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

[May90]

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.

If he chooses to raise the child with her, then she doesn't get any child support. If she chooses to bail out, then she pays the child support, and the father raises the child. There is no difference whatsoever in this, only in the decision on whether to go for abortion or not.

[Kyriani]

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 - - -


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.

The problem with what you're saying is that the child is the one who suffers if the system worked that way. You not wanting a child in your life is irrelevant once that child comes into being. Even if she lied. Even if she chooses to have it regardless of your wishes. Sure she's scum, but her being scum is irrelevant in the face of that child's needs. The child exists. The child is biologically yours. The government has no obligation to take care of that child if you are capable of doing so yourself. And frankly the government SHOULDN'T do anything remotely like what you suggest because its putting a greater tax burden on the rest of society, when it doesn't need to. If you're an able bodied, working adult, you provide for your child, simple as that. But you have to remember that applies to BOTH parents. She can't just dump a kid in your lap and walk away scott free either. If she has the baby and then decides she doesn't want to be a mother (really stupid but it can and does happen sad to say) she still has the same financial obligations you do, and if you decide to not abandon your kid if she up and splits, she's on the hook for child support the same as you would be.

The needs of the child outweighs your needs or wants. It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Even if that kid is forced on you due to deceit. That kid didn't ask for his mom to be a liar. They didn't intend to throw a wrench into your life's plans. They come into this world helpless. And it's on both parents to provide for that child regardless of the circumstances of how that child came into being. Is it fair to a father who became so through deceit? No of course not. Is it fair to the kid to be forced into a world where one of their parents doesn't want them? No it's not. Is it fair that the woman has the final say in whether that child is born or not? Inherently no, but basic biology dictates that women bear the children and with that comes bodily autonomy rights. The government shouldn't pay for your kid when you're fully capable of doing so yourself just because you "don't want to" and "she lied about birth control".

The real answer is, don't get into that situation in the first place. And it's really really easy to avoid. You've got options:

A) Don't have sex at all - Unrealistic but still a guaranteed option not to produce kids.

B) Use a condom AND pull out before orgasm AND flush that condom when your done - doing that will reduce the chances of pregnancy to infinitesimal levels and prevent any turkey batter hi-jinks.

c) Get a vasectomy - The big winner of them all. Guarantees no kids, is a quick and simple out-patient procedure, and can be reverse when you want to have kids. Added bonus of being to pump and dump anytime in any girl with no condoms and no fear, plus cheater detection if you keep it on the DL.

If you really want to avoid unplanned pregnancies and for some odd reason don't want to get a vasectomy, be choosy who you sleep with, TALK to them, let them know your stance on kids. Find a girl who doesn't want kids any more than you do! You'll both be happier for it!

The only time the government should step in is when the parents are unfit, and even then, if they CAN get money from you? They will... and they SHOULD. It's not the government's responsibility to care for the kids of people who can't be bothered. Their obligation is solely to those kids that don't have parents/families able to care for them and even then foster care isn't an ideal environment for a child to grow up in.

[Coombs]

Bottom line.

Don't stick your dick in crazy.

Unless she doesn't know your real name.

[Tempguy]

Bottom line.

Don't stick your dick in crazy.

Unless she doesn't know your real name.

You reminded me I need to message my baby's mom... I feel I should be worried.

[Notshauna]

It's obvious because in the case of abortion there is no more child with needs, in the case of birth there is a child with needs. Hence, both parties are required to support the child financially if need be, this is also the case with women when the other partner regardless of gender wins custody. It's not sexist it's common sense.

[Nurvus]

If he chooses to raise the child with her, then she doesn't get any child support.

You know where the child support money comes from, right?
So if the father's there raising the child with her, she's getting MORE than the child support.
What are you even on about?

[Ahovv]

It's obvious because in the case of abortion there is no more child with needs, in the case of birth there is a child with needs. Hence, both parties are required to support the child financially if need be, this is also the case with women when the other partner regardless of gender wins custody. It's not sexist it's common sense.

I don't think your logic should apply in cases where birth control is used but fails. Birth control explicitly implies a child is not desired. So, if birth control fails, the woman should have an abortion performed.

[Coombs]

You reminded me I need to message my baby's mom... I feel I should be worried.

You broke the golden rule didn't you?

[May90]

snip

While I agree that the child shouldn't suffer because of the actions of its parents, I also don't think such outright deceit forcing a person to have the lifestyle they didn't ask for should be allowed. Lies that lead to people suffering are usually outlawed, and the victims do not take any legal responsibility for the consequences. As much as the child didn't ask for it, the father didn't ask for it either, and made sure that it wouldn't happen - but it still happened due to deceit. There are ways to take care of the child still without holding the father accountable for something that I would qualify as a criminal offense (if it's not, it should be qualified as such). The government has quite a few options in its arsenal to provide the child with good childhood, without making the father do what he does not, and involving the mother that, apparently, wouldn't be a great mother, if she does things like this to others.

I agree that it is easy to prevent, and you've listed good options - but it still could happen, and if it happened due to one of the sides outright lying, I don't think the other side should suffer, no matter what.

You know where the child support money comes from, right?
So if the father's there raising the child with her, she's getting MORE than the child support.
What are you even on about?

It is pretty obvious what I am on about.

If both partners choose to raise the child, everything is equal.
If one partner chooses to bail out, the other pays for child support.
If neither chooses to raise the child, adoption is an option.

Your "no consequences" thing is silly, because both genders have the exact same variety of consequences once the child was born.

[Deleted]

The legal system is absolutely fair. Whoever gives birth, makes the decision whether to give birth. Once the birth has happened, responsibility of both parties are absolutely equal.

Practical difference comes from biological differences between sexes. Can't do anything about it, short of altering it.

Yes, lets have a soccer match where it is totally okay to hit blue players in the face, without getting any form penalty for it. This rule is the same for all players!!! But for the life of me, i can't understand why the blue team keeps bitching about this super equal rule..

[Alvito]

It would automatically remove all responsibility for children from males if this happened.

[Bushtuckrman]

The father chose to have have the baby when he had sex. In cases where the father did NOT choose to have the baby, he is not liable for any child support.

Don't be so sure about that buddy

[May90]

Yes, lets have a soccer match where it is totally okay to hit blue players in the face, without getting any form penalty for it. This rule is the same for all players!!! But for the life of me, i can't understand why the blue team keeps bitching about this super equal rule..

Yeah, this concept seems to be beyond your grasp... Too bad. At least you could have tried and come up with something more sensible, like helicopters being sold to everyone, but available only to the rich - it still wouldn't be that, but at least it would be somewhat close.

[Deleted]

Yeah, this concept seems to be beyond your grasp... Too bad. At least you could have tried and come up with something more sensible, like helicopters being sold to everyone, but available only to the rich - it still wouldn't be that, but at least it would be somewhat close.

LOL, and you say that this concept seems to be beyond my grasp?? That is really funny as you seem to not be able to understand this simple analogy. Let me explain it to like you are five.....
The blue team plays under the exact same rules as the other colour teams, yet they are the only ones that you can hit in the face and nobody cares. Just because the blue players abide by the same rules as the red team, doesnt mean that the rules are anywhere close to being "equal".
Now, lets apply what we have learned to the situation discussed...
You say:"The legal system is absolutely fair. Whoever gives birth, makes the decision whether to give birth."
This means that this rule is tailored to the ones who give birth, it doesn't matter that you give the same rights to people who can't use these rights, it doesn't make it an equal rule.
Its just stupid to suggest that "nothing can be done about it", there is plenty you can do, it will just mean that woman will have to be responsible for their own actions for a change.

[Amunrasonther]

Cuz the feminazis! And the homosexuals! And white privilege! I'm also sure Hillary is involved somehow... Criminally of course.

[Mirishka]

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?

God, I hope this guy is sterile.

[May90]

LOL, and you say that this concept seems to be beyond my grasp?? That is really funny as you seem to not be able to understand this simple analogy. Let me explain it to like you are five.....
The blue team plays under the exact same rules as the other colour teams, yet they are the only ones that you can hit in the face and nobody cares. Just because the blue players abide by the same rules as the red team, doesnt mean that the rules are anywhere close to being "equal".
Now, lets apply what we have learned to the situation discussed...
You say:"The legal system is absolutely fair. Whoever gives birth, makes the decision whether to give birth."
This means that this rule is tailored to the ones who give birth, it doesn't matter that you give the same rights to people who can't use these rights, it doesn't make it an equal rule.
Its just stupid to suggest that "nothing can be done about it", there is plenty you can do, it will just mean that woman will have to be responsible for their own actions for a change.

No, it simply means that giving birth is the subject of discussion, and the decision on whether to give birth belongs only to the one giving birth. In your example, the right to punch blue players but not, say, red players is based on - what exactly? Your "Let me come up with a false analogy that hopefully will make me look very smart" idea?

The woman is responsible for her actions, as much as the man is. If she had sex, got impregnated and doesn't want a child, she either will have to go through abortion, or to give birth to a child, give it to the father and pay the child support. What the woman has no control over is how the man uses his body, for example, whether he cuts his penis or not - same way, the man has no control over whether the woman gives birth or not. Once the birth is given, both parties are equally responsible. "No responsibility for women" is pure nonsense.

[alzoron]

Life isn't fair. We can try to make it as fair as possible through laws and regulation but there are limits we just have to accept.

[Deleted]

No, it simply means that giving birth is the subject of discussion, and the decision on whether to give birth belongs only to the one giving birth. In your example, the right to punch blue players but not, say, red players is based on - what exactly? Your "Let me come up with a false analogy that hopefully will make me look very smart" idea?

The woman is responsible for her actions, as much as the man is. If she had sex and doesn't want a child, she either will have to go through abortion, or to give birth to a child, give it to the father and pay the child support. What the woman has no control over is how the man uses his body, for example, whether he cuts his penis or not - same way, the man has no control over whether the woman gives birth or not. Once the birth is given, both parties are equally responsible. "No responsibility for women" is pure nonsense.

Oooh you can't understand it, again... The point is that you can't make designer rules to something, apply them to everyone and scream "equality".

Nope, as the man is responsible for the woman's actions too, you keep ignoring this... The females decision power directly influences the males life. Again, just because you apply a rule equally to everyone doesnt make the rules them selves equal in any way. And then the next bit is an outright lie, once the baby is born then the woman can still get rid of the baby without the fathers consent. The only time a woman gets this responsibility is when she chooses to have said responsibility, the male gets this responsibility when the female chooses it for him.

[GennGreymane]

Cuz the feminazis! And the homosexuals! And white privilege! I'm also sure Hillary is involved somehow... Criminally of course.

Benghazi!
/10