• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Child support in the era of abortion

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Daedalus685 said:
That's insane.

If the roles were "reversed" as you speculate a man would be choosing what happens to another person's body.
Click to expand...
I don't think anyone here is advocating that a man should be able to force a woman to abort. Only that he should be given an explicit choice about whether to become a parent after the act of intercourse - like women have.
 
i am a pro choice guy. its her body, whatever she wants to do with it then thats her decision, nobody elses.

but i do agree, if i knock a girl up and i never make any attempt to support that child, then i dont see how i should be reliable for it. thats part of pro choice in my eyes- since she made the decision she has to live with it. if she wants the guy to support the kid, then she should stay with that guy or at very least allow him to have half custody.

where child support comes in is if the kid is born and the dad does start supporting it, then he must continue to support it until the child is 18. you cant have it both ways, you cant just say "meh, i dont care anymore". that would be completely unfair to the mother.

but i myself have been with girls who did everything they could to get knocked up by me. lying about pills, trying to fuck with condoms... so if i make it clear i dont want a child and there is no evidence that i ever even tried to support it, then it should be up to the mother to support that child solely. because in the end, it was the mothers decision to have sex too.
 
nonlnear said:
I don't think anyone here is advocating that a man should be able to force a woman to abort. Only that he should be given an explicit choice about whether to become a parent after the act of intercourse - like women have.
Click to expand...

Actually many people on this board have made exactly that argument and Hal9000 is at least making the argument that a man should be able to force a woman to carry her baby to term.
 
eskimospy said:
The basis for my belief is what's in the law.
Click to expand...
You do realize that that is a moronic basis for arguing against a change in the law, right?
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.
Click to expand...
What do you mean that the burdens are unbalanced? Post-partum burdens are only unbalanced by choice. With up-front disclosure about how responsible a man is willing to be, women might start opting to reproduce with men who will be better fathers.
 
Well, child support is tied in to the rights of the child, not the rights of the mother. But then courts tend to favor mothers when it comes to custody. Abortion unfortunately can't change the legal equation.
 
karmypolitics said:
Well, child support is tied in to the rights of the child, not the rights of the mother. But then courts tend to favor mothers when it comes to custody. Abortion unfortunately can't change the legal equation.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you want to speak about "mens' rights", then this is the real area of inequality.
 
nonlnear said:
You do realize that that is a moronic basis for arguing against a change in the law, right?
Click to expand...

When I wrote that I was correcting something you had previously written where you incorrectly stated how things currently work. That's why I mentioned the law.

What do you mean that the burdens are unbalanced? Post-partum burdens are only unbalanced by choice. With up-front disclosure about how responsible a man is willing to be, women might start opting to reproduce with men who will be better fathers.
Click to expand...

Of course, everything we have is by choice, even the law. There are social, cultural, and practical constraints on women that men do not have, and the tradeoff is that men have medical choice and financial constraints that women don't have. Them's the breaks.

I see no societal benefit to changing our laws to allow men to abandon children they father outside of some emotional appeal to 'fairness', which I am entirely uninterested in.
 
Daedalus685 said:
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.
Click to expand...

She should have made her decision, as the man did when they had sex, the guy has to stick with it, so should she.

The "it's her body" argument isn't good enough, it's a potential child, 9 months of discomfort and a birth / depression (potentially) are less valuable than a human life, it's a shame to inconvenience someone, but that's just a fact.
 
eskimospy said:
When I wrote that I was correcting something you had previously written where you incorrectly stated how things currently work. That's why I mentioned the law.



Of course, everything we have is by choice, even the law. There are social, cultural, and practical constraints on women that men do not have, and the tradeoff is that men have medical choice and financial constraints that women don't have. Them's the breaks.

I see no societal benefit to changing our laws to allow men to abandon children they father outside of some emotional appeal to 'fairness', which I am entirely uninterested in.
Click to expand...

It's not even "fairness", just weaseldom.
 
If you want to have unprotected sex without the possibility of creating a pregnancy...go homosexual.

Otherwise, you stick your "quarter" in the slot and takes your chances. If you "break it," you pay for it...for 18 years.
 
BoomerD said:
If you want to have unprotected sex without the possibility of creating a pregnancy...go homosexual.

Otherwise, you stick your "quarter" in the slot and takes your chances. If you "break it," you pay for it...for 18 years.
Click to expand...

Sexual orientation isn't a choice.

You do have a choice to have sex, but you should have a choice to abort and don't.
 
This has been beaten to death here before. The arguments of the immature never trumps reality. Grow up and get over it, you'll never have a say and you never should.
 
I am pro-choice, but there does seem to be a double standard when it comes to this issue. For example, if a woman gets pregnant and the law doesn't allow for abortions except under certain circumstances, then its considered bad because the woman is being punished for having sex and getting pregnant. But if a woman can choose to abort but does not and the man has no say, then the man is told its his punishment for having sex with her and he should have thought about it before having sex with her.

As far as child support goes, there needs to be more accountability so that child support payment are actually going towards the child and not supporting the mother's lifestyle.
 
just make birth contol pills or something that men can take. would solve a lot of problems.

with men in control (and not wanting bills for child support) then women couldn't "forget" to take a pill and get pregnant. the birth rates would drop and the whole pension pyramid scheme we have would collapse and we'd be forced to come up with a new system.
 
I'm not sure it makes sense to try to create "equality" between men and women when it comes to this issue. Men contribute to a pregnancy, but they can't personally get pregnant...the situation is inherently unequal.
 
tommo123 said:
just make birth contol pills or something that men can take. would solve a lot of problems.

with men in control (and not wanting bills for child support) then women couldn't "forget" to take a pill and get pregnant. the birth rates would drop and the whole pension pyramid scheme we have would collapse and we'd be forced to come up with a new system.
Click to expand...

I believe someone in a Kansas University has made one.
 
BoomerD said:
When men can become pregnant...then, and ONLY then should they get a say.
Click to expand...

I disagree, I'm anti-choice when it comes to women deciding whether or not I should have to pay for a child for the next 18 years.

If it's "her body, her choice"

then it's "my money, my choice"

You can't have it one way and not the other.
 
tommo123 said:
just make birth contol pills or something that men can take. would solve a lot of problems.

with men in control (and not wanting bills for child support) then women couldn't "forget" to take a pill and get pregnant. the birth rates would drop and the whole pension pyramid scheme we have would collapse and we'd be forced to come up with a new system.
Click to expand...

"Of course I took my pill, Baby! You got nothin' to worry about!"
 
HAL9000 said:
I disagree, I'm anti-choice when it comes to women deciding whether or not I should have to pay for a child for the next 18 years.

If it's "her body, her choice"

then it's "my money, my choice"

You can't have it one way and not the other.
Click to expand...

Why not? Paying for a child isn't equivalent to being pregnant and giving birth AND then being responsible for a child, so it's pretty easy to say one should be a choice and one should not.
 
her209 said:
As far as child support goes, there needs to be more accountability so that child support payment are actually going towards the child and not supporting the mother's lifestyle.
Click to expand...

YES. this is the worst thing about child support... most moms buy new everything for themselves and the kids get salvation army shit, if theyre lucky
 
Rainsford said:
Why not? Paying for a child isn't equivalent to being pregnant and giving birth AND then being responsible for a child, so it's pretty easy to say one should be a choice and one should not.
Click to expand...

Who said the mother has to be responsible for the child? There's always adoption.

One of them has two consequences, pregnancy or death of a potential child.

The other has two consequences, 18 years of cost or being told your potential child was killed.

I'd say that 18 years of cost = 9 months of pregnancy.

Both cause physical and mental toll on the other person (depending on how healthy / financially viable you are)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top