pregnant just so that you can have this ‘attractive’ abortion! Whatever the statistics on the psychological consequences of abortion, I’m fairly certain most women don’t consider it ‘attractive’. (You are female btw I take it?)

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by SciFiSam *
Catsix: Abortion as an ‘attractive’ option? That makes it sound as though it’s something you’d love to do! As if you’d go out and get pregnant just so that you can have this ‘attractive’ abortion!

You got that from this?

“It’s actually quite an attractive option. More attractive than either of the others by far, for me and for quite a few others.” - catsix

You’re reading a lot more into it than I did. I don’t think “the others” was meant to include “not getting pregnant”.

[SciFiSam]

Yes, I got that from her statement. ‘Attractive’ is an odd word to apply to abortion. The preferred route, considering the other possibilities, in some cases? Yes. But ‘attractive’? That does sound as though it’s a great thing to do, rather than something not very nice but sometimes necessary.

[Ms2001]

*Originally posted by deborak *
But Roe v. Wade isn’t about babies, it’s about a woman’s right to self-autonomy over her body. It wasn’t put into place to give women an “out” from child support - it’s a completely different issue.

It’s meant to give women an “out” from pregnancy, allowing them to exercise autonomy over their own bodies. Just as male “opt-out” would allow men to exercise autonomy over their own hard-earned income, and thus their time - the most precious commodity any of us have.

Consider that a man who earns $20,000 a year and pays $300 a month in child support will have given up nine solid months of his life in the form of child support by the time it’s over[sup]*[/sup]. How can it be reasonable to force him to do that if it isn’t reasonable to force a woman to spend 9 months pregnant?

• $20,000 per year working full time (2000 hrs) = $10/hr. Total child support payments for 18 years = $64,800. Total time spent working to pay child support: 6480 hours = 270 days = 9 months.

[pravnik]

You’re missing a small but crucial point. Women can opt out of the pregnancy, but not out of responsibility for raising the child once it’s born. Short of seeking termination of parental rights, neither parent can do that.

[Conflict_of_Interest]

*Originally posted by pravnik *
**You’re missing a small but crucial point. Women can opt out of the pregnancy, but not out of responsibility for raising the child once it’s born. Short of seeking termination of parental rights, neither parent can do that. **

Your last sentance says it all though. A woman can “opt out” by giving the baby up for adoption and in many states just by taking it to a drop off point. The man on the other hand cannot. Once the woman has decided to keep and raise the child the state will go after the father for child support. He does not have the option of “opting out” by giving up his parental rights. Those rights are only for the mother to use. The only time the father can use the “opt out” is if he transfers those right to some other man by allowing him to adopt.

[pravnik]

That’s not correct. A child may only be adopted if the parent-child relationship as to each living parent has been terminated. The woman may not unilaterally give the baby up for adoption without the man’s consent, and vice versa.