Child support in the era of abortion

[europhoric calm]

If a woman gets pregnant, it's her choice and her choice alone to either have a child or an abortion. If she chooses the former, why, then, should a man be held responsible for her decision and be forced to pay child support? It's simply unreasonable that he has absolutely no say in the matter, yet if she chooses to bear a child, he is held fully accountable for her decision.

I see a few solutions to this problem:
1. Outlaw abortion. The problem no longer exists.
2. End mandatory child support payments.
3. Give men a say in the fate of their unborn children.

 

[cybrsage]

If the man does not want the unborn child but the women does, he should not be responsible for supporting it. The reason I say this is because if he wants the child but the woman does not, he loses a child...he has no say in the matter.

 

[BoomerD]

Then the man should be more careful where he sticks his penis...and what he does with it.
Don't want to be liable for child support payments for a child you don't want? Don't fertilize the eggs...put a raincoat on that soldier...

Once you impregnate the female, YOU'RE fucked because it's now HER body...and HER choice.

 

[Jhhnn]

If the man does not want the unborn child but the women does, he should not be responsible for supporting it. The reason I say this is because if he wants the child but the woman does not, he loses a child...he has no say in the matter.

So a man should be able to disavow responsibility for his own children just by saying he doesn't want them? Really?

A man's responsibilities aren't conditional on a woman's prerogatives wrt motherhood, ever.

 

[cybrsage]

So a man should be able to disavow responsibility for his own children just by saying he doesn't want them? Really?

Women do it all the time, it is called abortion.

A man's responsibilities aren't conditional on a woman's prerogatives wrt motherhood, ever.

Should women be allowed to remove a man's right to his own offspring? A man wants the child he created, woman says no, it must die. What happens to the child, does the man get his child or does it die?

Should a man's rights be conditional on a woman's whim?

 

[nonlnear]

It is not unreasonable, given today's technology, to expect that a couple that actually intend to procreate could come to a prior agreement and sign a note to that effect. Just think how the current demographics of child birth might change if women knew prior to having sex with a man if he was going to pay child support.

This kind of proposal grates against soem leftists initial sensibilities, but if you think about its potential to improve outcomes for single women who currently see hooking a few baby-daddies as a viable career path the upside should become apparent. Forget about the moral posturing about who should be empowered with what degree of choice. It will make both genders become more honest about their intentions and think more proactively about when and why they procreate.

You have a one night stand with a guy and he leaves you a signed note that he will not pay child support. You make your decisions accordingly. It would result in a lot less pain and suffering in vulnerable demographics. Women would wait to be more financially secure before reproducing, and/or would tend to select more respectable men as fathers. You know, ones who actually sign the paper (intent to pay, not marriage) before doing the deed.

It's really ironic that the side that advocates for the divorce of the sex act from reproductive responsibility in general (and specifically for women) advocates so vociferously for the irrevocable welding of said responsibility with the sex act for men. I don't get how one can disavow moralizing for women and cling to it for men. In public policy matters, moralizing about sex is dead. Let's get on with that reality and have some equality in the matter.

 

[MovingTarget]

No. The choice of whether or not to abort has NOTHING to do with how child support payments are or should be decided. Once a child is born, and a family splits up, the decision about child support is to be made on the basis of what is best for the child - not the mother or father.

 

[nonlnear]

Then the man should be more careful where he sticks his penis...and what he does with it.
Don't want to be liable for child support payments for a child you don't want? Don't fertilize the eggs...put a raincoat on that soldier...

Once you impregnate the female, YOU'RE fucked because it's now HER body...and HER choice.

But I need to feel the sugar walls!

 

[nonlnear]

No. The choice of whether or not to abort has NOTHING to do with how child support payments are or should be decided. Once a child is born, and a family splits up, the decision about child support is to be made on the basis of what is best for the child - not the mother or father.

I don't think europhoric calm was necessarily advocating for a retroactive revocation of consent (which I agree would be terrible). What if the father could deliver notice right after sex? The girl can go pop a plan B right after once she is informed that there is no paycheck.

Let's say the man has two weeks after intercourse to deliver a notice of non-parental support. What would you think of that?
Edit: Make it two days, to give time for Plan B.

 

[MovingTarget]

I don't think europhoric calm was necessarily advocating for a retroactive revocation of consent (which I agree would be terrible). What if the father could deliver notice right after sex? The girl can go pop a plan B right after once she is informed that there is no paycheck.

Let's say the man has two weeks after intercourse to deliver a notice of non-parental support. What would you think of that?
Edit: Make it two days, to give time for Plan B.

Notice of non-parental support? I don't think that is a good idea. There are a lot more factors that go into the decision to birth a child. Once that child is born, for whatever reason(s), BOTH parents should have to support it. The child's needs should come first, no matter what the father intends to do financially or the mother intends to do at the pharmacy/clinic.

 

[nonlnear]

Notice of non-parental support? I don't think that is a good idea. There are a lot more factors that go into the decision to birth a child. Once that child is born, for whatever reason(s), BOTH parents should have to support it. The child's needs should come first, no matter what the father intends to do financially or the mother intends to do at the pharmacy/clinic.

Why should both parents support it? You are making a moral assertion, and I'm curious to know your rationale. Is it a sentimental notion (not that there is anything wrong with sentimental notions) of the best family structure? Is it an argument that the costs of child-rearing should be shared equally by both genders (which, by the way, it still would be except in cases where the woman consciously chooses to shoulder the costs herself). If your argument is about asymmetries of gender power in the procreation decision, I would counter that you are advocating for women to hold all the power. I am advocating for men to have half. Remember, a woman can already decide not to support a child by giving it up. Why shouldn't men have that same right?

 

[MovingTarget]

Why should both parents support it? You are making a moral assertion, and I'm curious to know your rationale. Is it a sentimental notion (not that there is anything wrong with sentimental notions) of the best family structure? Is it an argument that the costs of child-rearing should be shared equally by both genders (which, by the way, it still would be except in cases where the woman consciously chooses to shoulder the costs herself). If your argument is about asymmetries of gender power in the procreation decision, I would counter that you are advocating for women to hold all the power. I am advocating for men to have half. Remember, a woman can already decide not to support a child by giving it up. Why shouldn't men have that same right?

I understand what you are advocating here. What I am advocating has nothing to do with "mens' rights", notions of family structure, or sentimental notion. It takes two to commit to the original consentual sexual act. However, once a child is born, I feel that divying up rights/responsibility between the mother and father is a moot point. A child still needs to be raised. That decision should be made on the basis of what is best for needs of the child. Is it necessarily fair? Nope, but thats life.

 

[nonlnear]

I understand what you are advocating here. What I am advocating has nothing to do with "mens' rights", notions of family structure, or sentimental notion. It takes two to commit to the original consentual sexual act. However, once a child is born, I feel that divying up rights/responsibility between the mother and father is a moot point.

But it's not moot. In an era of single parent families, it is central to the structure of society as a whole. This is the new reality.

A child still needs to be raised. That decision should be made on the basis of what is best for needs of the child. Is it necessarily fair? Nope, but thats life.

You are waxing sentimental here. It is clear you care about children, and I commend you for that, but your line of reasoning is lacking. You have a conclusion, a ball of sentimental gobbledegook as a starting point, and nothing in between.

 

[Herr Kutz]

Then the man should be more careful where he sticks his penis...and what he does with it.
Don't want to be liable for child support payments for a child you don't want? Don't fertilize the eggs...put a raincoat on that soldier...

Once you impregnate the female, YOU'RE fucked because it's now HER body...and HER choice.

And it should be HER responsibility

 

[fskimospy]

Why should both parents support it? You are making a moral assertion, and I'm curious to know your rationale. Is it a sentimental notion (not that there is anything wrong with sentimental notions) of the best family structure? Is it an argument that the costs of child-rearing should be shared equally by both genders (which, by the way, it still would be except in cases where the woman consciously chooses to shoulder the costs herself). If your argument is about asymmetries of gender power in the procreation decision, I would counter that you are advocating for women to hold all the power. I am advocating for men to have half. Remember, a woman can already decide not to support a child by giving it up. Why shouldn't men have that same right?

No sentimentality needed, and several of your facts are wrong. Studies clearly show that children are best raised in two parent households. Additionally, women cannot decide not to support a child by giving it up. In most states, (actually all I believe) the father of a child can deny a child being put up for adoption and may raise it himself. This would include the ability to demand child support payments from the mother. After a child is born both parents have the right to raise it and demand support from the other.

 

[nonlnear]

No sentimentality needed, and several of your facts are wrong. Studies clearly show that children are best raised in two parent households.

I don't deny that.

Additionally, women cannot decide not to support a child by giving it up. In most states, (actually all I believe) the father of a child can deny a child being put up for adoption and may raise it himself. This would include the ability to demand child support payments from the mother.

How often is this right actually material? What are the numbers on actual payment flows arising from child support established at birth? (Results of child support payments arising from divorce are immaterial to this discussion.) If you argue that the numbers are irrelevant and it is a matter of principled symmetry, then I would counter that that is the heart of my position as well.

After a child is born both parents have the right to raise it and demand support from the other.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder what your basis is for this belief. Given modern technology, why shouldn't both parents be able to choose early in the pregnancy process whether they want to support a child? Women already have that choice.

 

[fskimospy]

How often is this right actually material? What are the numbers on actual payment flows arising from child support established at birth? (Results of child support payments arising from divorce are immaterial to this discussion.) If you argue that the numbers are irrelevant and it is a matter of principled symmetry, then I would counter that that is the heart of my position as well.

How often it's invoked doesn't really matter. Both men and women have similar rights in such a situation. If the mother elects to 'give up' the child and the father does not agree, she is every bit as much on the hook financially as the father would be if the situation were reversed.

I don't necessarily disagree, but I wonder what your basis is for this belief. Given modern technology, why shouldn't both parents be able to choose early in the pregnancy process whether they want to support a child? Women already have that choice.

The basis for my belief is what's in the law.

Outside of legal areas, it all basically comes down to the fact that no one has the right through either legal or financial duress to force another person to undergo an unwanted medical procedure.

The outcomes of this situation are unfortunately unbalanced, but so are the burdens endured by each party. It's one of the unfortunate aspects of life.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

But I need to feel the sugar walls!

This.

Both men and women have similar rights in such a situation. If the mother elects to 'give up' the child and the father does not agree, she is every bit as much on the hook financially as the father would be if the situation were reversed.

But before the birth of the child he had no choice and she did. During gestation he should have rights over the fetus, which after all is 1/2 his genetic code.

Clearly she has a right over he own body so he can't force her to abort: But he should have the right to unilaterally dis-own the child, just as a woman can unilaterally dis-own the child. To be fair there should be a charge to him equal to that of an abortion.

Again, he can't stop her form aborting but this is only because she has sovereignty over her body, not because he has no vested interest in the fetus.

He should be able to obtain a civil judgment against a woman that aborts a child that he wanted. The logic of her body, her choice, doesn't abrogate the interest the man has in the fetus; it only trumps it as a matter of law as it relates to abortion.

The right to choose should be extended to males. Doing this would greatly improve society.

 

[HAL9000]

I completely agree with the OP, personally I think we should ban abortion, but failing that I think both would-be-parents should have to give their consent before killing the unborn child. It boggles my mind that the mother is allowed to kill the child regardless of the fathers feelings on the matter.

If the roles were reversed how many pro-choice people would be happy for the father to choose whether or not the woman undergoes an abortion without her consent?

 

[nageov3t]

I'm glad it's not a situation I'll ever have to worry about... to the best of my knowledge, no birth control method except abstinence (and maybe anal) is 100% safe. condoms break, chicks forget taking their pill one morning, etc.

I feel like there should be an option in place where a father can forgo having to pay child support while also waiving all parental rights (publicly, so when their kid grows up, they can learn what a scumbag their dad really is)

 

[Daedalus685]

Abortion is not birth control. I support abortion, but it is not a contraceptive to be used just because. It is a woman's choice to bear a child after weighing all of the factors affecting her life. I'd doubt that a happy couple would very often consider an abortion unless health is at risk, and that should really be the only situation they consider it.

A mans job (if he is a dead beat) ends upon conception. If he wants to avoid child support he should have used actual birth control somewhere up to that point.

 

[nageov3t]

A mans job (if he is a dead beat) ends upon conception. If he wants to avoid child support he should have used actual birth control somewhere up to that point.

what if the condom broke?

 

[Daedalus685]

I completely agree with the OP, personally I think we should ban abortion, but failing that I think both would-be-parents should have to give their consent before killing the unborn child. It boggles my mind that the mother is allowed to kill the child regardless of the fathers feelings on the matter.

If the roles were reversed how many pro-choice people would be happy for the father to choose whether or not the woman undergoes an abortion without her consent?

That's insane.

If the roles were "reversed" as you speculate a man would be choosing what happens to another person's body. That is entirely different than a woman choosing. People are not pro choice because they want to see abortions at any cost. They are pro choice because they value the human rights of an individuals own body.

It would powerfully suck to have your child lost to you. But a one night fling is not the best way to become a dad and you've got to realize there is a good chance she would not want to carry a love child to term.

In a loving partnership you have the benefit of talking it out, and likely getting pregnant on purpose.

 

[Daedalus685]

what if the condom broke?

There are other forms of birth control...

You know as well as I that condoms are not 100%.

If you want risk free sex get a vasectomy.

By putting it in you're kind of accepting the risk... whether you lose the gamble or not makes no difference.

Most women only ovulate once a month. The condom breaking risk can be minimized by choosing when you have sex more carefully.

Edit: Not "you" specifically, you as in men.. me too.

 

[MovingTarget]

But it's not moot. In an era of single parent families, it is central to the structure of society as a whole. This is the new reality.

You are waxing sentimental here. It is clear you care about children, and I commend you for that, but your line of reasoning is lacking. You have a conclusion, a ball of sentimental gobbledegook as a starting point, and nothing in between.

My argument may be clouded by such sentimentality, but it does not require it. This is already the standard used in most family courts, especially when it relates to custody. Adults can take care of themselves (in most situations), whereas a child cannot.

History is also clouding my argument too. I am a product of the "single-parent household" society, and if that check didn't come from the other parental unit (which it often didn't), we couldn't make ends meet. It usually meant a trip to the food bank or wearing clothes that didn't fit for too long. Poverty sucks. It is not an unreasonable expectation that the two people whose genetics made a child have to support it in some way. It really does take the resources of two people to properly raise a child. When one abdicates that responsibility, whether through being negligent or "waiving rights", it is the offspring, the one entity that truly had no choice,that suffers.