Welcome to Gaia! ::

I'm not saying its equal, but its certainly not equal to make him abide by her choice, just like it wouldn't be fair for a woman to have to abide by a mans choice. Your mom chose to keep you and it should then be her responsibility to raise you. It appears your father has made his contribution in a manner that was acceptable to either your mother or the law, whatever, but in the end, did he make that choice? Probably not, the choice was made for him, just like if we were told we don't have the choice to not have a child. If a woman cannot handle having a child on her own, then she should consider the other options, such as abortion, adoption, etc. This is what we fight for, the option to choose. I don't see why a man can't choose for himself.


And this precisely why he should have the option to choose. A child should never be used as a trap.

Thats kind of what I'm saying. I don't think a man should have to support a child in any way if he does not want to be a father. That yeah, they kind of sign something that states the father has no legal obligation to that child. I just kind of see it like, if a woman wants a child & goes to a sperm bank instead of the usual method, then should the anonymous sperm donor be responsible? Thats all I'm saying. If a woman chooses to have a child, out of wedlock or a relationship/mutual agreement, then she should be prepared to do it herself, not rely on some man who obviously doesn't want to help her anyways. Its less stress emotionally in some ways, and while yeah, it will put more stress due to financial woes, maybe she should have thought of that before hand.

It's not, and I should have clarified. This was brought about by a topic I saw on another forum about how the man should always pay child support. Which irks me because 1. He might not be able to afford it, and 2. It implies that women need a man's money to raise a child (because we know women can never, ever make enough on their own to do so rolleyes ).

This can easily be flipped: A woman decides to give birth and instead of putting the child up for adoption, leaves it in the care of the father who wants to raise it. I don't think she should be taken to court and forced to pay, either.



That's pretty much what I'm going for. In a perfect world, she wouldn't have to by herself--I believe the government should provide help for parents who struggle to provide necessities for their children, but if she chooses to keep the baby and raise it on her own, why drag in a man who will probably grow to resent the kid and the mother for making him pony up every month?

Right now a homeless man is dying in the cold, starving and longing for warmth/shelter/food. Are you obligated to have your paycheck cut into every month to care for him? No. You have no obligation to this person who is, for all intents and purposes, a complete stranger. Our society may have a responsibility to him, but you... the individual... have no duty to this specific person.

It is the same with a man who is biologically related to a child. There is no duty or obligation for that specific man to care for that specific child. He may pay in the end via higher taxes, since it is our society's obligation to care for children, but unless someone can demonstrate where this obligation of financial duty comes from for the one specific man, I don't see why it should exist.


Every choice is coerced and forced. How many women say they would abort because of financial issues or academic issues? Does this mean the government should give every woman who gets knocked up a house, a car, and a free education... such that her choice to abort or give birth isn't coerced/compelled by her surroundings? No. She is not entitled to a house, a car, or any of the plethora of other goods she may desire before her choice to abort would not be 'coerced' based on her environment.

Well why then is a woman entitled to a man's salary because her environment is such she is compelled to abort? A woman may need a house, a car, or a plethora of other items before her choice to abort is not 'coerced' by her surroundings, but she is not entitled to have them, and she is definately not entitled to have them at the expense of someone else's freedom and financial liberty.

Again, I'm not seeing where there is any obligation on the man a priori to care for the woman or her child because he consented to sex (and only sex). Saying a man should pay for a woman's child because he consented to sex with her makes as much sense to me as saying he should be required to buy her a car or a house because he consented to sex with her.

Precisely why I support a system of assessing a man's income instead of mandatory minimums.


In the context of the argument, the woman can't raise the child on her own. It's hard as it is for dual-income families nowadays to maintain a life where they're not living on a hand-to-mouth basis.


Unless the father is actually refusing support from her, I think she should pay as well. If a woman divorces her husband and leaves him as the custodial parent, that still doesn't make her child any less hers and it certainly doesn't make the child's needs disappear.


Except this isn't a perfect world, and a child's needs are far more important than the circumstances he/she was born under, or an adult's temper tantrum. If parental resent was a valid excuse for letting a child go hungry and cold, there'd be a lot of dead kids right now.


Fatherhood implies parenting of some sort, and forking over some money each month doesn't make anyone a father in my eyes. Perhaps a father/parent in the biological egg-fertilizing sense, but as a guardian or caregiver? No. He is not being made to live with the child, feed the child, clothe the child, clean up the child's bodily wastes, pay for the majority of the child's expenses, and deal with everything that a custodial parent has to do on a daily basis. He can do whatever the hell he wants for the rest of his life.

Since when is this about depriving a choice or forcing? Since when is forcing a woman to go through an unwanted medical procedure tantamount to making a parent do what they're supposed to do? Short of a sex change, you can't change the difference in biology and the accompanying difference in obligations. Men cannot get pregnant, and thus they cannot have a middle ground to choose from. But this means they do not run the risk of dropping out of school, getting fired, getting dumped, being abused or killed because they are pregnant, falling ill from various pregnancy side effects, paying half a grand for an abortion, paying several times that amount for prenatal care and birth, or dying from the pregnancy/birth itself. Women acknowledge the physical and financial risks of aborting or giving birth when they have sex, so why is it so much to ask for a man to acknowledge dealing with an aborted fetus or the financial risks of paying child support when they have sex?

Basically, the whole defense centers around "OMG, I don't have a uterus so I can't choose from a middle ground." That's like me saying "OMG, I don't have a p***s so I can't knock up people and run away." Neither party is being somehow oppressed because they were born a certain way.


People keep going on about how this isn't a perfect world, as if that's justification for letting shitty things run its course. The system simply protects the people who needs the most protecting. Children who get shortchanged by sadistic parents have a lot more to lose than men who are lied to by sadistic women. Women who get fed lies about how the guy will stick around also have a lot to lose when they're left pregnant.

Even "sadistic" women who lie to men have something to lose because they're still paying for their own pregnancies, paying for their own births, paying to have the guy taken to court, and if it turns out that he doesn't make enough or that he successfully skipped town without a trail, she gets nothing. If she does win the case, she can't determine the amount she gets because the judge allots the payment according to his paycheck. Men who ******** and run, however, get off scot-free in terms of consequences and have nothing to lose.

I know plenty of people who would not be here without child support (regardless of which parent it was from), and they would split themselves laughing at the thought of living expenses being "sadistic."

Before anyone jumps up to do that "you said consequence, you're talking like a lifer!" thing that some people like to do around here - think about the pro-choice response when pro-lifers talk about dealing with the consequences of sex. Having an abortion is just as much of a consequence of sex as giving birth, so what's with the outrage about having men deal with consequences of sex through child support payments?


I thought this was the pro-choice guild. Why are you comparing a fetus to a child? Do I really need to highlight the differences between an insentient lump of cells that has no right to live inside of you, as opposed to a born child with specific needs and the right to a basic standard of living? In today's society, child > biological parent, period. Women don't get to skip out on child support just because they're women.

People have emotional reactions to paying taxes for things they don't like, like war and welfare. I hardly consider this to be any sort of emotional dilemma, especially when that shaky line of reasoning can be used to say "the guy has an emotional strain because of abortions, don't let the girl abort!" What a person "feels" by paying money (which doesn't even come close to what it means to actually raise a child) is nothing comparable to what someone feels from an unwanted abortion, and it's certainly not comparable to what a child will go through if they're not afforded the basic necessities in life. You're still comparing a woman's body to a man's finances.


One of the most important philosophies of this guild is "pro-woman, pro-child, pro-choice." Not "pro-woman and pro-child, but only if the guy wants the kid." He can choose or choose not to be a father by:

a) having sex with women who clearly identify themselves to be childfree or infertile if he does not want children in the mean time

b) having sex with women who agree to having a child in the event of a pregnancy if he does not believe in abortion

c) having a vasectomy if he does not want children, ever. It is cheaper and safer compared to a tubal ligation, consider that it is outpatient surgery. More doctors are willing to sterilize men than women at an earlier age.

d) not having sex at all, if he cannot handle all of the above

Telling a woman that she has to get an abortion because the father doesn't approve is nothing short of anti-choice. Just because the choice is there doesn't mean she has to take it for someone else's benefit. Otherwise, it completely undermines the concept of bodily integrity, undermines the choices of those who would only give birth in the event of an unintended pregnancy, and undermines the idea of being able to choose for yourself.

People are making it sound like he's capable of being pregnant and women are trying to force him to to have a kid. The reality is, he can only make the choice before conception, not after. Pregnancy and bodily integrity obviously do not apply to someone without a uterus, and he has no right to interfere with a woman's reproductive decisions just because he's sore about not having the right kind of plumbing.


If a parent was to throw out his/her child in the cold the same way, they'd be arrested and charged. Yes, parent means both mother and father. A woman who has given birth has an obligation to provide a basic standard of living to her child, just as men do. If women can be charged for throwing her newborn in a dumpster and be ordered to pay child support as a non-custodial parent, then obviously, the same legal standard applies to men as well. You may think that DNA doesn't link you to parental responsibility, but you're flat-out denying the legality of the situation.

Until there are such government programs to take care of unwanted children in society without separating them from their parents, child support is necessary.


You're making government assistance sound so far-fetched when there is no point. There are government programs in place to subsidize rent, education, medical expenses, groceries, etc. for pregnant women, although they're small in number. Providing things like cars and entire houses are impossible and I've never even seen anyone advocate them. But if being pro-choice is all about respecting women to make medical decisions without being coerced/forced, then I don't see why it's so ridiculous to reduce the need for abortions that are performed out of financial need as reality permits. Complete reproductive freedom is not an entitlement. Child support is not an entitlement. Those two things are basic living needs.


She's not. The judge-determined amount of the man's salary goes to the child because he/she has a right not to go hungry and filthy, just as the woman must use her own income to support both herself and the child as a custodial parent. The child is not limiting the woman's freedom or financial liberty by the virtue of existing, nor is he/she doing the same to the man.

There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. Food, clothing, shelter, and a non-abusive environment are basic rights for children. It's quite obvious that a woman can't be given things you randomly brought up, but that doesn't justify forced/coerced abortions because a few hundred dollars can make all the difference. Why should a woman have to compromise her bodily integrity for someone else's discontent?


He's not obligated to care for the woman, he's obligated to care for his child like any other parent. The point is that a child's needs do not go away because someone did not want them.

C&Ped:

My point can basically be summed up as this:

It is punishing a woman to force her to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

It is punishing a woman to force her to raise a child she doesn't want.

And, it is punishing a man by forcing him to pay child support for a child he doesn't want anything to do with.

I believe that punishing people for having sex and getting pregnant is wrong. Therefore, I believe all of the above examples are wrong to do.

Yes!

Like abortion, this problem would largely solve itself, were there less inhibitors to prevent people (men and women) from safe easy access to contraceptions and the knowledge on how to use them. There would always be a need for abortion (and in my idealized world a way for the man to reject parental obligation), but the numbers that need these options can be decreased so much!

You keep saying that just because he's paying money doesn't make him a father. But thats untrue. Having any kind of involvement in the childs life makes him a father, even if its just monetarily. Granted, it doesn't make him a good father, but it makes him involved, and makes him a "provider" in one sense or another.

Sure, you keep saying that people should only have sex with people that share their ideas about abortion/pregnancy/children/etc, and that we should encourage more responsible relationships. While I somewhat agree, who are we to tell people how to conduct their sex lives. Besides the fact that many children are born out of heat of the moment/not thinking straight situations anyways. Realistically is one of the partners going to stop & go "Wait, if we get pregnant, what is the course of action you would want to take?" Pro-choice means that people have the power to choose, not just women. And that choice includes not forcing life changes on people that don't want them. You keep saying that a woman can't support a child on her own. I beg to differ, but if she really is in a situation that she needs financial help from someone else (and no one else is willing to step up like family, friends, what have you) then she really should reevaluate raising the child. Either an abortion or adoption are options in that situation. Or prepare to deal with those hardships herself. If she wants the man to be financially responsible, then she should listen to how he feels about the manner, not just ignore how he feels. Just because he doesn't go through the physical pain and stress does not mean that this child has no effect on his life, and if that is not an effect he wants, then there is no reason it should be forced on him. If he makes the decision during the same time that a woman would make a decision to get an abortion, its not about a child. If he tells the woman no, I don't want a kid, then she should take that into consideration, not just go foward without any consideration to his life. I'm not saying she should be forced to get an abortion or what have you, but it should definetly be a factor in her decision. Just because she wants a kid, why should that force someone else to have a kid? Thats like saying if the man wanted a kid but the woman wanted an abortion, why should she be forced to have it for him? The path to the child might be different for the two of them, but the results are the same, one parent does not want that kid.

Bottom line is that no one should be forced to take care of a kid they don't want. Thats why abortion and adoption are options.
I would put it akin to the father putting the kid up for adoption. Except the mother keeps it anyways.