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

[Deleted]

If the man has sex, he gives consent for having children. Same goes for the woman. Imagine if abortion didn't exist: your point would be completely moot. Abortion doesn't change anything, it only gives the woman an extra option. Giving an extra option doesn't take responsibility off either.

---

Current system:

Abortion: no one is responsible for the child.
Childbirth: both are responsible for the child.

Your system:

Abortion: no one is responsible for the child.
Childbirth: either both or the woman alone is responsible for the child, but never the man alone.

You don't see the problem, do you?

The thing is, abortion does exist making the point relevant.

current system..
1. man wants child woman wants child, both are responsible.
2. man wants child, woman does not, abortion
3. man doesn't want child, woman does, both are responsible.
4. no one wants the child, so abortion and no one is responsible.

My system, whom ever wants to have a child will have to pay for it, period.

I do not see any problem with that because it is the woman who wants the child. When the man want the child and the mother doesn't want to abort then it should be the man paying for it. But you should not have to pay for what someone else happens to want.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize that there are intense possible psychological consequences of an abortion, yes?
My cousin fathered a child, was against an abortion but the female went ahead anyway.
To this day he feels guilty and suffers from depression because a human life was lost.

So: yeah there are many possibilities why a female (or male) might not want to abort a pregnancy.
All I'm saying that these eventualities need to be spoken over BEFORE getting intimate.

I'm a man. An abortion would never be an option for me (unless the child were to be so disabled that forcing it to live would be torture instead of joy), even though I do not want children.
If it happens, it happens and I will take care of it in whatever form that may be.

Actions have consequences. Be aware of them before you choose to act.

PS: I think you misunderstood the term "being an option". The term includes the "does the partner want X" and is not solely restricted to X being technically possible or not.

Nothing about that makes it any less of a choice.

[May90]

The thing is, abortion does exist making the point relevant.

current system..
1. man wants child woman wants child, both are responsible.
2. man wants child, woman does not, abortion
3. man doesn't want child, woman does, both are responsible.
4. no one wants the child, so abortion and no one is responsible.

My system, whom ever wants to have a child will have to pay for it, period.

I do not see any problem with that because it is the woman who wants the child. When the man want the child and the mother doesn't want to abort then it should be the man paying for it. But you should not have to pay for what someone else happens to want.

In your system, how do you establish who wants to have a child? Suppose both want a child, the woman goes for childbirth, and then at the last moment the man says, "Um, I've decided otherwise. You should have done abortion. Sorry, dear! Bye". Go try to prove in the court then that the man actually used to want a child at the time the mutual decision was made...

I didn't say the problem is very hard to solve for no reason. In your models, you absolutely fail to consider how the system can be exploited and whether it even makes sense legally. Things that are impossible to prove have no place in the law. "Who wants the child" is legally a meaningless statement.

[Granyala]

My system, whom ever wants to have a child will have to pay for it, period.

The problem of your system is in the verification process.
Humans are fickle creatures. They want sth today and sth else tomorrow.

Unless your couple signs a "possible baby contract" before having sex there is no way to determine whether both want / want not / whatever leading to all kind of abuse.

The current system is much simpler and more robust.

- - - Updated - - -

Nothing about that makes it any less of a choice.

It makes it less of a valid choice for the given person. What is so hard to understand about that?
A pregnancy isn't just a popup on your computer screen you can click away (via abortion) w/o giving any second thought.
There are emotions and hormonal changes involved, after all our bodies are designed with a want to procreate.

The woman may not want a baby when you had sex but once pregnancy happens she can change her mind, no?
Which is why your system would never work.

[May90]

Unless your couple signs a "possible baby contract" before having sex there is no way to determine whether both want / want not / whatever leading to all kind of abuse.

And such contracts already exist for people like MeHMeH, who want to have full control over the decision. So, MeHMeH, everything you want is already in place, just go ahead and use it!

[Deleted]

In your system, how do you establish who wants to have a child? Suppose both want a child, the woman goes for childbirth, and then at the last moment the man says, "Um, I've decided otherwise. You should have done abortion. Sorry, dear! Bye". Go try to prove in the court then that the man actually used to want a child at the time the mutual decision was made...

I didn't say the problem is very hard to solve for no reason. In your models, you absolutely fail to consider how the system can be exploited and whether it even makes sense legally. Things that are impossible to prove have no place in the law. "Who wants the child" is legally a meaningless statement.

Oh common, that are really easy details to work out. Just give the male the same time period as the female to decide. And as i've said, when you both want a child you both are responsible for it.

In my model there is way less opportunity to game the system, but it does ask the one responsible for making the baby to be responsible. Who wants the child is the only relevant thing to ask here, if you want a child you have to make sure that can take care of it. If you do not have an SO to do this with you are on your own. Its high time that the females who are the only ones with a say in this to own up to their own choices.

[Granyala]

And such contracts already exist for people like MeHMeH, who want to have full control over the decision. So, MeHMeH, everything you want is already in place, just go ahead and use it!

I'm not sure whether the state accepts such contracts.
When I got study loans the state checked my biological father whether he should pay a part of that.
He never did, nor did he ever pay any child support whatsoever as far as I am aware of.

- - - Updated - - -

In my model there is way less opportunity to game the system, but it does ask the one responsible for making the baby to be responsible. Who wants the child is the only relevant thing to ask here, if you want a child you have to make sure that can take care of it. If you do not have an SO to do this with you are on your own. Its high time that the females who are the only ones with a say in this to own up to their own choices.

So all the male has to do in order to chicken out of any responsibility is to state "naah I don't want to"?
How absurd.

[Deleted]

The problem of your system is in the verification process.
Humans are fickle creatures. They want sth today and sth else tomorrow.

Unless your couple signs a "possible baby contract" before having sex there is no way to determine whether both want / want not / whatever leading to all kind of abuse.

The current system is much simpler and more robust.

- - - Updated - - -


It makes it less of a valid choice for the given person. What is so hard to understand about that?
A pregnancy isn't just a popup on your computer screen you can click away (via abortion) w/o giving any second thought.
There are emotions and hormonal changes involved, after all our bodies are designed with a want to procreate.

The woman may not want a baby when you had sex but once pregnancy happens she can change her mind, no?
Which is why your system would never work.

All it would take is some signed document when the female is pregnant. Female finds out she is pregnant, goes and ask what the father thinks of this and can make a decision based on that. She can keep it if she wants or not, that is still up to her, she just cant force the male into it like she can now.

It still does not take away any validity of the choice it self, just because it is a hard one.
Most pregnancies that are terminated early on are done with nothing more then a pill, and you giving it a second thought or not is you. All people act differently to it, so no need to bring emotions as some sort of a reason, because it just isn't one.

She can still keep the child if she wants to, no one stopping her, it is just that she can't rely on the male having to support her. It should be a choice just as much for him as it is for her.

- - - Updated - - -

And such contracts already exist for people like MeHMeH, who want to have full control over the decision. So, MeHMeH, everything you want is already in place, just go ahead and use it!

Nope, never said i want full control over the decision. I want full control over my own decision, what the other person wants should not enter into it.

[tj119]

I believe you can, but you forfeit all rights and recognition as the child's father, the mother most likely has to agree though.

[Granyala]

All it would take is some signed document when the female is pregnant. Female finds out she is pregnant, goes and ask what the father thinks of this and can make a decision based on that. She can keep it if she wants or not, that is still up to her, she just cant force the male into it like she can now.

I'm sure plenty of well earning women already do this.

What about the ones that can't sustain a kid? Is the tax payer (state/welfare) supposed to pay for it because the father wants to chicken out?
How exactly is that any more fair than forcing the one that pumped the semen into the female to take responsibility for said act?

No. If the father earns enough, he has to pay child support (if he earns too little he doesn't have to pay). The current system is as fair as it gets.

[Deleted]

I'm not sure whether the state accepts such contracts.
When I got study loans the state checked my biological father whether he should pay a part of that.
He never did, nor did he ever pay any child support whatsoever as far as I am aware of.

- - - Updated - - -


So all the male has to do in order to chicken out of any responsibility is to state "naah I don't want to"?
How absurd.

Chicken out of any responsibility? Oh may, so, every woman who wants an abortion is chickening out of their responsibility? Is that really what you are saying? How absurd...

[May90]

Oh common, that are really easy details to work out. Just give the male the same time period as the female to decide. And as i've said, when you both want a child you both are responsible for it.

In my model there is way less opportunity to game the system, but it does ask the one responsible for making the baby to be responsible. Who wants the child is the only relevant thing to ask here, if you want a child you have to make sure that can take care of it. If you do not have an SO to do this with you are on your own. Its high time that the females who are the only ones with a say in this to own up to their own choices.

What the decision would look like? Verbal agreement? It is not something that is recognizable legally. Legal contract? That's better, but most people wouldn't agree on such Orwellian measures.

You are not considering how this system would actually work and how it would be exploited at all. You just keep repeating your mantra about the need for equal choice, without understanding of how this equal choice could ever work. I agree, it would be nice if both sides had equal say in the matter - but without some kind of mandatory contract, it is virtually impossible to assure.

The current system is not perfect, but it is the best we have come up with so far. It works well for responsible individuals, and irresponsible ones have only themselves to blame.

I'm not sure whether the state accepts such contracts.
When I got study loans the state checked my biological father whether he should pay a part of that.
He never did, nor did he ever pay any child support whatsoever as far as I am aware of.

Pretty sure the optional contract system is in place in some European countries, at least.

Nope, never said i want full control over the decision. I want full control over my own decision, what the other person wants should not enter into it.

You are leaving the child out of equation, caring only about yourself. Sorry, isn't that simple!

[Deleted]

I'm sure plenty of well earning women already do this.

What about the ones that can't sustain a kid? Is the tax payer (state/welfare) supposed to pay for it because the father wants to chicken out?
How exactly is that any more fair than forcing the one that pumped the semen into the female to take responsibility for said act?

No. If the father earns enough, he has to pay child support (if he earns too little he doesn't have to pay). The current system is as fair as it gets.

The father isn't chickening out on anything here, only when you choose to do something you can chicken out off it, but he never had this choice.

Why are the ones that can't sustain a kid able to have them? Why aren't they taken by foster care and put in a home where they are loved and taken care for? If its really about the child then this is what should happen. These rules are about what is good for the mother, not about what is good for the child.
You act as if the woman didn't choose to have sex, and then choose to have the baby.

[Granyala]

Oh may, so, every woman who wants an abortion is chickening out of their responsibility?

What else is the point of an abortion but a way to circumvent one of the consequences and adjacent responsibilities of having unprotected sex?

(Rape victims, health risks and severely disabled fetuses excluded of course)

- - - Updated - - -

The father isn't chickening out on anything here, only when you choose to do something you can chicken out off it, but he never had this choice.

I'm pretty sure that whether to put your male reproductive organ into the female or not is a choice for any male.

Biology doesn't care about financial status. I already tried to explain to you that there are hormonal changes during a pregnancy that affect the judgment and emotions of the mother. Most mothers WANT to keep their child.

[Krille]

Oh this again. Use a fucking condom or make sure she's taking other measures before ejaculating inside her. If you're dumb enough to make someone pregnant without the intention to, you fucking deserve that baby and the economic disaster that follows. And don't give me that sexist bullshit, there's a reason why women have the upper hand in these matters, the baby is in their fucking body. Your say on the matter vanished when you decided to shoot inside her, own up to it, "be a man".

[Deleted]

What the decision would look like? Verbal agreement? It is not something that is recognizable legally. Legal contract? That's better, but most people wouldn't agree on such Orwellian measures.

You are not considering how this system would actually work and how it would be exploited at all. You just keep repeating your mantra about the need for equal choice, without understanding of how this equal choice could ever work. I agree, it would be nice if both sides had equal say in the matter - but without some kind of mandatory contract, it is virtually impossible to assure.

The current system is not perfect, but it is the best we have come up with so far. It works well for responsible individuals, and irresponsible ones have only themselves to blame.


Pretty sure the optional contract system is in place in some European countries, at least.


You are leaving the child out of equation, caring only about yourself. Sorry, isn't that simple!

I think most men will agree with having to sign something like a contract after the fact to ensure their wishes. Its not half as bad as the "rights" that they have now.
I do think on how the system will work, and it is not half as exploitable as the system we have in place atm. The only difference is that the system won't be exploited by females in the same way that they can now. There is really nothing for the males to exploit here, as everything is still solely in the hands of females. They still have all the "power" , the only difference is that they can't force their will on others.

And of course im leaving a child that is not wanted out off the equation, because, you know, it is not wanted. And as i've said before, if you want to do "what is best for the child" then give it up for adoption at birth. Best chance for the kid all round, those parents get checked if they can provide and are loving. Most of the time they will come in a home that can't conceive, and they live happily ever after.

[craftyard]

Because the law in most countries see men as the expendable gender. Doesn't matter what you want - think of the children!

[Granyala]

Use a fucking condom or make sure she's taking other measures before ejaculating inside her.

No contraceptive grants 100% safety.
As a man you need to be aware of that before having sex.
-> There is a risk
-> There may be a change of behavior during her pregnancy making her keep the baby.
-> I may have to pay child support

If you are okay with this -> proceed to make love to her.
If not -> abort the romantic encounter here and now.
@MeHMeH claims that males don't get to make the decision. What he doesn't realize is that males make the same decision only at a different point in time. Us men, we need to make this decision and weigh the consequences BEFORE making love. The woman gets the "luxury" of getting to make that decision AFTER a pregnancy happened.

Yeah I agree that it isn't exactly fair that the women gets to make that decision twice and has the opportunity to change her mind after giving in to lust. But life is hardly ever fair in these matters.

[Deleted]

What else is the point of an abortion but a way to circumvent one of the consequences and adjacent responsibilities of having unprotected sex?

(Rape victims, health risks and severely disabled fetuses excluded of course)

- - - Updated - - -


I'm pretty sure that whether to put your male reproductive organ into the female or not is a choice for any male.

Biology doesn't care about financial status. I already tried to explain to you that there are hormonal changes during a pregnancy that affect the judgment and emotions of the mother. Most mothers WANT to keep their child.

Ok, so you are saying we should ban all abortions, as having sex is clearly telling each other that you want to have a baby with them.

And hormonal changes or not, it still doesn't take away the choice. What they want is totally up to them, but they should not be able to drag anyone else with them.

[Granyala]

Why exclude those? They're also "chickening out" of their responsibility.

A rape victim that never gave consent can hardly be called responsible for a burden that was forced onto her.
If there is a severe health risk to the mother and a pregnancy happens by accident (no contraceptive except sterilization grants 100% and my mother managed to get pregnant DESPITE being sterilized for decades. O_o) In these cases an abortion is also acceptable.

You are right in the case of a severely disabled child. But being disabled myself (not that severely, mind you but enough to have seen doctors for 3 lifetimes) I can understand if the burden is too much to bear for some parents.

[Bodakane]

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

It is ALWAYS a given man's responsibility to get a woman pregnant or not. Again what you're crying about is that you want sex without any repercussions. Again, life doesn't work that way. If you don't want to pay for a kid, take the necessary precautions to not knock someone up.

The irony is palpable I agree.

Based on what you highlighted, I'm guessing "irony" is new word you just heard and don't quite understand what it means yet.