If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice.Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child. The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that. This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter. That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair? As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc. This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible? Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort. Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law. Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll. If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.Thanks...
Pay up. I certainly shouldn't be the one who ends up reponsible for your actions.
The looming specter here is the child. Its opportunities can't be limited because of either of its parents' dysfunctionality.
It is sooo frustrating to see three of five posters not even address the OP properly. WHY?!?!?! ARGH!
If the woman is going to use the argument "my body, my choice" then the man should reply "your body, your responsibility".
Personally, I disagree with it being solely her choice. I feel that if the father wants the child then she should be obligated to give birth.
This is the problem... the last two posts. Neither of you are addressing the fact that she has the option to abort if she does not want to raise the child on her own.
The only issue is this: The child needs to be properly supported.
Well, if the woman cannot properly supprt the child on her own, she should abort. Why is this not acceptable? It is birth control. Nobody is forcing her to abort. She would be making a responsible decision rather than forcing you to support her through higher taxes.
Also, what is not being addressed are the men that are tricked into being fathers.
Sex is not all about having children and the man is not irresponsible if birth control fails.
Need a midol?
With the block of endless text that was your initial OP feel fortunate any of us even tried to read it.
The forum did not include my paragraphs. I went back and edited it after only two responses. And I am not actually frustrated... ARGH! Just trying to get people to take more notice that they aren't responding to the actual point.
Incorrect... unless immaculate conception has happened, the man played a role. Maybe he should have kept it in his pants if he didn't want to be a father?
Been there, done that. It was called the Victorian era. You know... the one where women weren't considered persons and couldn't vote? Yeah, that one.
When the man donated his sperm he lost all say.
I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until your willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?
I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.
The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.
This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.
That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?
As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.
This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?
Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.
Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.
Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.
If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.
Thanks...
I didn't ignore it. It's irrelevant.
Damn, and I thought it was all about choice. Only if it's the "right" choice?
He sure is. (in part)
Since you say so... :lol:
You are again missing the point. She can make any choice she wants to. She needs to be responsible for her choices.
I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until your willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.
Boddhisatva said:Yeah? Why?
Men are stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex against their wishes. This is a matter of biology. Yet, there are laws that make this illegal. When the woman was born, she lost all say as to when and where she would have sex.
Yeah... right, apples and oranges. :roll:
As long as the woman has the legal of abortion available then the man should have the legal choice in whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the child, after all no one is forcing her to give birth. He should be able to sign a legal document all the way up until a 40-50% viability of the baby that excludes him from any responsibilities for the child. Now if abortion becomes illegal then the man should not be allowed to opt out financially seeing how she does not have abortion as a option.
The forum did not include my paragraphs. I went back and edited it after only two responses. And I am not actually frustrated... ARGH! Just trying to get people to take more notice that they aren't responding to the actual point.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?