When should men have to pay?

[Bonnie1988]

Generally courts decide that the biological father has financial responsibility to a child (child support) regardless of circumstance. Do you agree or do you think there should be exceptions?

The reasoning of courts is that the question is not about the mother, but as a social policy SOMEONE has to economically provide for a child for the sake of the child and for the sake of society. Courts have even held that non-bio fathers (such as step fathers) become financially responsible for child support in divorce because he accepted a parental role.

But some people think if the man wants her to get an abortion and she won't, then the man if off the hook.

What about where the woman tricked the man, such as falsely claiming she had her tubes tied or in on birth control and isn't? What if a woman deliberately got pregnant in a deception only because she wanted a child, never wanted the man, because she wanted to find someone to pay her money for then next 18 years?

Do you think there are instances where a man isn't financially responsible?

 

[DGomez]

Do you think there are instances where a man isn't financially responsible?

When the woman tells him he isn't financially responsible.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Do you think there are instances where a man isn't financially responsible?

I don't think the man should be held financially responsible unless he, with the mother's consent, declares himself to be the father of the child after the child is born.

Once he has declared himself the father, no other circumstance should allow him to renounce his child, save the mutually agreed upon decision to allow the child to be adopted by another family.

 

[Bonnie1988]

I don't think the man should be held financially responsible unless he, with the mother's consent, declares himself to be the father of the child after the child is born.

Once he has declared himself the father, no other circumstance should allow him to renounce his child, save the mutually agreed upon decision to allow the child to be adopted by another family.

Are you saying that even if the man is the bio-father, if he will not admit it then he's not responsible even if it known and proven that he is? That if at the hospital when the child is born the bio-father says, "sorry, changed my mind, I just can't handle this" and leaves, he's off the hook?

 

[sazerac]

Do you think there are instances where a man isn't financially responsible?

I would say, no. Whether you prayed to God for a child or were tricked into it, there is a child now and you are the parent.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Are you saying that even if the man is the bio-father, if he will not admit it then he's not responsible even if it known and proven that he is? That if at the hospital when the child is born the bio-father says, "sorry, changed my mind, I just can't handle this" and leaves, he's off the hook?

I don't think being the "bio-father" has anything to do with being the father of a child; the sheer number of men who attempt to abandon children they have claimed proves that it doesn't make them either ready or willing to face the responsibility.

Everyone talks about child support and paternity tests "protecting" mothers from abandonment, but everyone forgets that there is already an institution designed to protect mothers and their children-- marriage.

 

[Renae]

since a man has no say on if the child is born, and since abortion is legal... if you get a gal pregnant, and you declare you don't want the child, you should be able to "abort" your rights and responsibilities to the child.

That would be fairness under the law.

 

[Thorgasm]

since a man has no say on if the child is born, and since abortion is legal... if you get a gal pregnant, and you declare you don't want the child, you should be able to "abort" your rights and responsibilities to the child.

That would be fairness under the law.

You had the right not to sleep with her.

 

[Renae]

You had the right not to sleep with her.

Yes, but if you WANTED the child, and she didn't you lose.

So the law is both unfair, and unequal. Nice try though.

 

[Thorgasm]

Yes, but if you WANTED the child, and she didn't you lose.

So the law is both unfair, and unequal. Nice try though.

But isn't individual liberty paramount?

Women give life. We pee standing up. How can we be equal? We can't give life.

 

[Renae]

But isn't individual liberty paramount?

Women give life. We pee standing up. How can we be equal? We can't give life.

Equality under the law. Are you saying that doesn't matter now? How... convenient.

 

[Thorgasm]

Equality under the law. Are you saying that doesn't matter now? How... convenient.

I am saying that her rights over her body supercede your rights in the health care decisions of your child. If you could carry a child, then you could just have a transplant.

 

[Renae]

I am saying that her rights over her body supercede your rights in the health care decisions of your child. If you could carry a child, then you could just have a transplant.

Ahh, but you ignore the whole point.

If the man wants the child, she doesn't, he's assed out.

If she WANTS the child, and he doesn't.. again he's assed out.

That's not equality under the law. the whole "it's her body" argument is bs, and you know it. Just an emotional trigger for people, nothing more.

 

[Bonnie1988]

I don't think being the "bio-father" has anything to do with being the father of a child; the sheer number of men who attempt to abandon children they have claimed proves that it doesn't make them either ready or willing to face the responsibility.

Everyone talks about child support and paternity tests "protecting" mothers from abandonment, but everyone forgets that there is already an institution designed to protect mothers and their children-- marriage.

Do you mean divorce laws protect children when parents don't stay together? It DOESN'T take a marriage to have a divorce case. How would a marriage license even 1% protect my unborn child and me? If a father won't be dutiful, a marriage license won't make that duty come true. (I'm writing theoretical, my daughter is going to have a FANTASTIC Dad! But we don't have a marriage license.)

I've read many places that while parents may argue responsibility and all of that, this is NOT what courts are looking at.

They are disregarding what is right, just or fair for the parents. Rather, they are singularly looking at the child in relation only the child's needs: Food, clothing, shelter, medical care.

Since SOMEONE has to pay for those things FOR THE SAKE OF THE CHILD (only), who else is there that a court even could order to pay such things other than the mother and father? If the mother can't pay for those things, a court doesn't have the option to rule "sorry, guess the child has to starve to death." Even if "unfair", courts rule the bio-father MUST pay because SOMEONE must pay and there's no one else to pick.

Figuratively, courts see a child(ren) in front them for which, now, the court has total power (and responsibility) for that child(ren). Therefore the Court must ask "WHO IS PAYING THE EXPENSES OF THIS CHILD?" because someone has to. The court looks around the room and, to no surprise, says "the mother and father will pay." Who else can the court pick, the baliff or court clerk?

 

[Bonnie1988]

Ahh, but you ignore the whole point.

If the man wants the child, she doesn't, he's assed out.

If she WANTS the child, and he doesn't.. again he's assed out.

That's not equality under the law. the whole "it's her body" argument is bs, and you know it. Just an emotional trigger for people, nothing more.

I agree that "its her body" doesn't work. However, I do believe birthing the child or not is her decision. In turn, I DON'T think the bio father is always financially or ethically liable for the child's future. Since the woman does have superior "rights," there must be offsetting protections for the man.

 

[Thorgasm]

Ahh, but you ignore the whole point.

If the man wants the child, she doesn't, he's assed out.

If she WANTS the child, and he doesn't.. again he's assed out.

That's not equality under the law. the whole "it's her body" argument is bs, and you know it. Just an emotional trigger for people, nothing more.

It's not an emotional trigger. It's reality. I can live with not having a say in the matter. I know this before I have sex with someone. It's no secret.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If the man wants the child, she doesn't, he's assed out.
If she WANTS the child, and he doesn't.. again he's assed out.
That's not equality under the law.

Which is why men should have the same right to refuse to become parents that women do.

 

[Unrein]

Do you think there are instances where a man isn't financially responsible?

Not really no, if he was lied to it's his fault for misjudging the keniving bitches intentions. He coulda wore a condom for safe measure. He knew what the risks were and though the odds of a woman lying to you to get your man seed is low it's possible, he took that risk.

 

[Unrein]

Which is why men should have the same right to refuse to become parents that women do.

They already do. They can choose not to have sex, or wear protection. What makes you think they don't have a choice?

 

[Unrein]

Since the woman does have superior "rights," there must be offsetting protections for the man.

The woman doesn't have superior rights her rights are the same. If a man wants to get an abortion so damn badly to feel equal then he just needs to get pregnant, and no one will discriminate against his to abortion.

Both men and women have the same right to choose parenthood and requires thier mutual decision. The man makes his choice when he decides to cum inside without protection, the woman decides when she finds out she is pregnant (whether or not to keep it)

 

[DeeJayH]

I hope i am wrong, but i don't see this thread turning out too well

 

[Ikari]

But isn't individual liberty paramount?

Women give life. We pee standing up. How can we be equal? We can't give life.

I agree with the general statement. There are differences, one of which is that it is the female whom carries the offspring. But there have been many arguments successfully made so that one can forgo the consequences of action. The man could wear a condom or take other precautions or not have sex, so could the woman. Both are responsible for the creation of life, but one can do nothing about it and is held at the whim of the other. While that other can choose to snuff out life if they so deem it.

I think that we have set ourselves a nice little double standard here. Wherein the male must be responsible for their choice to have sex, but the female may not always have to accept such responsibility. For better or for worse, that is the reality of the situation. In the very end, in all reality, we must acknowledge the creation of life and that there is now a child here. And thus no matter what sort of "revenge" or comeuppance we're talking about; things must be put aside and things must be done for the child. So while in theory I understand the "male should be able to terminate responsibility" argument, in practice what must be done is that the child is taken care of. Whether that be adoption, or child payments from the father, or whatever. In reality, there is new life and that life must be (or should be) respected and cared for.

So it should be to those ends by which we work.

 

[Thorgasm]

I agree with the general statement. There are differences, one of which is that it is the female whom carries the offspring. But there have been many arguments successfully made so that one can forgo the consequences of action. The man could wear a condom or take other precautions or not have sex, so could the woman. Both are responsible for the creation of life, but one can do nothing about it and is held at the whim of the other. While that other can choose to snuff out life if they so deem it.

I think that we have set ourselves a nice little double standard here. Wherein the male must be responsible for their choice to have sex, but the female may not always have to accept such responsibility. For better or for worse, that is the reality of the situation. In the very end, in all reality, we must acknowledge the creation of life and that there is now a child here. And thus no matter what sort of "revenge" or comeuppance we're talking about; things must be put aside and things must be done for the child. So while in theory I understand the "male should be able to terminate responsibility" argument, in practice what must be done is that the child is taken care of. Whether that be adoption, or child payments from the father, or whatever. In reality, there is new life and that life must be (or should be) respected and cared for.

So it should be to those ends by which we work.

You've just given the non-religious reasoning for waiting until marriage to have sex.

Of course, that will never be practiced ubiquitously, it would be wise to.

 

[Infinite Chaos]

-- Courts have even held that non-bio fathers (such as step fathers) become financially responsible for child support in divorce because he accepted a parental role--

That's one little thing UK courts and Child Support Agencies haven't adopted from the US. Here if the DNA test proves you aren't the dad then you don't pay. Whether you raised the child from childbirth or were told in a card you now have a kid somewhere. And if you'd been paying before the DNA test you get your money back - all of it.

As for the question - "When should men have to pay?" - the reality is based on two things 1) the father doesn't have custody (and this is becoming less common) 2) the father has been identified for child support payment and DNA proves he is the dad or he hasn't asked for a test.

It is wrong however that the choice to have the child or not rests solely with one sex but as Ikari says that is the reality of the current system in most western countries. I have read somewhere that in China they have started to explore how to give men more say regarding whether he would have any responsibility or liability. Worth keeping an eye open for how this works out.

 

[Pinu7]

Since the man and a women chose to have unprotected sex out of wedlock, they should both have to bear responsibility for the child. And since the baby automatically goes to the mother, the father should then give financial support, even if they are no longer a couple.

The only situation that I see that may null that system is if somehow the father was raped, which is unlikely.