Is child support outdated in the abortion age?

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: MovingTargetIf a woman cannot afford to have a child, chances are she will anyway because it is her, and our species, biological imperative. You underestimate the will and the need to reproduce regardless of societal customs/rules of finance. In doing so, you ignore reality.

What if the woman were a rational atheist who took responsibility for her life and pursued her rational self interest? Obviously there women out there who are like this or partially like this since many women do still choose to have abortions. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term isn't an uncontrollable biological imperative.

 

[BoomerD]

Don't want to pay child support? Keep your dick in your pants.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: sandorski
ridiculous

Why? Only women get "choice"?

What! Men have the choice of keeping it in their pants. Which seems to be the primary "choice" that women have to clean up after.:moon:

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MovingTargetIf a woman cannot afford to have a child, chances are she will anyway because it is her, and our species, biological imperative. You underestimate the will and the need to reproduce regardless of societal customs/rules of finance. In doing so, you ignore reality.

What if the woman were a rational atheist who took responsibility for her life and pursued her rational self interest? Obviously there women out there who are like this or partially like this since many women do still choose to have abortions. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term isn't an uncontrollable biological imperative.

Rational atheist? Excuse me? Nowhere was religion inserted into my argument. I cited BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE...the ultimate self-interest. You know...eat....survive...reproduce. Sound familiar?

A rational person, religious or not, may as well throw finance out the window if they consider passing on their genes or having a family of any importance. Sure, some women don't consider these a priority and instead place personal finance or something else they consider rational above everything. They might choose to abort or give up to adoption.

Besides, why would a woman abort a pregnancy that she wants? If she is already pregnant, and a man says "oops, nevermind", then it is her choice. You can control biological imperative to a variety of extents, but this should only be done at a society's own peril.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: ScottyB
There should be no such thing as child support. If the woman doesn't want to pay for the kid she can give it up for adoption.

Actually if she doesn't want the child they should give the father a choice..

1. Cut his nuts off
2. Pay the state for child support

--------------------------------

How hard is it for you pigs to understand....

Shoot YOUR SPERM IN HER PUSSY..... What happens?

 

[Carmen813]

Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: dahunan

WOW!! Use a condom or face the consequences.. how fucking hard is that.

Condoms can break and thus aren't 100% reliable. Also, men don't have any other options other than sterilization.

Vasectomies can usually be reversed later if you like.

I'm surprised more men don't have them done in high school, and undone when/if they want kids.

 

[ultra laser]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Not as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty. That's called the veil of ignorance, look it up.

Yes, both parties are responsible for the pregnancy. However, only the woman can decide if the pregnancy is to be gone through with or if it is to be ended prematurely. As such, the birth of a new human being is entirely dependent on her decision.

You are correct that no one chooses to be born into poverty. But as human beings we have the option to have or to not have children. Begetting children when you cannot provide for them is irresponsible and contemptible behavior, which only adds more misery to an already miserable world.

 

[HannibalX]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The man had the choice also.


When the child is born, it is due to both the male and female.
They need to take the responsibilty of the child.

This is really a pre-birth issue. The woman has "choice" and the male does not. The remedy posed for this is for the male to sign documentation that it's his "choice" to not participate.

I like this idea.

 

[Eeezee]

Men already have to pay child support in some pretty fucked up scenarios. I have an uncle who pays child support in the following situation:

1) He cut off contact with the woman, since she admitted that she was cheating on him and didn't use a condom with that guy
2) DNA test proves child is not his
3) He wants nothing to do with the woman or child, including a restraining order against her

 

[manowar821]

It takes two to tango...

 

[dlx22]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

if you don't believe in abortion though there is no real choice though right?

i'm pro choice all the way but there are many people who are not.

 

[OCGuy]

Hey, if they dont want the coat-hanger and the hoover, why is man to blame?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MovingTargetIf a woman cannot afford to have a child, chances are she will anyway because it is her, and our species, biological imperative. You underestimate the will and the need to reproduce regardless of societal customs/rules of finance. In doing so, you ignore reality.

What if the woman were a rational atheist who took responsibility for her life and pursued her rational self interest? Obviously there women out there who are like this or partially like this since many women do still choose to have abortions. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term isn't an uncontrollable biological imperative.

Rational atheist? Excuse me? Nowhere was religion inserted into my argument. I cited BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE...the ultimate self-interest. You know...eat....survive...reproduce. Sound familiar?

I mentioned "rational atheist" because religion is one of the main driving factors in people's not getting abortions or feeling that it's murder or immoral. Also, humans are not animals and breeding is not necessarily in one's rational self interest. As a being capable of reason, biology doesn't force or significantly compel you to reproduce.

A rational person, religious or not, may as well throw finance out the window if they consider passing on their genes or having a family of any importance. Sure, some women don't consider these a priority and instead place personal finance or something else they consider rational above everything. They might choose to abort or give up to adoption.

Whether or not having children is rational depends on the situation. Since, by definition, unplanned pregnancies are unplanned, presumably the mother and father had decided that they did not want children, at least not now, in which case having carrying an untended pregnancy to term may very well be irrational.

For many women and men, an unplanned pregnancy is a ticket to poverty or a way of trapping one's self in poverty. It's difficult to go to school to improve your income earning ability when you have a child to take care of, a child that costs both time and money.

Besides, why would a woman abort a pregnancy that she wants? If she is already pregnant, and a man says "oops, nevermind", then it is her choice. You can control biological imperative to a variety of extents, but this should only be done at a society's own peril.

A woman might abort a pregnancy that she wants if she concludes that she really doesn't want it. (Who wants to raise a child in a homeless shelter, etc.?)

The way paper abortions for men would work is that the woman would have to notify the man of the pregnancy a few weeks after conception. The man would then have a narrow window of time in which to go to court and complete a paper abortion request. So, it's not like men would be reneging on their agreements to have children six months in.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

If you're saying that women don't have 100% of the choice for childbirth, then why can't men veto a woman's desire to have an abortion? Would you agree to that? After all, if she didn't want to get pregnant then why didn't she have a tubal ligation or just not have sex?

Do you see how the logic of your argument can be turned around to either make abortion itself illegal or to give men a veto-power?

 

[dguy6789]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
I agree 100%. Unfortunately we live in a country where (at least in WA state) you can be ordered by the court to pay child support for a kid you didnt even father. Its fucked up. There should be some legal way for a man to forgo any and all financial or emotional responsibility of a kid he didnt want to father. The women make the rules here unfortunately.

QFT. Thread should have ended right here.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

You can't just decide what the discussion is or is not about because it makes your argument easier. If a child is born, SOMEONE has to take care of it, and it would seem to make sense that it's the financial responsibility of the parents. Arguing that it's somehow not fair because the man didn't have a choice as to whether or not the child was born requires us to ignore what's best for the child.

What? Did you not read the OP?

And yes, I agree with what you state(again under the premise of "choice"), IF and when a child "is born. However, "choice" as defined by abortion doesn't take into account what is "best for the child" either so yes- "choice" may not take into account what's "best".

Babble much?

What are you suggesting? That if you knock someone up you can force them to have an abortion against their will so you don't have to man-up and pay child support?

It's the woman's choice because she is the one who has to carry the child, birth the child, and care for it after birth. Those are the rules and everybody knew it going in so stop acting like you have a valid argument.

 

[Robor]

Touchy subject and I'm on the fence. IMO the only difference between the man and woman is the pregnancy. What happens if the man wants the child and the woman doesn't? Should the mother be required to carry the child? If so, should she be required to pay child support to the father?

 

[Strk]

The only flaw I see in the system is how in certain cases (infidelity etc), the "father" can get off the hook, while the dad does not.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: nobodyknows

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
So as usual, this is being framed as a man vs. woman debate, which it is not.

Children need to be supported, usually for more than two decades. It has nothing to do with the woman.

You would be correct if the discussion was about the child - it's not. It's about the financial charge without options for only one side of the equation. Basically, the premise and question is "choice" - not about what may be best for a birthed and kept child.

You can't just decide what the discussion is or is not about because it makes your argument easier. If a child is born, SOMEONE has to take care of it, and it would seem to make sense that it's the financial responsibility of the parents. Arguing that it's somehow not fair because the man didn't have a choice as to whether or not the child was born requires us to ignore what's best for the child.

What? Did you not read the OP?

And yes, I agree with what you state(again under the premise of "choice"), IF and when a child "is born. However, "choice" as defined by abortion doesn't take into account what is "best for the child" either so yes- "choice" may not take into account what's "best".

Babble much?

What are you suggesting? That if you knock someone up you can force them to have an abortion against their will so you don't have to man-up and pay child support?

It's the woman's choice because she is the one who has to carry the child, birth the child, and care for it after birth. Those are the rules and everybody knew it going in so stop acting like you have a valid argument.

Can you not read? I suggested there be a means for a man to legally "give up" his parental rights in the first trimester -just like a woman can do so via abortion. You see - it's really not that difficult.
Just because it is the way it is - doesn't mean it is right. In this case - with the premise of "choice" - the answer is clear - after conception only one side gets "choice" and it's pathetically wrong.

 

[kedlav]

Originally posted by: ultra laser
I think the idea of child support is outdated. Women now have the option to abort their children, and as such, whether or not a child comes into existence is their sole decision. Why, then, should a man have to pay for the result of a woman's choice? It seems that women want freedom yet not the responsibility that comes with it.

Best interest of the child >>>>>>>>> you being cheap.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Carmen813
Unless you were raped, you also chose to have sex with the woman and accept her decision about a possible pregnancy. If you don't want to be a father, then you have two options, either to seek sterilization or to not engage in sex...with women.

Now as for being responsible for paying for a child that isn't yours, that's something else.

Also, no one chooses to be born into poverty.

Actually, if you ask Cerpin Taxt, we've established that sex doesn't cause pregnancy.

This is my favorite thread on Anandtech. Period.

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: MovingTargetIf a woman cannot afford to have a child, chances are she will anyway because it is her, and our species, biological imperative. You underestimate the will and the need to reproduce regardless of societal customs/rules of finance. In doing so, you ignore reality.

What if the woman were a rational atheist who took responsibility for her life and pursued her rational self interest? Obviously there women out there who are like this or partially like this since many women do still choose to have abortions. Carrying unwanted pregnancies to term isn't an uncontrollable biological imperative.

Rational atheist? Excuse me? Nowhere was religion inserted into my argument. I cited BIOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE...the ultimate self-interest. You know...eat....survive...reproduce. Sound familiar?

I mentioned "rational atheist" because religion is one of the main driving factors in people's not getting abortions or feeling that it's murder or immoral. Also, humans are not animals and breeding is not necessarily in one's rational self interest. As a being capable of reason, biology doesn't force or significantly compel you to reproduce.

A rational person, religious or not, may as well throw finance out the window if they consider passing on their genes or having a family of any importance. Sure, some women don't consider these a priority and instead place personal finance or something else they consider rational above everything. They might choose to abort or give up to adoption.

Whether or not having children is rational depends on the situation. Since, by definition, unplanned pregnancies are unplanned, presumably the mother and father had decided that they did not want children, at least not now, in which case having carrying an untended pregnancy to term may very well be irrational.

For many women and men, an unplanned pregnancy is a ticket to poverty or a way of trapping one's self in poverty. It's difficult to go to school to improve your income earning ability when you have a child to take care of, a child that costs both time and money.

Besides, why would a woman abort a pregnancy that she wants? If she is already pregnant, and a man says "oops, nevermind", then it is her choice. You can control biological imperative to a variety of extents, but this should only be done at a society's own peril.

A woman might abort a pregnancy that she wants if she concludes that she really doesn't want it. (Who wants to raise a child in a homeless shelter, etc.?)

The way paper abortions for men would work is that the woman would have to notify the man of the pregnancy a few weeks after conception. The man would then have a narrow window of time in which to go to court and complete a paper abortion request. So, it's not like men would be reneging on their agreements to have children six months in.

It may be true that the most vocal movement against abortion touts religious reasons, but plenty of rational people oppose it as well. Codes of ethics and/or philosophy need not come from religion despite that being a legitimate source. I see no need to inject religion into this debate the way you have as it implies that rationality and religion are mutually exclusive.

I will agree that having children is a one-way ticket into poverty for many who can barely make ends meat. This is why the introduction and subsequent legalization of birth control (Griswald v. Connecticuit) is so important. History shows this. Prior to this case, having multiple children was the leading cause of poverty in the US. However, rational self interest can and often does include biological interest. No, it does not control you, but it does and should play a major factor. Also, unplanned != unwanted. This should be a given as the correlation is simply not strong enough to assert this.

"Paper abortions for men" imho is a farce as it ignores the fundamental differences between the sexes and their resultant offspring.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

nvm

ill just say that we need to reevaluate lots of laws regarding marriage and children now that women have equal rights

 

[Jaskalas]

Men should have the right to legally declare, before the child is born, that they wanted an abortion. If the mother chooses against the wishes of the father, then he is no longer responsible for her bad decision.