Is child support outdated in the abortion age?

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: 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.

Question: if the father can declare that they wanted an abortion and not be responsible for the resultant offspring, how does that affect any responsibility beforehand with regards to birth control methods available to men? (examples include condoms, vasectomies, or even (gulp) a pill to reduce sperm count...)

 

[MovingTarget]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
nvm

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

I think most everyone will agree with this. Perhaps a separate thread on assignment of custody rights or alimony obligations is in order?

 

[manlymatt83]

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.

Really?

 

[Bird222]

Originally posted by: 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.

It doesn't. I've had sex plenty of times without a pregnancy.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: ultra laser

Originally posted by: Zebo
Sorry child's welfare takes precedence over you.

Let me put it another way.

What's more 'fair'

1. An adult male paying some percentage of his income to support his progeny.

2. A child going without that support

I can't believe this question is even asked. I would give my 4 everything I own and start penniless in Kabul Afghanistan before being a absentee or negligent father. You obviously have no children.

If a woman cannot afford a child, she should not have one. And you must remember that before a child can have welfare it must first exist; and whether or not it will exist is dependent entirely on the woman's volition.

that isn't true..

and what do you mean by if the woman can't afford a child..meaning she can't afford a child by herself?

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

you wouldn't need any options or choices if you make this choice originally, yes, women have choices afterward because they carry the baby.....the choice is whether or not a woman wants to allow herself to have a child, it has nothing to do with the man really

i certainly sympathize that some men get themselves into some pretty unfair situations, but i have little sympathy for men who basically view women as the enemy because they just want to screw them but not have to put up with the consequences of it...get your head out of your ass you sick bastards...do you know how disgusting your viewpoint is?

you reduce life to a morbid nightmare where everyone is an en enemy and we just try to extract benefits out of each other while simultaneously looking for a way to not have to deal the results

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

Women have the same choice. Thats not the issue. The issue is when/if she becomes preggers, the man has ZERO rights or say so from then on out. Thats where the inequality ends. Even after birth...the woman can decide to put the kiddo up for adoption or not. The man has ZERO say so or rights, yet is stuck with whatever whim the woman decides to make.

 

[LumbergTech]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

Women have the same choice. Thats not the issue. The issue is when/if she becomes preggers, the man has ZERO rights or say so from then on out. Thats where the inequality ends. Even after birth...the woman can decide to put the kiddo up for adoption or not. The man has ZERO say so or rights, yet is stuck with whatever whim the woman decides to make.

someone addressed this earlier though, the idea that there could be equality is false

the man would have to carry half the baby somehow

why is it so hard to accept that men choose whether or not they want to pay for a baby by performing actions which produce a baby

to clarify, i would say that the mother shouldn't be able to give up the child for adoption if the father is willing to take care of the child...if that is the case i would say that is unfair..beyond that though I don't see the problem

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

Women have the same choice. Thats not the issue. The issue is when/if she becomes preggers, the man has ZERO rights or say so from then on out. Thats where the inequality ends. Even after birth...the woman can decide to put the kiddo up for adoption or not. The man has ZERO say so or rights, yet is stuck with whatever whim the woman decides to make.

someone addressed this earlier though, the idea that there could be equality is false

the man would have to carry half the baby somehow

why is it so hard to accept that men choose whether or not they want to pay for a baby by performing actions which produce a baby

to clarify, i would say that the mother shouldn't be able to give up the child for adoption if the father is willing to take care of the child...if that is the case i would say that is unfair..beyond that though I don't see the problem

And I would go along with that. But, again, men have no say so.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

How does it ignore the differences between the sexes? Could it also be argued that forcing men to pay child support is a farce? Is there some metaphysical force that requires us to do that?

Not making women be responsible for the consequences of their own decisions is the real farce.

Originally posted by: MovingTargetQuestion: if the father can declare that they wanted an abortion and not be responsible for the resultant offspring, how does that affect any responsibility beforehand with regards to birth control methods available to men? (examples include condoms, vasectomies, or even (gulp) a pill to reduce sperm count...)

Men would have to offer to pay the costs and perhaps money for the inconvenience of the woman having to go have the abortion.

Since the ultimate ability to determine whether or not a pregnancy will continue or be carried to term rests on the shoulders of a woman she should bare 100% of the responsibility for her choice. Why is that concept--people should be responsible for their choices--so difficult? How is the decision not to have an abortion not a legitimate choice?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

you wouldn't need any options or choices if you make this choice originally, yes, women have choices afterward because they carry the baby.....the choice is whether or not a woman wants to allow herself to have a child, it has nothing to do with the man really

i certainly sympathize that some men get themselves into some pretty unfair situations, but i have little sympathy for men who basically view women as the enemy because they just want to screw them but not have to put up with the consequences of it...get your head out of your ass you sick bastards...do you know how disgusting your viewpoint is?

you reduce life to a morbid nightmare where everyone is an en enemy and we just try to extract benefits out of each other while simultaneously looking for a way to not have to deal the results

Wait a second now. If a man is potentially responsible if there is a conception then shouldn't he also be able to veto a woman's choice to have an abortion, killing his child?

After all--couldn't women just take birth control pills or not have sex if they don't want to get pregnant? Why should women be allowed to kill a man's child when they had all of these other, more reliable and easier methods of birth control and choices beforehand?

Would you be willing to be consistent and to advocate that men be given a veto over a woman's decision to have an abortion?

You might say, "but it's a woman's body and the fetuses only grow in women so it's a woman's choice only". OK, I acknowledge that that's part of our metaphysical nature. However, at the same time, nothing about our metaphysical nature requires men to pay child support for women's choices; those laws are man-made.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: LumbergTechwhy is it so hard to accept that men choose whether or not they want to pay for a baby by performing actions which produce a baby.

This is all about morality and man-made laws, not metaphysics. I say that because our metaphysical nature does NOT require or force men to provide child support or care in any manner.

So, this is really all about morality and about what is right and fair and good.

If the policy of our law is to provide people with a high quality of life, to allow people to enjoy their lives, and also to reduce externalities and to make people be responsible for their choices, then we should allow paper abortions for men.

Because sex for the purpose of enjoyment and without reproduction is a value to both men and women, and since women now have 100% of the choice of whether or not a birth will occur, the policy of the law should be to place 100% of the responsibility for a birth on the mother if the man offers to pay for the abortion plus inconvenience costs in a timely manner. This policy would benefit both men and women since it would allow them to have sex for the purpose of enjoyment without reproduction.

It seems like most people would agree that people should be responsible for their choices but when it comes to this issue, they don't regard the decision not to have an abortion as a legitimate choice or a choice that should carry with it a responsibility.

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: 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.

I can read fine.

You want to have your fun and then bail out if an "accident" occurs. It's her choice because the fetus is IN HER BODY. If you have a problem with that then don't have sex with her.

You don't want a woman, what you want is a prostitute

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: LumbergTech

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

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.

Those are very different kinds of choices. Men don't have the absolute ability to prevent a pregnancy whereas women do. An example of an equal choice in this regard would be if abortion were made illegal and women were forced to carry unwanted embryos to term.

It comes down to this, women have 100% of the choice as to whether or not a child will be born, so why shouldn't they also bear 100% of the responsibility if a man offers to waive all parental rights within a reasonable amount of time after conception?

every man has 100% choice not to have a child, they simply dont get someone pregnant

Women have the same choice. Thats not the issue. The issue is when/if she becomes preggers, the man has ZERO rights or say so from then on out. Thats where the inequality ends. Even after birth...the woman can decide to put the kiddo up for adoption or not. The man has ZERO say so or rights, yet is stuck with whatever whim the woman decides to make.

A female cat hides her kittens from the tomcat because he will kill them if he finds them, causing the female to come back into heat.

 

[Xavier434]

As usual, the majority of the problems with these kinds of arguments revolves around the fact that those of you who hate child support look at the entire situation as being the father vs the mother. Some how....and I have no idea how this is even possible...you forgot that it is not just about the mother and the father. It is about the mother, the father, AND THE CHILD!

Child support is indeed outdated, but only in one way. That is, there is not nearly enough enforcement to ensure that the court ordered child support gets paid and too many loopholes to avoid it. The only person getting the short stick here is the kid who is 100% innocent.

I also find it funny that a certain trend I identify is that those who complain about child support also tend to be the same people who cry and argue about personal/fiscal responsibility in America all of the time. You guys are nothing but a hypocritical joke.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
As usual, the majority of the problems with these kinds of arguments revolves around the fact that those of you who hate child support look at the entire situation as being the father vs the mother. Some how....and I have no idea how this is even possible...you forgot that it is not just about the mother and the father. It is about the mother, the father, AND THE CHILD!

Child support is indeed outdated, but only in one way. That is, there is not nearly enough enforcement to ensure that the court ordered child support gets paid and too many loopholes to avoid it. The only person getting the short stick here is the kid who is 100% innocent.

I also find it funny that a certain trend I identify is that those who complain about child support also tend to be the same people who cry and argue about personal/fiscal responsibility in America all of the time. You guys are nothing but a hypocritical joke.

lol, it's hilarious when people like you are so blinded you post without actually trying to understand things. The premise here is "choice". And IF you go on with that premise - statements like mine and the OP's aren't hypocritical at all - especially when we(atleast I) haven't agreed to the "choice" premise being the correct thing. You see, "choice" is cover for only one side's responsibility so if one side can absolve themselves - why not the other?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Because the final target is the welfare of the child.

That is where the responsibilities should be directed toward

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: 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.

Question: if the father can declare that they wanted an abortion and not be responsible for the resultant offspring, how does that affect any responsibility beforehand with regards to birth control methods available to men? (examples include condoms, vasectomies, or even (gulp) a pill to reduce sperm count...)

This is no different than if a woman's choice is considered the abortion, and not the conception.

 

[imported_Lothar]

Originally posted by: 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?

My opinion is this...
If they both agree to abort the child, then abort the child.
If the father wants to abort but the mother doesn't, then save the child.
If the mother wants to abort but the father doesn't, then see line above.
If they both agree not to abort the child, then don't abort.

What's so hard about that?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Lothar

Originally posted by: 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?

My opinion is this...
If they both agree to abort the child, then abort the child.
If the father wants to abort but the mother doesn't, then save the child.
If the mother wants to abort but the father doesn't, then see line above.
If they both agree not to abort the child, then don't abort.

What's so hard about that?

That'd be fine.

Yet that is not the case.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Xavier434
As usual, the majority of the problems with these kinds of arguments revolves around the fact that those of you who hate child support look at the entire situation as being the father vs the mother. Some how....and I have no idea how this is even possible...you forgot that it is not just about the mother and the father. It is about the mother, the father, AND THE CHILD!

Child support is indeed outdated, but only in one way. That is, there is not nearly enough enforcement to ensure that the court ordered child support gets paid and too many loopholes to avoid it. The only person getting the short stick here is the kid who is 100% innocent.

I also find it funny that a certain trend I identify is that those who complain about child support also tend to be the same people who cry and argue about personal/fiscal responsibility in America all of the time. You guys are nothing but a hypocritical joke.

lol, it's hilarious when people like you are so blinded you post without actually trying to understand things. The premise here is "choice". And IF you go on with that premise - statements like mine and the OP's aren't hypocritical at all - especially when we(atleast I) haven't agreed to the "choice" premise being the correct thing. You see, "choice" is cover for only one side's responsibility so if one side can absolve themselves - why not the other?

Like the choice you made to have sex?

No sir. I am talking personal responsibility and generally being a decent parent when faced with a difficult position where you and the mother just don't work out. You know what you are getting into before you get into her. Afterward, you may have to make the choice about whether or not you are willing to support your own child. He/she still has needs whether you believe you were unfairly stuck in a position with or without a "choice".

So, what are you going to do? Personally, I would do whatever I could do at that point which will increase the chances at making my child's life better. That's taking responsibility. Your ethical argument about choice completely fails in comparison to the importance of the welfare of your own child. What man in their right mind would think otherwise?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Because the final target is the welfare of the child.

That is where the responsibilities should be directed toward

There are other interests in the world besides the interests of children, such as the interests of adults (which almost all children will become eventually).

If there interests of children proceed other interests then why don't we increase taxes by 50% and use that money to provide better schools and better housing and childcare for poor children? Could it be that there are other important interests that our society and laws need to uphold?

One of the problems with the "for the children" argument is that it's possible to "for the children" yourself into outright communism.

At issue here is who ultimately bares the responsibility for a child in a situation where abortion is legal and available and affordable and where the biological father has offered to pay more than enough money to provide for an abortion. The "interest of the child" argument completely and conveniently ignores that issue.

 

[ruu]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Because the final target is the welfare of the child.

That is where the responsibilities should be directed toward

There are other interests in the world besides the interests of children

Not to mention that if one were to really put the child's interests first, abortion would end up being completely illegal....

 

[bozack]

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.

I wouldn't be averse to some type of change, especially given as you said that now abortion is a legal option.

But don't expect anything to change in our lifetime that is for sure.

 

[manlymatt83]

Originally posted by: 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.

YUP