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

[Kyriani]

The irony is palpable I agree. It is split 50/50 and yes, Men did give women the right to choose. I mean, we even gave them the right to vote (just being factual here)

What I dislike is when people act like women have no autonomy and are just objects to be acted upon when it is convenient in order to blame me.

Oh I agree. It's not fair to put the onus of sex=pregnancy solely on men. Women have a desire for sex just as men do and both bear the responsibility of handling birth control. But men suffer from two issues regarding that.

Firstly, many guys just hate using condoms. It affects the sensation of sex and it adds a step to the whole process of getting down to the deed. If a girl tells them she's on the pill and they can bareback her, very very few men will even stop to consider the consequences. Secondly, its just easier to let the girl handle it cause all she has to do is pop a pill right? Men rarely, if ever, stop to think about how often she has to take that pill. Nearly every day of each month. Without failure. Never forgetting to take that pill on the proper day. And if she does? Or if she's really stupid and thinks she can trap a guy in a relationship by getting knocked up? Yea, that stuff usually gets discussed after the shit hits the fan and he's cryin' the blues to his buddies about child support.

Men have to make the conscious decision to take back their power to decide what happens in their lives when it comes to sex. For now, if you can't stand condoms, get a vasectomy and you can pump and dump all you want without fear of unexpected pregnancies. If you don't wanna do that then use a condom even if she's on the pill because it's just an added layer of protection for you AND her. Men have to at least make an effort towards preventing pregnancy if they want to have a right to bitch about it if it somehow does occur. Leaving the decision making entirely up to women to handle birth control is essentially giving up your right to complain about it.

Now I know there are some guys out there who ARE smart enough to protect themselves, and yes its possible for condoms to fail, and yes its possible for a girl to lie about being on birth control, but at the very least MAKE THE EFFORT to protect yourself. If nothing else you'll reduce the chance of an "accident" happening, and if you want guaranteed baby-proofing, go for the vasectomy and be free to go condom-less without worrying about pregnancy at all. My buddy never regretted his vasectomy. He said it was the smartest decision he ever made. In fact he says it adds an extra psychological layer of pleasure to sex just knowing he can drop a load in any girl at any time and never worry about a kid popping out. His freedom is guaranteed.

[May90]

And again, you're pointing the blame on the man. It's ALWAYS the man's fault. Patriarchy indeed.

You guys like to talk about blame so much, it is like you are feeling guilty for something and trying to cope with it.

No one is talking about "blame". No one is "blaming" anyone. What we are talking about is called responsibility. Both adults engaged in a sexual act are responsible for the consequences, yet some people want to cope out of it and evade them, regardless of their gender. Well, too bad, you don't get to just jump out of raising a child, putting it on the shoulders of another person - and then cry, "Oh no, they are taking away my finances!". No one is taking away your finances; you willingly gave them up when you decided not to raise the child and bail out.

[Tulune]

A risk, up to the involved parties if they're willing to take it. There's also genital disease to consider when you want to sleep around with people you don't know. Most people wouldn't trust a stranger with their house or car or even phone in many cases, yet people risk their lives (unwanted children, diseases) for some fleeting pleasure with strangers...

Shhh, you'll be accused of slut shaming and being a prude if you point out that sleeping around may not be such a grand idea. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/sexual...seases-n465071

[Tempguy]

You guys like to talk about blame so much, it is like you are feeling guilty for something and trying to cope with it.

No one is talking about "blame". No one is "blaming" anyone. What we are talking about is called responsibility. Both adults engaged in a sexual act are responsible for the consequences, yet some people want to cope out of it and evade them, regardless of their gender. Well, too bad, you don't get to just jump out of raising a child, putting it on the shoulders of another person - and then cry, "Oh no, they are taking away my finances!". No one is taking away your finances; you willingly gave them up when you decided not to raise the child and bail out.

I don't see it that way.

I see it as two people fucking up and having a kid. That's on both of them. Then one decides they don't want a kid. Depending on whether that is the woman or not, it's fine or the most dishonorable act ever.

In a perfect world, if the man says he doesn't want a kid, the mom would abort. Cause you would need two people to agree to support a kid in order to have it. If one person wants the kid, and the other says no, the one who wants the kid will be on the hook for 100% support.


We can't do that and that is fine. However, the reasoning of many is indeed to blame the man for impregnating the woman like she is just some biological sec puppet. That puts the blame on men and that is what people are taking issue with.

[jdbond592]

Yeah, the law is pretty sexist. If there is a legal evidence that guy didn't want the baby, he shouldn't be paying for it. That will also teach women to keep their legs closed or use fuking pills.

[Tempguy]

Oh I agree. It's not fair to put the onus of sex=pregnancy solely on men. Women have a desire for sex just as men do and both bear the responsibility of handling birth control. But men suffer from two issues regarding that.

Firstly, many guys just hate using condoms. It affects the sensation of sex and it adds a step to the whole process of getting down to the deed. If a girl tells them she's on the pill and they can bareback her, very very few men will even stop to consider the consequences. Secondly, its just easier to let the girl handle it cause all she has to do is pop a pill right? Men rarely, if ever, stop to think about how often she has to take that pill. Nearly every day of each month. Without failure. Never forgetting to take that pill on the proper day. And if she does? Or if she's really stupid and thinks she can trap a guy in a relationship by getting knocked up? Yea, that stuff usually gets discussed after the shit hits the fan and he's cryin' the blues to his buddies about child support.

Men have to make the conscious decision to take back their power to decide what happens in their lives when it comes to sex. For now, if you can't stand condoms, get a vasectomy and you can pump and dump all you want without fear of unexpected pregnancies. If you don't wanna do that then use a condom even if she's on the pill because it's just an added layer of protection for you AND her. Men have to at least make an effort towards preventing pregnancy if they want to have a right to bitch about about it if it somehow does occur. Leaving the decision making entirely up to women to handle birth control is essentially giving up your right to complain about it.

Now I know there are some guys out there who ARE smart enough to protect themselves, and yes its possible for condoms to fail, and yes its possible for a girl to lie about being on birth control, but at the very least MAKE THE EFFORT to protect yourself. If nothing else you'll reduce the chance of an "accident" happening, and if you want guaranteed baby-proofing, go for the vasectomy and be free to go condom-less without worrying about pregnancy at all. My buddy never regretted his vasectomy. He said it was the smartest decision he ever made. In fact he says it adds an extra psychological layer of pleasure to sex just knowing he can drop a load in any girl at any time and never worry about a kid popping out. His freedom is guaranteed.

I hear ya.

In truth, I don't think men should even complain if you want to be perfectly honest. Almost every decent guy I know wants to be a dad and will fight for joint custody. It only takes one woman to be a vindictive person to make me and my friends be caustious. We learn.

What ends up happening is all these ... I don't even know, losers , are banging chicks and having kids left and right. So when they get hit up for support, I laugh at the stupid moms for picking losers. No hair off my chin.

Decent guys are indeed wising up and being careful. Some still get screwed by lying women who swear they took the pill, but it's rare.

[Crispin]

What about the child then? You are considering the perspective of the father, but how about a child forced to be raised by one parent due to the father's decision to opt out? Child support is not some kind of punishment, it is making sure that the child is raised in fine economical conditions.

As for protection not being 100% safe, I think in case of failed protection no one should be forced to pay child support and, instead, the government should step in and provide it.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise, I agree that a guy who doesnt uses protection having sex with a girl he knows does not use protection, is an absolute idiot, my biggest concern is failed protection and girls lying/emptying condoms.

[May90]

I don't see it that way.

I see it as two people fucking up and having a kid. That's on both of them. Then one decides they don't want a kid. Depending on whether that is the woman or not, it's fine or the most dishonorable act ever.

In a perfect world, if the man says he doesn't want a kid, the mom would abort. Cause you would need two people to agree to support a kid in order to have it. If one person wants the kid, and the other says no, the one who wants the kid will be on the hook for 100% support.


We can't do that and that is fine. However, the reasoning of many is indeed to blame the man for impregnating the woman like she is just some biological sec puppet. That puts the blame on men and that is what people are taking issue with.

Once again, no one is blaming the man for impregnating the woman. No one is blaming anyone; what we are talking about is responsibility for people's actions.

No one can just bail out at the last moment, saying, "Oh, sorry, I didn't want a kid, so, I'll pass...". If the kid is born, it is born, and both parents are responsible for its raising, no matter whether they wanted the kid or not. Either is free to bail out, but then they must support the other parent financially, to compensate for difficulties of raising a child alone. It does not depend on gender at all.

What does depend on gender is the choice in whether to give a birth. A man cannot participate in this choice, because it is not his body. And the man cannot make ultimatums like, "Make abortion, or raise the child alone at your own expense", as it is essentially extortion; it would be like a woman telling her man, "Cut your penis, or pay off the house loan on your own" - you can't enforce such "choices" legally.

---

Ultimately, for biological reasons, everyone having sex, especially unprotected sex, should be ready to raise a child, or to contribute financially to raising a child. If they absolutely do not want to do either, then they shouldn't have sex. Sorry, folks, but sex is not just some random entertainment, it is a mechanism nature made pleasurable for a reason, and you can't go around that reason, avoiding responsibilities coming with it and only enjoying benefits! Sorry, the world doesn't work that way.

Sounds like a reasonable compromise, I agree that a guy who doesnt uses protection having sex with a girl he knows does not use protection, is an absolute idiot, my biggest concern is failed protection and girls lying/emptying condoms.

In cases like pregnancy as a result of lying, if proven, no doubt, the lying side should take full responsibility. Failed protection though is trickier; someone above made the argument that the protection developer should be held accountable, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

The problem is, it is very hard to establish in the court that such events took place.

[Tempguy]

Th only problem I have with what you are saying is the fact that some people are indeed blaming men. You can say "most" if you want, but to say "no one" is false man. In this very thread people have blamed men for getting women pregnant.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds like a reasonable compromise, I agree that a guy who doesnt uses protection having sex with a girl he knows does not use protection, is an absolute idiot, my biggest concern is failed protection and girls lying/emptying condoms.

A woman who lies and says she is on birth control should be prosecuted and absolve the man of responsibility ( if proven). That's the same as a man saying he used a cindom then busting in a girl anyways. That's called sexual assault.

[May90]

Th only problem I have with what you are saying is the fact that some people are indeed blaming men. You can say "most" if you want, but to say "no one" is false man. In this very thread people have blamed men for getting women pregnant.

I absolutely disagree with people who are blaming men, or who are saying that men are more responsible for the consequences than women. I think both sides should be and are equally responsible for the consequences. Due to biological differences, they have different level of control over the consequences, but, once the consequences have arrived, they have equal share in them to fulfill.

I still would prefer the government to provide child support, instead of demanding that one of the biological parents paid it. Knowing how such a system could be exploited for financial gain, however, I think it would work only in a more mature and responsible society.

[Antipathy1018]

If a woman can choose (not) to abort without father's consent, why can't father choose not to pay child support if he wants her to do an abortion but she refuses? Either that or he should be able to stop the abortion but take full responsibility for the child once it's born.

Wouldn't that make the playing field equal?

And this would be just one of the many, many reasons why I had a vasectomy at the age of 22. 15 years later and have yet to regret it.

[Crispin]

In cases like pregnancy as a result of lying, if proven, no doubt, the lying side should take full responsibility. Failed protection though is trickier; someone above made the argument that the protection developer should be held accountable, and I'm inclined to agree with it.

The problem is, it is very hard to establish in the court that such events took place.

No doubt that there most often wont be any evidence whatsoever, I'm more inclined for a "financial abort" to count in all cases that not at all, and still well within the timeframe of a normal abortion, the idea that it's for the "kids sake" seems off in the first 3 months, where parents need to make their decision and a miscarriage is still very likely, the idea that as soon as you're pregnant/make someone pregnant, you give up every rights to the decision because of the child.

Imo, the guy should have just as much of an option to choose wether he wants to become a legal father and the girl will be aware of how her situation will be with a baby.

[May90]

Imo, the guy should have just as much of an option to choose wether he wants to become a legal father and the girl will be aware of how her situation will be with a baby.

The problem with this is that it is very hard to provide the guy with an equal option to choose without violating bodily autonomy of the woman. I agree, it would be awesome if both sexes had an equal say in the matter - but there are multiple problems we encounter when we try to implement it in practice.

Theoretically, I'm pretty sure it already can be done the following way: before engaging in a relationship, the man and the woman sign legal contract in which they state what happens if the child is born. In preparation of this document, both sides participate equally. Once pregnancy occurred, no one can change their mind in the last moment without breaking the contract and facing legal consequences of that.

The only problem with this is that requiring such a contract from your potential partner can be seen as a lack of trust, which is paramount in a healthy relationship. As such, many people, even those that want to take such a precaution, will not do that out of fear to appear paranoid and be abandoned soon thereafter.

[Crispin]

There's definately no easy solution to it, but the current one is pretty much "dont have sex idiot", which seems pretty out of line in the case of protection failing or a girl claiming to use the pill etc.

[Kyriani]

The thing people have to realize is that regardless of wrongdoing on the part of a women (lying about being in birth control), if a child is produced, there is no escaping the responsibility of providing for that child. Just because she lied or what have you, doesn't absolve men of the financial burdens of parenthood. This child exists, requires financial support, and you and the mother are the ones on the hook for it regardless of the circumstances. That kid didn't ask to be brought into this world and the state is not responsible to pick up the tab no matter how that child came into being. The state already pays to care for kids in the foster system and those kids are at a disadvantage growing up in that situation.

The thing guys have to remember is, raising a kid is a lot of work and costs a lot of money. If you think a stay-at-home-mom is living the high life on your child support payments and laughing at you while you work, think again. Unless she's true scum of the earth, she's working just as hard as you if not more so and her work day doesn't start at 9am and end at 5pm. Her work day is 24/7/365. While you go to work and come home grumbling about your check being smaller cause of child support, she's waking up every couple hours to a crying baby while its still a newborn, she's feeding, changing, bathing, and nurturing that child, teaching social interaction, taking them to the doctor for injuries or illness, all that and more without any financial compensation.

So not only does she have to do all that without an income of her own, she still has to worry about her own food, clothing, shelter for her and the child, etc. When the child is old enough to be left in daycare she can seek employment, and most women will want to do so because trying to live on your child support isn't going to cut it unless you're making a ton of money every year. How much child support you pay is based on YOUR and HER income. So when she does get a job, your financial obligation will lessen, and if she chooses not to, well you sure as hell picked a winner when you bedded her. :P Seriously though, the state can only take so much from you for child support, and if she wants any quality of life for both her and your kid, she's going to get a job once their old enough.

And if she's really a deadbeat? Sue for primary custody. Let the court know she's not doing right by your kid and you want them to live with you. While the cards are stacked against you in such a case, you CAN win and if you do SHE has to pay YOU child support. But not many men want the responsibility and workload that comes with raising a kid once they really consider how much more than just child support it costs to raise them.

When you compare the two, financially and freedom-wise, it's a better deal to just pay child support and let the mother do all the work. :P THAT'S what you're getting for that child support, the ability to wash your hands of most obligations and your freedom to do as you please without ever giving that kid a second thought. If all you ever do is pay child support and have no interaction with the child, its a very small price to pay to maintain your freedom and career. Plenty of guys want to be in their kids lives though, and those that do, don't typically get salty about child support unless they see the mother acting irresponsibly, or constantly asking for more above and beyond what the state requires.

[May90]

There's definately no easy solution to it, but the current one is pretty much "dont have sex idiot", which seems pretty out of line in the case of protection failing or a girl claiming to use the pill etc.

I agree. Unfortunately, alternative solutions are bound to bring a lot of new problems, making life of one of the sexes significantly harder than the other one's. I think the current system is decent for most standard cases. It can be exploited though, and women probably have more opportunities to exploit here than men - no argument here.

- - - Updated - - -

snip

The only problem with this is, if the man, say, doesn't want children in his life at all and he is told by his partner that she is taking the birth pills, while she actually is not - his life might become miserable because of the deceit. I definitely think that in such cases the liar should be held accountable before the law. And the child, perhaps, should be taken care of by the government, either finding an adopting family for it, or raising it by its own means, in modern facilities with professional nurses.

Of course, again, it can be said, "If you don't want children, don't have sex". Seeing how sex is such a big deal for most people though, I don't think this argument is going to get through.

[Coombs]

And we should also welcome expanded research on male contraception.

Flomax / Rapaflo

Man is sterile while taking it and with no mess and same sensation!

- - - Updated - - -

Because the welfare of an innocent child is more important that what's legally 'right or wrong' regarding the wallet of some dude that didn't remember to wrap his stump.

If a woman is willing to have a child simply from the stupidity of belief against abortion or to entrap a man into payment, then the welfare of the child would be better served forcing an adoption. The mother is certainly unstable and not fit to parent.

[Nurvus]

Imagine if this was an actual choice...how many fathers would be like "but I told her I wanted an abortion" just to get out of paying? Child support would probably become almost non existent.

Men and women are equally likely to be inocent or guilty in this matter.
Some men are irresponsible, so are some women.
For every man that did a "hit and run", there's a woman who deceived a man into thinking it's "safe" that day, in order to get pregnant.

But you know, this parenthood thing is supposed to be about mutual consent.
So the woman is as guilty as the man for not being safe.
Therefore the woman having all the power and no consequence in that matter is ridiculous.
And I say no consequence, because she chooses to do what she wants and carry out the pregnancy, she also gets child support, all against his will.

[Maxilian]

Plot twist: German scientists cryo-froze Hitler's sperm and illegally implanted it into 7,000,000 women!

then the women will have the choice to stay with it or not

[Tempguy]

Flomax / Rapaflo

Man is sterile while taking it and with no mess and same sensation!

- - - Updated - - -



If a woman is willing to have a child simply from the stupidity of belief against abortion or to entrap a man into payment, then the welfare of the child would be better served forcing an adoption. The mother is certainly unstable and not fit to parent.

Don't get me started. This stupid notion that we have that uterus = best caretaker needs to die.

To clarify. Not saying you or anyone here is claiming this. I'm just saying that I honestly think more women should have their kids taken away from them (assuming the father or relative wants to be a parent). Too many kids stay with shit moms for no logical reason