Welcome to Gaia! ::

This is where I'm having a hard time with your view. So a woman can, basically, have sex with whomever she wants, because she can choose to abort, keep the child, put it up for adoption, what have you. But a man can only have sex with a woman if he gets a vasectomy, finds a woman who he wants to raise a child with, finds a woman who will abort if she conceives, or finds an infertile woman?

That's pretty ******** up.

A woman can dump a child into the adoption system after birthing it because she can't afford to raise it, but a man can't opt out of child support?

That's also pretty ******** up.

I'm very pro-choice. Abort for whatever reason, keep it for whatever reason. I wouldn't be surprised if you held those views.

However, the situations you posted above, and the views you hold towards child support, I feel, are anti-man. I believe it is punishing a man for having sex, yet wanting to be childless, and free of all duties and responsibilities that come along with a child. I'm sure you would disagree with that assertion, but that is how it is being presented.

And what you think it ought to be conflicts with the basic principles of pro-choice, whether it be a woman's choice to abort or have a child.


If every child should be a wanted child, then why do you advocate measures that would prevent a wanted pregnancy from continuing, or prevent a mother from taking better care of her wanted child? And that's exactly my point. Even if you do not want DNA to associate you with a child, you're still obligated to place him/her at a safe location because you are its default guardian with legal obligations at birth. A complete denial of DNA connection would allow you to abandon him/her to die like a homeless person, which would no court would uphold. Society operates on the basis of family, child protection, and personal responsibility. A child is considered a protected dependent, which is why both parents are expected to do their part in the event of a live birth. This has nothing to do with a fetus, as it falls within a woman's right to exercise bodily integrity.

You can argue all you want how it ought to be, but society is always going to protect those who need the most protecting. The laws allow choice on male parenthood by giving unmarried birth fathers to contest adoptions if their names are on putative fathers' registries, or their children's birth certificates (meaning no parental rights are legally forfeited, and the father can gain custody and child support). This is out of concern for the children involved and the need to have less wards of the state. This means that they're more likely to favour keeping parents and children together as a functioning unit than to concede to one parent's money-based objections. A mother's refusal to get an abortion does not justify child deprivation, a divorce does not justify child deprivation, and the lack of uteruses for fathers does not justify child deprivation. The fact that one parent is incapable of gestating unborn life does not take away from the needs of born children. When you cannot control a pregnancy, there is no capacity (or point) to dwell on choices that do not exist. As I've repeated many times by now, women acknowledge the physical and financial risks of sex, pregnancy, abortion and birth. There is no reason why men should feel left out about weighing their own non-bodily risks when it comes to sex. Unless child support payments develop into a phenomenon where the man is in danger of disability and death from gestating large sums of money in his body and painfully expelling it later, his stake is not remotely comparable.


Which completely contradicts your paragraph below.


So a pregnant woman should be able to receive help from the government, but she's not entitled to anything? That's like saying society has no responsibility to provide discounted birth control, sexual health services, or abortion access because being compelled to give birth does not justify any claims to burden-reducing resources. Exactly what is the point of advocating "betterment" if you're denying her government aid and child support payments? If there is no recourse available for her, then the only other option is to place the child up for adoption. Hence, why I mentioned the need to have children taken care of without being separated from their parents. This defeats the entire purpose of defending a woman's right to be a mother.


Already addressed.


Actually, we do. It's called the foster care system. The strangers are checked out for competence and such, but they do not get to choose their foster children and vice versa. I suppose the same goes for adoptions as well.


But we do enforce parental responsibility on directly related biological offspring. Even then, a child's other living relatives will be the first ones contacted for placement if his/her parents are deceased/unfit to maintain custody. Society puts a clear emphasis on DNA, and it's not going away any time soon.


So did the woman. That doesn't mean that he can suddenly say "I'm not consenting for you to be pregnant!" in the event of unprotected sex or contraceptive failure. He can't control anyone else's biological processes, and he can't change the fact that a child is a living, breathing being with the right to food, shelter, clothing, etc. as anyone else. That's a part of having to deal with non-bodily consequences when it comes to sex, as opposed to the bodily integrity issues that a woman faces. Just as women who are afraid of physical and financial commitments (whether it be abortion or birth) should not have sex, men who are afraid of financial commitments should not have sex.


A child does not cease to be a child because you want them to be a stranger. The reality of the situation clearly connects him/her by DNA to the egg of the mother and the sperm of the father. You may think that there is no point to functional family units (as "stranger" and "child" are interchangeable to you), but the current foster system has enough unwanted kids as it is. Mass institutionalization is also not a viable solution. You do not think people are entitled to government help, as do many others. As it stands, the child support system and upholding the idea of DNA connections are the only ways to make sure kids are being taken care of by the people who had a hand in their existence. The "my body" argument no longer applies when the fetus is no longer inside anyone's uterus, and the "my money" argument certainly does not apply to a woman's choice to undergo a medical procedure.


Regardless of what you believe, there's a stark difference between bodily rights and non-bodily rights. So far, a child's right to be fed, clothed, washed, housed, etc. outweigh the relative amount of money that comes out of a man's paycheck, nor is it on the same level as stealing someone's kidneys. A child cannot hold a job, let alone make any self-sustaining decision for him/herself. Being a dependent and a minor does not make them special, it only makes them vulnerable compared to their adult counterparts. They are not being afforded some sort of privilege by receiving necessities. Unless a man is on the level of a helpless, jobless dependent with no means to take care of himself from paying child support, his basic rights are not being violated.


Once again, people are equating bodily integrity to basic parental responsibility. The former applies because women have no duty to keep anyone or anything alive in their bodies. The latter applies to any parent of any gender. It is not punishment to provide for a child that dares to exist as a separate entity like anyone else in society. It is not punishment to point out the painfully obvious differences in male and female anatomy, and why different stakes exist for those who can get pregnant and those who can't get pregnant.

C&Ped:

Unless child support payments develop into a phenomenon where the man is in danger of disability and death from gestating large sums of money in his body and painfully expelling it later, his stake is not remotely comparable.

It seems like people are brushing off the female's stake in the matter just because the option for abortion is there. Just because it's there does not mean the woman has to choose it. There are women out there who refuse to entertain the idea of abortion, which is the whole point of being pro-choice. The man should be well aware of this, just as a woman should realize that she will have to cover the costs of pregnancy and birth alone, as well as the majority of childrearing expenses as the custodial parent. Both parties should consider contraceptive failure, as having used protection is not an excuse to deny support to any resulting children.


What do these non-custodial parents want, a pat on the back for doing the bare minimum of what's expected of them?


The fact that people are ignorant does not mean it's okay to foster said ignorance. Who are we do tell people to put on seat belts or not drive drunk. It's their lives! But wait, unsafe sex and a lack of communication can affect more than the two people involved. They can spread STDs, they can have unwanted children they can't care for, and it'll only create the needless drama that this thread stands to exemplify.


I must not be living in reality then, because I discussed all the possible scenarios and birth control options with my partner before we even had sex. The horror!


Wait, when did pro-choice stop applying to abortion and start applying to s**t that has nothing to do with people's bodies? If you want some sort of all-encompassing pro-choice movement where people do whatever they want without consideration for their parental responsibilities, taxes, conservation laws, or whatever "life changes" they feel like whining about, knock yourself out. But don't assume that a specific political movement based on protecting a woman's reproductive rights can just lose its original definition and goals based on someone else's random applications.


You have yet to answer this.

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." 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.

Obviously, abortion and adoption are no longer options for her if she's already sticking with birth. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with being able to choose as pro-choice permits? It's like telling a woman to give birth against her will because hubby's got a terribly low sperm count and not being able have kids of his own will be a drastic "life change." We get appalled at the thought of forced birth and having to deal with an outsider's interference, but not when a forced abortion/adoption is involved?


You're just repeating why she should abort/adopt out without explaining why her bodily integrity should be compromised for someone else's finances. If a dying person isn't good enough of a case to overturn the established protection on bodily integrity, then what makes you think monetary reasons are good enough? She is dealing with the majority of the hardships as the custodial parent. She's not asking for a chunk of flesh from his chest, she's asking for the amount as the judge will deem. How exactly will this child affect his life if he doesn't even have to see him/her? Do I need to outline again the difference in stakes that men and women have when it comes to sex, because they obviously don't happen to have the same reproductive organs?


Well, no s**t. That doesn't make the child any less real once it's born, now, does it? Nor does that respect the reproductive rights of a woman who doesn't want an abortion. Her uterus (or the rest of her body, for that matter) is not a cheap commodity to be compared with someone's wallet.


Oh, is she somehow shoving the fetus in his body and making him halve the burden of the pregnancy and birth? Newsflash: the only way for him to not have a kid is to force her into an abortion. If he's that adamant against having biological offspring, then he might as well go up and give her a nice kick to the stomach. You just proved my point as to why your solution takes away from a woman's right to decide whether she wants to be a mother or not. If this is just about the money itself, then he's nowhere close to doing the things that a custodial parent wil do. So one parent does not want the kid. What, does half of the kid disappear so people don't have to look after it as much?

As for the "path" bit, it's nothing that a C&P can't answer:

When you cannot control a pregnancy, there is no capacity (or point) to dwell on choices that do not exist. As I've repeated many times by now, women acknowledge the physical and financial risks of sex, pregnancy, abortion and birth. There is no reason why men should feel left out about weighing their own non-bodily risks when it comes to sex. Unless child support payments develop into a phenomenon where the man is in danger of disability and death from gestating large sums of money in his body and painfully expelling it later, his stake is not remotely comparable.


Because aborting, keeping the child as a custodial parent, or putting the child up for adoption are such easy choices, right? rolleyes I mean, having to pay for her choices with her health and finances means she can totally have indiscriminate sex, because it's just that easy to cough up $500 to have a vacuum inserted into your v****a, or going through a 9-month period of dealing with lost income, stacking expenses, halted social mobility, various medical ailments, etc. followed by having to expel an entire infant out of a small orifice, and/or abandoning your child via adoption although you can still be required to have the birth father's consent. Gee, where have I heard this "pro-choice = easy way out" insinuation thing before?

And what's wrong with seeking out people with whom you share common lifestyles? You seem outraged at the idea of telling a childfree man to have a vasectomy, or find someone who is infertile. Despite preconceived notions, many, if not most women do not go out of their way to be man-baiting single mothers. Given the rate of poverty in this demographic, they don't exactly make a fast living off lying about birth control and taking in what little child support payments they can get. So if it's expected that women like to seek out partners who would stick around for a child, then what's wrong with expecting the same with reversed genders?


As I said before; if the birth father's name is on the putative father's registry, or the child's birth certificate, he can contest the adoption and no parental rights are legally forfeited. This means he can win custody and get the birth mother to pay child support, shock and awe. What's even more amazing is that neither parties can opt out of child support. Remember, it's a dual responsibility to keep those pesky kids alive.


You might as well be consistent and say child support is anti-parent, because it isn't just the man having to take on the oh-so evil responsibilities of keeping a kid alive. Like I said, a man can't be childless unless he makes his partner abort. If he realizes that he can't meddle with someone's pregnancy, realizes that both parents in any situation are legally bound to any live child, and realizes that he has different stakes when it comes to sex, then I don't see why it's so anti-p***s to say that he should think twice before proceeding with a matter that can affect his finances. It's not anti-v****a to say that a woman should consider the physical and financial risks of an abortion or birth before she has sex. It is, however, ridiculous to claim that protecting one's bodily integrity is on par with monthly bill payments. The mere existence of abortion should not fool anyone into thinking that a woman will always exercise that right at the drop of a hat.

For all the horrors of the adoption system that people like to emphasize, I've noticed how they're not that hung up on throwing in more kids when a bitchy parent is concerned. Funny how things work out.

Bullshit. I'm equating punishment to punishment. This issue has nothing to do with bodily integrity. It has everything to do with finances.



Except--it is if you are forced to do so against your will.



Except in the case of adoption, right? Or should that not be allowed?

Really, why is it all right for a parent to forego financial responsibility if adoption is the case, but not in the case of one parent wanting to keep the child, but not the other?



Did I say they were? Of course they aren't.



So, before sex, even one-night-stands and/or casual hook-ups, they should sit down and talk for about the "what-if"'s of what they're about to do? Just as consent to sex =/= consent to pregnancy, consent to sex =/= consent to becoming a parent.



Because it is HIS body, and he shouldn't have to unless he wants to. Or, he might not like the idea of invasive procedures. Or, he just might not be able to afford it.



And I’m saying it shouldn’t be if they don’t volunteer or agree for it to be that way. Otherwise, it IS a punishment.



And, as I am solely referring to the financial respects of raising a kid: Why does the man only have to think twice before sex? Should a man, if he doesn’t want to risk becoming a father and paying child support, not have sex?

I really hope that’s not what you’re saying, as it’s pretty much equivalent to the stance many lifers have of “Don’t want kids? Don’t have sex!”



Show me where I said that. This whole time, in every instance of my posting and examples I have given regarding this, I have been referring SOLEY to the FINANCIAL problems and issues that come along with pregnancy, birthing, and child rearing.

Really, stop putting words into my mouth, and dragging that argument into this. This is about finances. Period.



I don’t think the adoption system is perfect, or even great. It needs a lot of work. However, if people don’t want to be a parent, they should not be forced into that role, or anything else that comes along with it. The adoption system is there for those people that agreed to go through the pregnancy, but didn’t want to keep the kid. Adoption is there for people that didn’t birth the kid, but don’t want the kid.

And calling parents “bitchy” for trying to protect their finances? That’s awfully low.

No. They want the option to decide not to be a parent. Not a pat on the back.



Yeah, I'm not disagreeing that people should be more responsible. Hell, I wish they would! But its just a product of other unrelated things like poor sex-ed, and backwards ideals in churches & families. "Don't talk about sex and it will never happen." I consider myself a rarity as I've only slept w/ 3 people in my whole life and thats a surprisely low number compared to a lot of the people I know. But its still not for me to tell them what to do with their sex lives. I can advise about the dangers of promiscuity and tell them to be safe, but in the end that is their decision. No matter how much I encourage responsible behaviour, they have to decide whether or not to be so. And yeah, it is the same idea as drunk driving or seatbelts. But in the end it usually can only be enforced after the fact. By then its too late.



And I'm not talking about a committed situation. I also discussed all these possibilities before having sex with anyone, but I am not someone that chooses to be promiscuous (sp?). I'm saying, in the heat of a (and I am not condoning this action, but IT HAPPENS) drunk or horny moment, is someone really going to stop everything and ask how the other person feels about possible impregnation? Sure it would be GREAT if they did. But its just not realistic.


You might have a point then. But I had thought that pro-choice had moved beyond that. I am mistaken then. But it doesn't change how I feel about the matter. I feel that people have a right to choose parenthood or no parenthood. But women do not only make the decision to abort based on bodily integrity. They make that decision for a myriad of other reasons most time. So while that may be why they have that right, its not the only reason the decision is made. And we don't tell women that abort because of financial or never wanting kids reasons that they can't abort.



I'm not telling her that she has to get an abortion if the guy doesn't want the kid. But I think she should then be prepared to face this task on her own, since she is obviously making that decision on her own. Which does NOT have to do with bodily intergrity. If she is hurting so bad for money in the first place and wants to raise this kid, is some measely child support check really going to cover what she needs?


Paying child support for a child you don't see doesn't affect your life? I beg to differ. If someone, like myself, barely gets by from paycheck to paycheck, how am I going to get by if some child that I have no affection or real connection but DNA to is taking money out of my paycheck every week. Sure, the judge will "assess" how much money is appropriate due to how much I make. But in my experience the govt really has no idea how much money it really takes to get by, especially in my experience with my parents & I trying to get me financial aid when I went to school.



No reason to get rude, and no, it doesn't. But once the child is born, its not about the woman's uterus anymore either. Its about her poor wallet and his poor wallet. But the difference here is that she chose to have this drain on her wallet, with no consideration of what the man wants. I just don't agree with the idea of being able to force this on someone else if they didn't do anything to deserve this "punishment." In just about any other scenario when a judge requires someone to pay someone else money in payments or whatever, its because that person did something wrong, like damaged someones property or body or life. Sex is not something to be punished. The man did nothing wrong. He agreed to sex, and he gets a fine for the next 18 years because of that.



No, it does not take away her right. And I never said he should be able to force an abortion. But you just stated its about her decision to be a mother or not. Why does the father not have the decision whether to be a father or not? The difference here is that if the woman still decided to go through with the birth, but then decides to give it up for adoption, she NEVER HAS TO SEE IT AGAIN. She doesn't have to pay child support, she doesn't have to do a thing. But if the father wanted that and the mother insists on keeping it, then why is the father bound by the mothers decisions?


I think you've missed what she was saying. If a man doesn't want a child yet, but does later, a vasectomy is NOT a viable option. And as far as infertile women, is he supposed to ask every chick he picks up at a bar, or if he's not that kind of guy, every girl he takes on a date that could turn into sex later, "oh by the way, are you infertile?" Thats just unreasonable. And really, is every woman out on a date or in a bar going to say "Would you like to have children, even if illegitimately?" Thats silly. And no, its not a particularly lucrative way to live, having kids & getting child support, but it doesn't mean that women out there don't do it. Don't lie about being infertile thinking they can trap a man into their life an never be alone again because they have a baby. Obviously they have other issues that need working out, but that doesn't mean they aren't out there. I know guys that have been responsible, used a condom, had a woman DIG THE CONDOM OUT OF THE TRASH just so they can have a baby. Are you telling me that guy now has to pay for 18 years of child support?? Thats RIDICULOUS. Its not his fault, he did what he was supposed to and believed her when she said she was either infertile or on the pill (I can't remember which).


Its not evil Thats not what we're saying. It is anti-men tho to force them to make a sacrifice if they did nothing wrong here. I agree that both women and men need to be in control of their fertility & contraception, but since women get control of their parenthood, why doesn't a man? Its because of things like child support and women who drag men into it that many men resent children or every starting their own families. It makes men feel like they have no control over their parenthood, and its because they don't. I simply feel that is unfair.

Editted to add: This is not however the same as a divorce/split situation where a couple splits after raising a child together. At this point the father is responsible and cannot drop those responsibilities. I don't think that those kind of men should get out of it.

that's pretty much my stance on the subject. if a woman can fork the kid over to the adoption system and never have to pay a dime, why can't the man? well, of course he wouldn't be giving it up for adoption, but it's the same concept.

as for giving parents money, i'm a little iffy on that subject. something about it bothers me, but i can't put my finger on it.

I would think that if the couple were married when the baby was born or conceived that it would be different than if the parents were never a couple but the child a product of a one night fling. However, a cut off is a necessary requirement. As long as the mother did in fact give notice to the father, I would think that by the mid point maybe. I'm not too sure on this, to be honest. I do think a cut off would be necessary. But it would require that the mother notify him, if the mother doesn't notify him until after the child is born and then goes after for child support, I think he has an oppurtunity to opt out then also. Not as long, but you get the idea.

I agree with you.

It's more like denying his contribution to the situation, denying the pregnancy, and expecting her to abort or adopt out. Which is precisely the problem here, because it goes against the core of free choice. We always say that a man should think before having sex and expecting his partner to have a child, because it is her body despite whatever losses he will face. Why doesn't the same principle apply if he does not want to become a father to an unwanted child?


You're still comparing abortion to a loss of finances. Terminating a pregnancy is not even close to terminating a financial contract. Did I somehow miss the memo about how abortion no longer involves the woman's body? exclaim

You are being punished if you are being forced to abort, give birth, have sex, donate bodily resources, or anything that involves a bodily intrusion because your body is irrevocable. It is the one thing that no authority can ever take away.

Your money on the other hand, is not. Otherwise, the government and various other institutions wouldn't have the right to tax/fine you ten ways from Sunday. You are not being punished for giving up a portion of your paycheck. Your money and your body are not protected by the same laws. It's like claiming that you're being punished for having to pay for someone's medical bills for an accident in which you had a part. Kind of hard to say punishment is punishment when they don't even involve the same kind of "oppression," now, does it?


You seem to have this idea that paying for s**t you don't like constitutes as "punishment" in a society that runs on bill payments and tax collection. The whole point of child support is that one parent has an obligation to help pay for their child, but they are still not responsible for the majority of childrearing expenses or any aspect of physical parenting. Hence, why they're being forced to pay. A mother is not being punished for paying child support for a kid she could not abort or give up for adoption. A father is not being punished for paying child support because he wasn't allowed to shoot his pregnant partner in the stomach, or was not able to contest an adoption. In either situation, there is something being "forced." Too bad "force" does not necessarily mean a violation of basic rights. If anything, the child is being punished for being born to poor and/or negligent parents. I would consider that to be a lot more serious than "omg, my money!"


Did you miss the part about how unmarried birth fathers can contest an adoption and take custody if their names are on the putative fathers' registry, or the child's birth certificate? Once again, no parents are allowed to forgo financial responsibility if:

a) the mother still has to pay for prenatal care, birth, and the majority of the childrearing costs as the custodial parent
b) the father has to pay a portion out of his paycheck for the child, which only applies if he has expendable income
c) neither birth parents can throw a kid into the system without mutual consent, which allows for custody cases where the mother can be declared as the non-custodial parent paying child support

Mothers being able to skip out of financial responsibility? In their dreams.


So what's with comparing abortion as a purely money-based opt-out procedure? You and the others are basically saying that because a woman can opt out of pregnancy, a man can opt out of child support. Unless opting out or paying child support carries the same or greater amount of physical and financial risks as having an abortion or birth, the comparison fails on all accounts.


Well, I hope they don't have this same lax attitude about checking for STDs. rolleyes Is he prepared to accept the possibility of getting syphillis or a baby nine months down the line in exchange for a quick ********? No? Better hold off on the trou-dropping, then. Is she prepared to accept the possibility of an abortion or birth in exchange for a quick ********? No? Same applies to her.

You have the right to terminate or continue a pregnancy because it is your body at stake. What physical violation do you suffer from opting out of child support, or paying child support for that matter?


Being childfree is about never having biological offspring, in case you didn't know. This means a childfree woman will always abort and seek methods for permanent sterilization. A childfree man, by the same token, will never want his partner's pregnancy carried to term. A vasectomy is an outpatient procedure, which means it's far cheaper and less invasive. I have never met anyone who claimed to be childfree, only to get apprehensive at the idea of rendering themselves sterile. A childfree man getting offended at someone's suggestion of vasectomy is like a pro-lifer being offended at the idea of having kids. rofl


Sorry, I can't think of a single judge who would uphold the concept that paying for deprived kids is "punishment" when no other monetary payment in society can be construed as such. Either you have a right to all of your paycheck, or you don't.


I hope you're not applying the principles of pregnancy and bodily integrity for those who have no physical capacity for such things.

Don't want to have an abortion or birth? Don't have sex.

Don't want to deal with having your fetus aborted or paying child support? Don't have sex.

If you can't get pregnant, then obviously you're going to have to think about the possibilities before conception can take place.

If you can get pregnant, then obviously you're still going to have to think about the mountainload of s**t you'll have to deal with during and after the process. Or are we falling back into some sort of assumption that terminating and continuing an intended pregnancy are such easy choices, so that somehow justifies a man refusing to pay basic necessities for his child?


What's there to contradict? If you think that opting out of child support is the same thing as opting out of a pregnancy, then you are comparing a financial issue to a physical and financial issue. If you think that paying for an unwanted child is the same thing as being forced into a bodily violation, then you are comparing your money with her body. It's as simple as that.


I think you mean to say that abortion is there for people who didn’t birth the kid and didn't want the kid. Either way, it still fails to apply to women who wanted the kid and chose birth. Adoption is a solution for mutually unwanted parenting. Pro-choice debaters even emphasize the need not to throw more unwanted children into the system until it's fully fixed, but now we should consider throwing in children who are wanted just because their daddies don't care about them and their moms can't care for them? You can say you're not a parent until your face turns blue, but that child will always be there and he/she will be your responsibility. Your gender, your bitterness, and your non-existent right to hoard money do not trump over anyone's right to a basic standard of living. I have yet to hear any substantial reason as to why being a paying parent is a violation of one's rights. If a woman can't say "I don't want to pay for this kid" and chuck him/her into the system without the father's consent (especially when he can gain custody and child support), then what right does anyone else have?


Calling parents bitchy because they think their money trumps the needs of their child, who has committed the heinous crime of needing food, water, clothes, shelter, health care, an education, etc? Calling a spade a spade.


Unless they intend to kill their partner's fetus, they will always be parents in the biological and legal sense. Nor can women truly not be parents when the child they give up for adoption can be handed over to the birth father if there is written proof of his paternity. Once the fetus becomes a child, it's fair game for both genders. You can b***h, you can whine, you can fight all you want over custody but in the end, that child needs to be taken care of. Aborting is no way on par with opting out of parental obligations, simply because paying child support does not force you to keep an unwanted life inside of you. Your body is the one irrevocable thing that no authority can ever take away. Your money, however, does not qualify as the same kind of protected entity.


And regardless of how they chose to pursue sex, they are responsible for the welfare of any resulting biological child. It'd be ignorant for a woman to say "I didn't know I had to deal with abortion or birth if I had sex." It'd be equally ignorant for a man to say "I didn't know I had to deal with my partner having an abortion or a baby if I had sex." That ignorance does not justify child neglect or deprivation. If a woman chooses to have a child out of rape, out of contraceptive failure, or any other unintended pregnancy, she does not have any more right to abuse or deprive in any way due to the circumstances under which he/she was born. The same thing goes for the man.


Bodily integrity has no bearing on why the person is exercising that right. People choose not to donate their non-vital bodily resources for reasons ranging from religious objections to outright hatred for a dying relative, but that doesn't make the right to their body any less valid. Again, the rights that protect your body have nothing to do with protecting someone's finances. Men and women have a chance to choose their risks before having sex. Just because some women may re-evaluate their risks upon pregnancy does not mean she has to re-evaluate her risks and have her bodily integrity compromised. There are women out there who would never have an abortion, and this situation is nothing short of disrespect for her reproductive choices. If you cannot get pregnant and cannot change the outcome of a pregnancy, then obviously, you have a different starting line as to when you can make the choice not to be a parent.


If the decision involves her body, then it has everything to do with bodily integrity. Which is why terminating a pregnancy can never be the same as terminating a financial contract. Just as men who want kids should be aware that they cannot force a woman into birth, men who do not want kids should be aware that they cannot force a woman into an abortion. She is facing the task alone, as she is obviously the custodial parent who deals with the majority of expenses. A part of the risk of giving birth was that she would likely end up as such, but this does not mean she magically got pregnant on her own and it does not absolve anyone's responsibility in the matter. No party is getting off scot-free because a child has come into the world. If you think that a "measly child support check" really cannot make a difference in paying for things like diapers and medicine, then clearly, you do not know what it's like to be in that kind of state of dependence.


The rights of a child are considered far too important to base their treatment on parents who don't want to pay for their well-being. This is starkly different from parents who can't pay for a child's well-being. The system may be flawed at times, but the system also takes into account that taking care of children who don't even have the luxury of earning a paycheck is far more important than the "rights" of those who ********, run, and leave illegitimate children lying around. As long as society runs on the basis of lineage, inheritance, family/next of kin, and personal responsibility, DNA will always be significant. It may not matter once a child grows up and reaches the age of majority to work and fend for his/herself, but until then, that child cannot do anything to further his/her existence.


If I was being rude, I'd be calling you a variety of names right now. Expressing disdain for the situation is not rudeness.


Did she choose to have an unintended pregnancy? Did she choose contraceptive failure? Is choosing "the drain on her wallet" such a flighty decision if she considers abortion to be completely wrong for her, despite all the physical problems that come with pregnancy and birth? What he wants has nothing to do with a valid reproductive choice. Once again, I point to the different stakes that come with having male sex organs and the steps he can take to ensure what he wants is being granted.


The woman did nothing wrong by consenting to sex. She still has to pay for her own abortion, prenatal care, birth, and the majority of childrearing expenses. She still has to pay as a non-custodial parent if the birth father contests an adoption and gains custodial rights. This does not mean she is being punished, as those are the inevitable physical and financial risks that come with having a uterus. So why is the man being "punished" for dealing with the financial risks that come with having a p***s? If he realizes that he cannot interfere with a biological process that can bring his offspring into the world and realizes that both parents are bound to any born children they help create, then he should weigh his options accordingly before conception can take place. Consent to sex does not mean the magical disappearance of potentially harmful risks, regardless of which private parts you were born with.

If child support was supposed to be a fine, it wouldn't even take the man's financial situation into account and the money certainly wouldn't be going to the child. The money from a criminal proceeding does not ever go towards the victim unless the judges acts on special circumstances; that's what civil suits for. But paying to keep your child alive = punishment? Oh lord, the melodrama.


He does. He just doesn't have the power to interfere with a pregnancy that isn't his. A woman's refusal to be a mother results in a dead fetus that had no right to be inside of her in the first place. A man's refusal to be a father either results in a forced/coerced abortion, or a deprived child who cannot be held accountable for his/her own birth and existence. Bodily integrity and a child's right to a basic standard of living versus the non-existent right for a parent to abandon his/her child...I think this concept has been repeated enough times already.


See all that I've said about birth fathers, birth certificates, the putative fathers' registry, and the possibility of winning custody and child support from the mother. If the man has no legal right to contest the woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy, then what right does he have to contest about her decision to continue one? If he wants to choose what's right for him, then perhaps he should pick a window of opportunity that doesn't involve infringing on a woman's bodily rights and a child's rights.


And you missed the entire context of what I was saying to begin with. I clearly stated "having a vasectomy if he does not want children, ever." I think that kind of absolute wording is a fair indication of being childfree, no?


Slightly reworded C&P:

Silly because it's subjectively embarrassing, or silly because it's somehow illogical? If it's the former, I hope he doesn't have the same lax attitude about checking for STDs. rolleyes Is he prepared to accept the possibility of getting syphillis or a baby nine months down the line in exchange for a quick ********? No? Better hold off on the trou-dropping, then. Are those girls prepared to accept the possibility of an abortion or birth in exchange for a quick ********? No? Same applies to them.


If they used a condom, how do you know that it wasn't just the condom failing, as opposed to the incredibly unrealistic scenario of trying to impregnate yourself with rapidly dying sperm? Outside the human body, sperm cells can only live for an hour at the maximum. Inside a condom which is often lubricated with spermicide, which is in the process of drying out, which is inside a dirty inhospitable trash can, that time is drastically reduced; the few fertile days in a woman's menstrual cycle have to be taken into account as well. How do you know she was lying about being infertile or taking the pill? Can these cases be proven in a court of law?

This is why child support payments are the way they are. A child does not cease to be a member of society for being conceived under questionable circumstances, especially if those circumstances revolve around he-said she-said cases that just cannot be proven. This includes cases where a guy claims that he'd stick around for a child, only to run when she informs him of the pregnancy. I'd even wager that this happens far more than elaborate schemes where the woman tries to impregnate herself without her partner's approval, since she still loses quite a bit in this gamble. Men who walk out on pregnant women, however, lose nothing. Given the amount of unpaid child support payments, the parents who manage to disappear, and the rate of child poverty in North America (even when they're wanted by both parents), I'd say mere claims of "he/she did this/that" do not outweigh the needs of children who have no means to earn their own income.


The difference between terminating a pregnancy and terminating your obligations to a child has been outlined countless times. When the capacity to conceive and gestate a fetus applies only to one gender, then it's clear that the time frame to choose parenthood does not apply equally for men and women. To claim otherwise would be defying the limitations set out by one's natural biology. I could very well turn around that argument and say that the lack of child support makes women reluctant to start their own families, makes them resort to abortions they don't want, undermines the basic well-being of children, feeds the poverty rate, and ruins the claims of progress we have made as a supposedly first-world country. I find forced/coerced reproductive choices and deprived children to be a lot more repulsive than "my money!" When a 12-year old boy can die from a because routine dental care was too much for the family, it speaks volumes for the new lows and failures we've reached as a people.