Why can't the father choose not to pay the child support if he wants abortion?

[Underverse]

because of female privilege

Males are privileged in some ways, females are privileged in others. Applying the term 'privilege' to biological differences is a bit political, though.

[NineSpine]

My case is based on the fact that it happened. Which you can try to explain away how and why like that erases the incident.

And about the bolded.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-librar...ligations.html

And also take a gander at

http://family-law.freeadvice.com/fam...obligation.htm



Only 2/3'ds of states...

Also...

https://www.lawyersandsettlements.co....google.com%2F




Like it or not, this shit happens and it is possible. Once, twice or only 3 times, it can happen. So any argument you have trying to act like this is impossible is plain false.

I am not saying this happens all the time everywhere. I am saying that the shit is fucked up and even being just a sperm donor guarantee you from getting got from child support. Which is 100% fact.

The fact is still that you keep appealing to a case where they tried to subvert the laws in order to do the donation. If I decide to buy your house, and you and I decide to do it under the table instead of in accordance with the law, would you really be shocked if there were unforeseen legal consequences?

[Deleted]

If it's so obvious, it really shouldn't be that hard for you to prove your case.

I already did, its just that you are being dense about it.

[Tempguy]

The fact is still that you keep appealing to a case where they tried to subvert the laws in order to do the donation. If I decide to buy your house, and you and I decide to do it under the table instead of in accordance with the law, would you really be shocked if there were unforeseen legal consequences?

-_-

Except all of my sources had nothing to do with that Kansas case

Wut?

[Azadina]

There is no risk on the part of women though, only men.

That is inequality and shouldn't be allowed.

Men should have choice on whether or not they get put on the childs birth certificate, and if they are not, then they don't pay child support.

Similar to sperm donors.

No sex then. Sperm donors do not get to have sex with the ones they donate to.

[NineSpine]

I already did, its just that you are being dense about it.

No, prove that MOST children enter the foster system BEFORE AGE 5, with mental issues. If it's soooo obvious and eeeeeveryone knows it, this really shouldn't be difficult.

[Deleted]

Pregnancy is a risk for women, more than for men

I'm speaking of financial risk, medical risk has no part in this debate because men can't experience that.

I shouldn't have to pay for some woman to have a child that I don't want, is the crux of the issue.

Its a simple fix, all you have to do is give men the ability to not put themselves on a child birth certificate, then the woman can have the child, and the man can continue on with his life.

Men should not be shackled by the decisions of women.

[Elegiac]

Simple enough; because the state has a compelling interest in seeing that its newest citizen isn't raised in poverty.

Prior to that it's just a matter of 'it's not his uterus'.

[Powerogue]

Going to write what I've been writing forever: sex without protection is consent to have a child.

However, if a woman is on birth control, I think it is absolutely disgusting for her to trap a man and decide to keep the child if she failed to use it correctly, or through some miracle used it correctly and still got pregnant. If birth control is used, it's a de facto agreement that neither party wants a child. Women should not be allowed to force a man into payment, violating this agreement.

That would certainly make things easier. Though I'm not sure how it would work when one or more parties changes their mind partway through pregnancy, there'd probably still be controversy and arguments there.

[Tempguy]

No sex then. Sperm donors do not get to have sex with the ones they donate to.

You mean go to a sperm bank and make sure you have all kinds of legal protections and paperwork that says if you get sued for support you can sue them for not keeping your info private.

From the link I posted:

In this case, Janna Mintz inseminated herself using what the court describes as a "syringe-like implement."

It doesn't seem like they had sex.

[Kyriani]

I'm kind of astonished that in today's medical world for all the shit we can do for a penis we don't have better male contraception. I'm a pretty routine dude and if there was male birth control I'd never miss that shit. But currently the only option is invasive surgery.

There is male contraception on the way. It may arrive next year in fact:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-by-2017.html

[Deleted]

No, prove that MOST children enter the foster system BEFORE AGE 5, with mental issues. If it's soooo obvious and eeeeeveryone knows it, this really shouldn't be difficult.

I already linked you a study, its just that you can't be arsed to read it.

[Hana Song]

I'm speaking of financial risk, medical risk has no part in this debate because men can't experience that.

I shouldn't have to pay for some woman to have a child that I don't want, is the crux of the issue.

Its a simple fix, all you have to do is give men the ability to not put themselves on a child birth certificate, then the woman can have the child, and the man can continue on with his life.

Men should not be shackled by the decisions of women.

There is financial risk too for women, do you think women don't have to pay?
Do you know what is simple? Don't have sex if you are not prepared for it

[Deleted]

No sex then. Sperm donors do not get to have sex with the ones they donate to.

The act itself should have no bearing on the law.

[Azadina]

I'm speaking of financial risk, medical risk has no part in this debate because men can't experience that.

I shouldn't have to pay for some woman to have a child that I don't want, is the crux of the issue.

Its a simple fix, all you have to do is give men the ability to not put themselves on a child birth certificate, then the woman can have the child, and the man can continue on with his life.

Men should not be shackled by the decisions of women.

So because men are in no medical danger, while women are, we should ignore that because it doesn't support you equality arguments? You just proved right there that you do not want equality.

[Tempguy]

There is male contraception on the way. It may arrive next year in fact:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...l-by-2017.html

About that. I read up on it and I was appalled at the opposition. Not even gonna get into Feminism. Just check this out.

They said many places were unsure about funding this research, because they didn't think there would be a wide enough market... Because I guess half of the world's entire population is not a wide enough market when it comes to men, but it's totally reason to develop all sorts of contraception for women?

I don't know what is going on at these companies, but I don't like it.

[Deleted]

There is financial risk too for women, do you think women don't have to pay?
Do you know what is simple? Don't have sex if you are not prepared for it

I am prepared for sex. Condoms can break, vasectomies can fail.

And yet if any of those things happen, according to the law, the decision of whether I have a financial burden for the remainder of my life is in the hands of someone else completely.

That should not the case.

[Mizix]

It has very little to do with "protecting the child", if they would really concern them selves with the child they would force the single parent to give the child up for adoption as soon as it is born. That would be in the best interest of the child, but i don't see them promoting that choice.

It's a very arguable notion that children with both parents are better off than children of single parents; it depends on the situation, the parents and the child. Adoption could be in their best interest, but not systematically.

@GrinningMan We're not discussing abortion here but child support law. Laws concern themselves with what they specifically regulate; in this case, it does prioritise the children over the parents.

[Hana Song]

I am prepared for sex. Condoms can break, vasectomies can fail.

And yet if any of those things happen, according to the law, the decision of whether I have a financial burden for the remainder of my life is in the hands of someone else completely.

That should not the case.

You are not prepared for it if you don't want to take responsibility for your actions

[Deleted]

So because men are in no medical danger, while women are, we should ignore that because it doesn't support you equality arguments? You just proved right there that you do not want equality.

So we should what? Have men forced into the situations that women face during pregnancy as equality?

How the hell would that work?