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

[PatchworkBBC]

Just to toss a bit of a hot potato into the discussion...

Male rape victims have to pay child support if a child is conceived. In multiple cases, courts have held that being a victim of statutory rape (I think the father was 12) have to pay up, as do fathers whose sperm was retrieved from a used condom (even if no actual intercourse takes place between the father and mother), and fathers who were incapable of giving consent at the time (such as being blackout drunk).

[Delekii]

Why do we keep having this fucking stupid thread?

The woman has bodily autonomy, the same as the man does. Each has the option at a given point within the process of deciding not to have a baby. The man's falls in the "before the woman gets pregnant" section.

If you don't want to have a baby, don't have a fucking baby. You chose to do it.

Just to toss a bit of a hot potato into the discussion...

Male rape victims have to pay child support if a child is conceived. In multiple cases, courts have held that being a victim of statutory rape (I think the father was 12) have to pay up, as do fathers whose sperm was retrieved from a used condom (even if no actual intercourse takes place between the father and mother), and fathers who were incapable of giving consent at the time (such as being blackout drunk).

Links or bullshit. Find a link where a woman who was convicted of statutory rape got child support from the man she raped. To pre-empt your wikipedia entry,

The court also remarked that "the Kansas court did not address the question of whether lack of actual consent (apart from the statutory definition) could form the basis of a defense to an action to establish paternity".[10] In this case also the question of whether actual nonconsent might be a defense was not before the court.[10]

[Deleted]

Ofc it's the deciding factor.

What are you smoking?

You either have sex or not.
If both of you don't want to be parents you do your best to prevent it but both are aware that it can still happen.
The male needs to be aware of hormonal and psychological changes that may compel the mother to want to keep the child and input that into his risk assessment.

I REALLY don't see the problem here.

Of course is having sex not the deciding factor, the female is the deciding factor, as she makes the choice to keep the baby or not. So, this makes the whole having sex thing rather moot.

[squee666]

Because abortion is something you just get and everythings fine later. Right? Get a clue please, before you have an opinion.

because choosing not get an abortion and forcing someone else to pay for the next 18 years is perfectly fine

Get a clue before you reply

Tell how its perfectly fine to put someone in a debt for 18 years without consent

[Wildtree]

I am aware but my original reply herein was strictly concerned with the US- and outlined such. Any discussion of law outside the US is not within the context or purview of my reply.

That's understood.
I just think that the topic falls completely apart if we start to bring all the different law details of the various countries present in the thread into the mixture.
Much like somewhere in the early thread stages people argued about contracts.
Now such contract would be null and void in say Germany. Because no clause in any article that would violate existing law is considered existing.
In other countries there could be even more consequences to such contract.
I think, it would at some point get too complicated to sort things out.
While talking about the fathers responsibilities per say, is something universal

[Zantos]

She won't pay the baby herself. She will pay the baby through increased welfare contributions, i.e. you will pay for her baby. The state does not want to allow for that so it taxes male stupidity through child support.

If men do not want to pay for child support, they should make sure they use condoms (and use them properly cause a lot of idiots don't know how to properly put on a condom). And we should also welcome expanded research on male contraception.

Come off it. Even with child support, the taxpayers are STILL the ones paying for that baby. Free health care, food help, everything. Child support isn't all that much a month, usually not nearly what is needed.

The reason fathers get no rights is anyone's guess. The woman can Literally kill a mans child, even if he wants it, but he can't opt out of child support in a relationship that isn't working and for a kid he doesn't want. The entire thing is messed up. What is even more messed up is people who say "its Her choice", as if that somehow invalidates that without a male, that baby wouldn't even be created. The saying "It takes two" applies in this situation. Then people go "It's her body!". Yes, and its his Genetic material made by His body that is there as well. What ever happens to that fetus is out of his control. The entire well being of his child is in the hands of someone else. They smoke? His child is harmed. Drink? He can't stop it. Eat poorly? Nothing can be done. Its honestly a crappy situation when it comes down to it.

The only one in the entire situation of a pregnancy that gets Any rights is the woman. Not even the unborn child gets proper protection from the mothers choices. It needs to be looked at and reworked from the ground up exactly who gets rights, what those rights are and how they are going to be enforced.

With all that said, I am sure that its not really a Huge issue. Most men want to be a part of the child's life. The vast majority of those who don't want to pay are just scum bags anyway who don't want to see the kid, yet don't want to help the kid. There is a very small minority of those who truly don't want the kid.

My suggestion is simple. Just have a lengthy process where, After the child is born, they relinquish all rights to the child. If they even so much as give the child a single present, they have to start paying child support and can never restart the process and relinquish the rights again. If they truly want to not pay child support, then they should Never get to have contact with that child until that child is 18, and only If they choose it.

[Deleted]

Mothers abandon children post-birth, decease, become unfit, etc.

If the siring father is within the limitation of the state to deposit the child under any circumstance by which the de facto custodian(s) are unable to care for the child- he can do so in the US.

- - - Updated - - -

I am aware but my original reply herein was strictly concerned with the US- and outlined such. Any discussion of law outside the US is not within the context or purview of my reply.

Not as long as the mother objects, this isn't the same for the mothers them selves, she can give up the child without ever telling the father, so the father cant object.
Like i said, applying a sexist rule to everyone doesn't magically make the rule not sexist, even though it is the same rule for everyone.

[Delekii]

because choosing not get an abortion and forcing someone else to pay for the next 18 years is perfectly fine

Get a clue before you reply

You chose to pay for the next 18 years when you had sex without appropriate precautions.

[Zantos]

because choosing not get an abortion and forcing someone else to pay for the next 18 years is perfectly fine

Get a clue before you reply

Someone else pays for the abortion usually as well.

[Spectral]

Why do we keep having this fucking stupid thread?

People are really bothered by the reality of biological differences creating different legal conditions for genders. I guess I can understand how we got this crop of man-children that want to avoid providing care for their children - it's a response to a couple decades of everyone pounding the "equality is the best!" drum, but it's still fucking absurd.

[Miow]

The mother can choose to keep the child, despite the father doesn't want it.
This happens in new relationships, one night stands or even long term relationships. He doesn't have a say. And that's okay too. She shouldn't be forced to keep it or abort it, depending on his opinion.

Likewise, the father should be informed of the pregnacy early, and be able to choose whether he wants to participate in it or not (Just like the mother can abort it against the fathers wish).
It should, by law, be like this (As an example): Early stage of the pregnacy the woman informs the man. He doesn't want to keep it and won't have to pay childsupport/have anything to do with the child as he has made it clear that, that is his wish.
It being informed early means she still has 3 options: Keep the child and raise it alone. Adopt it away. Or abort it.

You're TWO to have sex. You're TWO to get pregnat. You're TWO with the responsibility.

We're talking a lot about equality these days.
Equal means the woman gets a choice.. As does the man.

[Vynny]

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.

That's a flat out lie first of all. It's completely legal for a female rapist to sue for child support in every single state in the USA because there's no legislation making an exception for them.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/n...port/14953965/

So while there's 31 states that give men who fathered their child through rape parental rights, there are no states that take away the ability to receive child support from a woman who mothered her child through rape. On top of that most states don't require the results of a paternity test before they force the man to pay child support and when they do have cases of paternity fraud the not-father is still responsible to pay child support up to the point where he is legally declared not the father in a court procedure which is very lengthy and can expect no reimbursement for the fraud even if the mother knew all along.

Also, with your views, why should women be allowed to have abortions just because they don't wanna be a parent then? I mean under the same logic, she decided to have the baby when she had sex, so why not restrict abortion to cases of medical emergency, incest, or rape? And this is what bothers me the most, the father consents to having the child when he has sex regardless of the circumstances like if she lies about being on birth control, if she sabotages the condom, if she rapes the father, etc. The father is responsible for taking care of that child, but the mother has only the most fleeting responsibility in the same circumstance because she can choose to get an abortion (which may or may not be difficult to do depending on her state) either medically or chemically (morning after pill), she can put the baby up for adoption without the fathers consent, and she can give the baby up to the state without the fathers consent and the father just has to accept her decisions regardless of it's a decision about her body (which I support her being able to do) or a decision about the child (which I do not support on the grounds that both parents should get a say in whether or not the child is given up for adoption).

[Zantos]

People are really bothered by the reality of biological differences creating different legal conditions for genders. I guess I can understand how we got this crop of man-children that want to avoid providing care for their children - it's a response to a couple decades of everyone pounding the "equality is the best!" drum, but it's still fucking absurd.

Nothing man child like about a sexist law system that doesn't even ensure the baby is protected while in the mother or lets the mother just drop the already Born kid off in a adoption agency without the father so much as even getting a say in it.

[Raetary]

Wanting a sandwich

Male

since when cant women demand a sandwich?

[shadowmouse]

Why do we keep having this fucking stupid thread?

Because ... here is what the exact same poster who started this thread said in the last thread he started, the one with the same title:

OP here and holy shit you all took the bait so hard. By far the most commented thread, 80 pages in just over 24 hours.

This whole thread was an experiment because I posted something similar 2-3 years ago when I was last active on mmo-champ and I remember having heated but incredibly stupid and juvenile arguments and I can see the same autistic people are here still, I guess I should've known from the topics that were already present but w/e.

I wonder how many pages he is going to wait this time.

[Zantos]

I wonder how many pages he is going to wait this time.

Not very good at what he is doing since this is a legitimate topic with legitimate merits to discuss. I would try to ask something else other then a heated question about a topic that is still very much discussed, especially now a days in a world that is pushing for equality so hard in every aspect of life.

[Zantos]

The amusing part is, it's not pushing for equality, it's pushing for women to have more rights than men. People aren't giving a damn about giving the rights to men that women have, but demand that women have the rights of men.

This thread is proof of it.

Yup. I try not to think about it since its stupidity of the highest order.

[moremana]

They are both equally responsible for the baby, if he or she doesnt want kids use protection ... its just really that simple.

If she gets pregnant, then he has to pay. Its called being responsible.

[Easo]

Because, OP, this has been discussed to death before. Pay up or use protection.

[Ebalina]

stop making excuses for sexist laws

You say what?
If you do not want to support a child you do not make one in the 1st place.

In very very very very very very very small % of cases when even protection doesn't cut it, it should be up to the parents to decide what to do and if they cant they should be put both on trial to decide both their faiths.

Simple as that.