This quote is taken from the thread Planned Parenthood offers new t-shirt.

Droop quote:



He brings up an interesting point....



Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Well IMO they agreed to have while commiting the act that created the child



Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?


NO, unless they get castrated. This is the only way I can see to prevent this kind of behaviour in the future.

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?
While I will agree there are exceptional circumstances on occasion that may negate this, ultimately the answer is no, its not unfair. The male accepted those terms and conditions when he agreed to have sex without maximizing his protection. And even in that case, he accepted that risk since that is an inevitable one any time you choose to have sex.

While the woman ultimately has the decision whether to bring the child to term, ultimately the man *did* have a choice in the matter, even if its not when he wants to exercise it. There may be conditions that mitigate his financial responsibility but in the end he must own up to the consequences of his choice.

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?
I certainly think it can be negotiated in advance if you're exercising that much forethought. However if we're talking in reaction to conception, ultimately even waiving your parental rights does not completely negate your financial responsibility in the matter. It can certainly be agreed afterwards between the two parties but I don't believe anything should exist legally that would allow a man to abandon his responsibility by allowing him to give up fatherhood rights. That's having your cake and eating it too.

Doc

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

I voted "yes, it's fair" only because the man knows what causes preganancy (one would hope!) and also knows what actions to take to prevent it. If he believes the woman who says it's "safe", more fool he. Men cannot be forced into getting a woman pregnant. They were quick enough to jump in the sack and do the horizontal mambo; I'd be willing to bet no one "forced" them there - quite the contrary, I would imagine.

As for accidents, and the woman deciding to go through with the pregnancy...I hate to say it, but too bad fo' you, man. That's part of the risk you take. If a man didn't have to support the results of his (ahem) actions, what's to prevent him from indiscriminately siring children all over the place (assuming he'd be able to find enough partners dumb enough not to be on BC)? Heck, he doesn't have to worry about any monetary burden--let her (and the state) worry about that.

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?
Well that depends on what is actually being asked here/ Is it the way I would want it, all things equal?

Sure.

I think however the subtext here is the question of whether or not it is fair in light of a woman's ability to abort a child for financial reasons...

In light of that it is certainly not fair.

I would not support fathers being able to "opt out" of care for a child, but then again I am no fan of unregulated abortions either.

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

This is a good question. Feminists call for equal rights, but on the abortion issue what they really want are additional special rights just for women. For the most part, the feminists have succeeded in getting it codified in law. Some men now feel like they are shortchanged in having no say in the matter, and questions such as these come up. If we were to be equal in our equal rights, men should have just as much say as women on the issue of abortion.

My personal opinion is that the decision to have a child was made by both parties when they consented to have sex.

Therein lies the issue. What's the Spider Man quote 'With ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility'? This is inherently unfair. Either the man shares in all rights and responsibilities, or he doesn't. If he is expected to have to bear his fair (full?) share of the financial responsibility, he should have a say in all matters relating to that. In the current system, the man is essentially made financially responsible for the woman's decision in the matter. Doesn't that seem inherently unfair?



Come on, Daffy--where is the women's responsibility in this? It takes two to tango. In the scenario you outline, you're essentially removing any of the consequences from the woman for blatantly lying to the man--in fact, I know personally of several cases where such subterfuge was intentionally committed. Would you be so quick to absolve the responsibility if the situation were reversed--say if the man lied about being impotent and then forced the woman to carry the baby to term? I doubt it, and fail to see what the difference is.



Again, Daffy, why put the onus for this on the man? If you truly agree with this statement, then you must also agree with the following: As for accidents, and the man deciding to go absolve himself of financial responsibility...I hate to say it, but too bad fo' you, woman. That's part of the risk you take...Again, somehow I think you will disagree with this statement, and I fail to see how this makes the argument anything but hypocritical.

Ditto for Doclutus:



Would you then support the following statement: While the man ultimately has the decision whether or not to financially support the child, ultimately the woman *did* have a choice in the matter, even if its not when she wants to exercise it. There may be conditions that mitigate their maternal responsibility but in the end she must own up to the consequences of her choice? Again, I think you might disagree, but I fail to see the difference between the arguments.



Actually, turnea, I think the real issue is more when the woman chooses to have the child for financial reasons...



These same arguments could be made in support of allowing a man to prevent a woman from having an abortion if he wished to have the child. I have found that many support the one case, while not supporting the other. This seems inherently hypocritical to me.

As to my stance on the issue, I find it completely intertwined (obviously ) with the right to abortion as well as custodial rights. You can't support the right of the woman to make that choice, while at the same time inflicting the full financial responsibility of that choice on the man. Making a child is a joint activity, the responsibilities and choices from that activity need to be joint as well. So, if the man has no authority regarding the birth and custody of the child, he should then not have to bear the financial responsibility. Conversely, if the man does have to bear the financial responsibility, he should then have a say in the birth and custody of the child. Any other stance is, to me, hypocritical.

I would add that I am not speaking to the ability of the state or the mother to chase after 'dead-beat' dads. There are too many men out there running from their financial responsibility, and to these men the arguments presented here are valid. However, I find that often unaddressed in these debates is the corresponding right of the man to participate in the child birth and custody decisions. To put it simply, men, too, should have the right to choose. If women are unwilling to give that right, as Daffy and Doclutus state, there is a simple solution--don't commit the act.

Women have the option to terminate a pregnancy. While the male can not make the decision to terminate the pregnancy, they should have an equal right to make a decision to terminate parental responsibility.

Woman do not agree to raising a child by having sex. Woman know that intercourse can result in pregnancy. If a woman wants a man to take responsibility for a resulting pregnancy she should only reproduce with someone who wants to do so. If not, too bad for her. ( Poking at all of the presented arguments and the tone, too. )

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Yes it is very unfair. If a woman wants the baby and the man doesn't he is financially responsible for that child until the age of 18 or 22 in some cases. If the woman wants an abortion and the man wants the child he is SOL. Either way he has no say. If all things were equal then there wouldn't be a question. If the woman wanted the baby and the man didn't, it would be her responsibility to bare the burden. If the man wanted it and she didn't then it would be his burden to bare. If they both agree then they share the burdens. Equallity is a EDITED TO REMOVE ATTEMPT AT BYPASSING PROFANITY FILTER sometimes but that is life.



Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

Yes, but if they continue to do this then they should have to have a Vasectomy. You can't just do what ever you want with no repercussions... I think thats fair and I'm a man. But it does hurt to think about.


To all those who said no, where is the woman's responsibility in the situation?
Also, is it fair to make a father provide for a child when he has no say in how that child is raised? Or should the father have equal say?

This is one of those issues where there cannot possibly be a "fair" answer. Whether one likes it or not, women have most of the responsibility and say when it comes to pregnancy because nature has determined that the female have most of the childbearing burden. Therefore, no male can force a woman to have an abortion, or force a woman to give birth. This is as it should be.

If someone kicks a ball into my yard, who's ball is it? It's my ball, because it's on my property. Likewise, if a man gives his seed to a woman, it becomes her seed, to do with as she pleases. If men are scared about the consequences of this, then they need to have a better understanding of whom they sleep with. If a woman chooses to abort the resulting child, that's her perrogative. If she chooses to carry it to term, then yes, the man has a financial obligation to that child once it enters this world. Once it enters the world, it becomes not the property of the mother or the father, but it's own individual for whom both parents are responsible for. The welfare of the child - being better off having two parents' support than one - becomes more important than the rights of the parents.

Because parental involvement in childbirth is inherently unequal - the male ejaculates once, while the female stresses through almost a year of disruptment in her life - rights involving children and fetuses will be inherently unequal. It will continue to be this way until science or nature comes up with a way for the involvement in childbirth to be exactly 50/50. That's just life.

The question was about law not nature. Laws are set by man. Your argument seems similar to saying, "Because God is on my side" but replacing God with nature. Laws are not determined by nature but by man.

Then it is her responsibility to bare the burden of her decisions. The responsibility of the pregnancy is shared by the man and the woman, but she makes the decision from there on out. Therefore she should be responsible for these decisions. She could always give the child up for adoption if she chooses not to have an abortion. That is her perogative. I mean men get the short end of the stick after the baby is born. I guess it's payback for the women getting it during the conception..

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

You know my stance on this, as it is my quote. Of course it is unfair, I couldn't have pointed out the reasons better than Hobbes did in his post. I will say this, I can't stand when I hear pro-choice people disagree with the right of a man to financially abort their child. Pro-life people are consistent in this matter. "you had a choice not to have sex, that was your choice" I totally disagree, but I can respect their consistency in this matter. Reading some of these posts it's like looking at people do a total 180 just because the man has a choice.

To be clear, for me this is not about the man having a say on what a women chooses to do with her body. It's about the man having a choice on his direction.

I don't even think you believe this Suzy
Ultimately either we are responsible for the mistakes of conceptions, or we are not. Pro-Choicer's stop flip-flopping! In most cases of abortion, not all, I repeat, NOT ALL, a woman is using it as a way to shirk her responsibilities. Plain and simple. She made love under the apple tree and got stuck with the burden of the forbidden fruit, she doesn't want to be responsible so she aborts the baby. For a pro-choice person to find it totally acceptable for a woman make a decision on whether or not to be a mother and give the man the same option is as Hobbes said... "Hypocritical!!" By the way Hobbes how many times did you use that word???

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

Only in the same way a woman is able to, in the first few months of pregnancy. I think this is important to give the woman time to decide..."Do I want to go at this alone, raise this baby on my own or do I want to abort." To me this is all about fairness and choice.

This one should be controversial.

I tend to believe that when two people consensually engage in an act, they each are responsible only for that acts affects on their own bodies. It is often argued "My body, my business" by those who consider it unnecessary for others to weigh into decisions concerning themselves. This is a notion I tend to agree upon, but find it startling when those that preach that right yield to the exact opposite.

In terms of an unborn child, a woman who forces a man to be a father is saying "My body, our business." His input, of course, is irrelevant as shown by the amount of rights he has in the decision. The woman could keep or abort the baby at her whim. The next 18 years of the mans life could utterly change dependant on the decision of the woman.

Of course, theres always the argument that the man "agreed" to have the child by entering into the sexual act in the first place. This, however, ultimately neglects where the responsiblity really falls. If I have sex with a woman, I should only be responsible for that acts effect on me. If I were to acquire an STD, I knew and took the risk for myself. I am in no way responsible for how the consensual act effected the participant in a scenario where the risks were obvious and apparent.

People should look out for themselves. A man is responsible for himself, a woman is responsible for herself. They are not responsible for each other. We have part of the equation right, though: The rights reflect the responsibility. If women are granted 100% of the rights, they should also be granted 100% of the responsibility.

I'll add my two cents....

Let's take 3 options here:

1. Both Mother and Father agree to carry full term.

Mother is happy
Father is happy

2. Mother does not want to carry full term, but father does.

Mother is happy
Father is not

3. Mother wants to carry full term, father does not.

Mother is happy
Father is not

Now.....I know this is very simplistic and there will be specific circumstances each time, but do you notice a pattern here?

A woman, under our current laws, has virtually no responsibility if she chooses not to have it, men have to take responsibility regardless of what he wants or chooses. Even though, both parties chose to engage in intercourse to begin with.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that is fair. The only way the father can get what he wants is if both parties agree to carry full term.

I see it as a solution to the attitude, "You're stuck with it, baby--too bad for you!"
If you play, you pay.

Of course, in the case of men who are mentally incompetent, they should not be forced to financially support the child. In that case, it is altogether possible that they did not know that they were having sex, let alone producing a child.

In the case of wealthy or powerful guys getting stuck for financial support because they were playing around and the chick decided to take advantage, boo hoo hoo.


In the case of adoption, yes. In other cases, that is what the courts are for.

The more society allows adults to dodge their responsibilities, the less responsible the adults become. If nothing else stops them from indulging in irresponsible behavior which hurts society, making them pay for it might get their attention and discourage others from playing around. All behavior has consequences.

you forgot one:

4. Mother and father do not want to have the child.

Mother is...er happy?
Father is happy.

In this scenario, the potential father "gets what he wants" as well.

The woman is responsible for her body. She played and.... the man pays?

This makes it appear that the woman had no say in the matter. The woman and the man were playing around with each other. Thusly, they should both accept responsibility for what happened to themselves. Because the possible consequences were obvious and apparent, its the womans fault that she got herself pregnant through her own acceptance of the act.

If we both know shaking my hand hurts me, and I reach to shake your hand, its not your fault that you hurt me. Its my fault that I reached out in the first place. I wouldn't except you to pay my hospital bill for my foolishness. Wrestlers seem to understand this notion.

Woman don't have responsibility of there bodies anymore?
As I said before, if women have 100% of the rights, they should have 100% of the responsibility.

Every time I hear a smiliar issue, I am reminded by a political cartoon that my government teacher put up in his room.

It shows a picture of a man and a woman and above the man (to the best of my memory) the caption reads "This man refusues to support the child, people call him a deadbeat dad."

Over the mother, the caption reads, "This woman felt the same way and had an abortion, people call her pro-choice."

That being said...

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

To be honest, this issues hits very close to home.

My mother got pregnant with me at the age of 17. She told her boyfriend, he asked her to get an abortion. She refused. His reaction... make like Road Runner in a WB cartoon with the smoke outline and everything.

Soon after, she met the man I called (and still do call) Dad and he supported her while she was carrying me, when she had me, and when the two of them had my siblings. Later, my dad encouraged my mother to seek child support.

During the hearing, the man who got my mother pregnant, tried to pawn off the responsibility on someone else they were both friends with. The court didn't buy it. What did my mom get for child support....

$300 dollars a month.... that was it.

This is the case with many men who get by with paying a small amount, and end up being late with the payment or not paying it at all (there were a few times during my life when we needed that money and it wasnt there when we needed it). What is that man doing now? I don't know. Don't care, really. But I know that all that time he got away with paying 300 dollars and he kept his bachelorhood for a lil while longer. Hell, he may even have it now.

To get back to the question, (I apologize for the rant) it is very fair that men should have to,at the very least, assist in the financial support of the child. He keeps his freedom. Someone else raises his child. Now I'm not talking about sucking the father dry, but some assistance should be provided.

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

And have a nation full of bas**rd children? Christ on crutches! Guess what folks, for those of you who may have forgotten what they learned in biology, if two people have sex, they're gonna procreate! And whether the man wants it or not, it is his child. And if this "waiving" right was established, you'd have people skirting the responsibilty that comes with sex.

...Wait a minute...there's a responsibility that comes with having sex?

Guess what guys (and girls), sex leads to having kids!

So if you don't want kids, take the appropriate measures!

Now, all that being said, there is no real compromise to be found in the pro-life/choice debate. But I do believe that:

1. If you feel you're old enough to have sex, you're old enough to take the responsibility of raising a child. If you don't want one... wear a rubber for cryin out loud.

2. Men should have to pay child support, regardless. If you ditch the mom and the kid, you should have to be somewhat responsible. (Kudos to the one's that, if they choose this option, voluntarily help support the family.)

3. I believe abortion should be illegal unless during the pregnancy, the mother's life is endangered or (now this is still in debate with me) the mother was a victim of a sexual assualt.

I believe it's unfair for the most part.

Why not change it to "Pro Women's Choice"? The woman has a choice to abort the baby for any reason she chooses. The guy has no choice of anything.His future will be dictated by either the woman or a judge. It takes two to tango, but only one has a choice afterward. Is this how equal rights works these days?

Here's my idea how to solve the problem. I'd let the guy file a motion in court to either request an abortion or put the child up for adoption immediately upon birth. The woman can contest that motion and have it thrown out if she chooses to keep it. Then, it's game over. He's on his own and she's on her own. Both have had an equal say in the matter post-conception.

It's not perfect, but it's better than women making the same mistakes as men and having choices to deal with it. Right now, men have none.

Very interesting and thought provoking question Doomed Planet

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?
On the one hand you have an issue with responsibility. It should be well understood by both parties that having sex has certain responsibilities that come along with it and if you get pregnant you had better be willing to deal with the consequences.

However, as to the question of is it unfair that men are forced to financially support children they do not want to have, I would say yes. Women have 100% control over their reproductive rights (as it should be), but that presents a little bit of a problem for the male partner. What say do they get in the whole process if they don't exactly want to have a kid? If a woman doesn't want a child she can have an abortion or give it up for adoption, even if the male doesn't want that. However, it doesn't work the other way around. There is undeniably an aspect of "unfairness" to that. Whether it should be rectified or not I'll answer in the next question.

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

I agree with some of what has been said here in support of this, but I don't think it should be commonplace nor do I think it should be easy to obtain. I think that the courts should have the ability to make a judgement call on this given the circumstances of each couple.

While both parties are responsible for creating the child the woman holds the ultimate decision on whether she will raise the child (or if the child will even be born). Now ignoring abortion here for a minute, why should the father be penalized if the mother is insistent on raising the child herself even if adoption is available as an option? Arguably that isn't in the best interest of the child. The best interest of the child is to have two loving parents that support him/her in their own ways. Having the father send a check (for whatever amount the court decides) isn't going to replace that father role with the child, nor is it going to make the mother's job easier.

Shouldn't there be some kind of judicial authority to allow something like this if the father can prove the mother refuses to consider adoption as an option and really has no way of supporting the child on her own without his help? I think there should be, in other words "if you want to raise the child against all better judgement and common sense I won't be a part of it". It should be a sufficiently difficult burden of proof to meet, but it should be available.

As a bit of a corollary to this debate -- have you ever heard of a father having custody and a mother paying child support or alimony for that matter? To me that seems very strange and unfair in today's society.

On preview: I like DaytonRocker's suggestion too.

I think that if we simplify this to an issue of "fairness," and only look at it as a matter between a man and a woman, it is not fair that a pregnant mother has options (she can decide that for financial reasons, she will not keep the pregnancy), while the father has no options. I also know of real life situation where a woman told a man that she was employing protection, they had sex, and later when she got pregnant she freely admitted it was to have a child, there was no protection, and yes, she intended to collect child support because legally she could and she didn't care what people thought of her for doing it. I have also seen something of the reverse - a situation where the man told the woman he had had a vasectomy and she believed it, whereupon he proceeded to get her pregnant not too long thereafter, and freely admitted he didn't care about the predicament he put her in. In both scenarios, it is unfair, and one person is deliberately victimizing another.

However, the usual scenario is one in which two people have sex, there is an accidental pregnancy, and afterwards the mother gets to make a choice (abort, put up for adoption, or keep and raise,) while the father is financially on the hook till the child reaches the age of majority. Although this still may not seem fair, I don't think society can handle this issue any other way. There is more at stake here than two people's "choice," their individual "rights," and the time at which those rights apply.

In child support situations, we make one parent pay support over to the other parent for the benefit of the child. This springs from the right of the child to the support, not from the rights of the custodial parent (even though we tend to commonly think of it that way). Many people also don't realize that child support can not be "waived." Even if two parents make and sign an agreement that one party will not have to pay support over to the other party, and the other party will not seek support in court, it is legally unenforceable and void against public policy. The right to the support is bound up in the child, and society cares far more about making sure that a child gets financial support from both of its parents. Keeping that in mind, I suggest we consider this:

After conception, but before the start of the third trimester, a woman legally has the right to abort the child. We know that the man does not have a say in the matter, nor should he; we can't allow the father to force the mother to get an abortion against her will. However, until the child reaches viability and becomes legally protected against abortion, neither the man nor the woman is legally on the hook yet for child support or financially obligated for the next 18 years. At this stage, we're still talking about the potential life of a potential child, and potential financial liability. Legally, an obligation has not yet been incurred - we have to have a live birth, followed by a court order to make a party responsible for child support. Sure, we know it is likely that the developing fetus will be carried to term if the mother chooses not to abort; but it is important to note that neither outcome has happened yet, and that the right of the child to be supported by both its parents does not yet exist, even though there presently exists a right of the mother to terminate the pregnancy.

So even though it seems unfair that the mother gets a choice in the matter and the father does not, in which case he is facing financial liability for the next 18 years, it is important to remember that he will really owe that financial support to the child when the child's legal rights come into existence, rather than to the mother, who happens to have a legal right in the here and now if she chooses to abort. Although it feels unfair when we look at it as a situation solely between the man and woman, we've got three different people's legal rights and interests to balance here, and worse yet, those rights do not all exist at the same time; the mother's right to have an abortion only exists up until the end of the second trimester, and the child's right to support doesn't start until after it is successfully born alive. As a result, there is no way to balance these rights perfectly equally and make everything "fair." We can't institute a system where if a father doesn't want to be responsible, and the mother refuses to abort at his request, that he can then opt out of child support; how is that fair to the interests and legal rights of the child? So I think it is probably best if things are looked at this way:

Before conception, before anything happens, men get one choice and women get two choices. The first "choice" is that the parties can decide to have sex, and take the risk that pregnancy might result (whether protection is used or not). Both parties get this first choice. The second "choice" is that if pregnancy results, the woman can opt out by abortion, and prevent those obligations from ever coming into existence. This choice is unique to the female sex, which the man simply doesn't have.

Is that fair? No, but it has to be this way, because the rights of a third party (the child) come into play later, so it is best if men just accept this and keep it in mind before they go through with exercising their options in choice #1. It is the only choice they are going to get, and while women get a second bite at the apple with choice #2, it is not their fault.

---

To briefly summarize answers to the stated questions:

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Yes. In the simplest sense, it is "unfair" when contrasted with a woman's choice to abort, put up for adoption, or keep the child. However, women are not given this "choice" in an effort to be "unfair" to men, and framing it that way doesn't properly take into account the rights of the third party that come into play later.

Should men be able to waive their rights to fatherhood, and by doing so, have
no financial obligation to the child?

No. A parent should not be able to "opt out" on their financial responsibility to a child, despite the manner in which the chid comes to being. Men must be careful when exercising the only choice they have in the matter: to have sex, or not have sex.

Paladin, then I must assume you support the following statement--In the case of women being stuck carrying a child they don't want to term because they were playing around with a guy and the guy decided he wanted to take advantage, boo hoo hoo? If not, again, please explain the dichotomy to me, because I don't get it (and apparently have made the word I use to describe the situation quite obvious ).



I couldn't agree more, which is why I don't support the pro-choice group (it's not pro-choice, it's anti-consequence--but that doesn't make a very catchy phrase, does it). Making them carry to term might get their attention and discourage others from playing around. All behaviour DOES have consequences. Or does that only apply to men? If so, WHY?

Note I am not advocating the ability to waive financial responsibility. As Azure-Citizen points out, that is (supposedly, at least) for the child. What I do want if for those women advocating Choice to support, well, Choice. Or at least to have the courage to stand up and admit its not choice they want, it's freedom from consequences. And that they're not willing to share that freedom.

The one time I do see the right to waive financial responsibility is in the very situation Paladin describes, where intentional deceit was committed specifically to become pregnant to extract child support. Why, exactly, should society support someone using the child in such a manner? However, I also have a simple solution in these cases. Any woman who knowingly engages in such subterfuge is clearly not a fit parent--sole parental rights should be given to the male. As Paladin points out, if they don't like that, boo hoo hoo--maybe this will get their attention and discourage others from playing that game.



This, too, is unfair. In fact, this is the issue that I really think should be addressed, as it doesn't have the negative consequences for society that allowing men to absolve financial responsibility would. In the case where the woman doesn't want the child, but the man does..then the man should get to have the child. As this is part of the consequences of their behaviour, I know Paladin will support me in this, and join me in telling those women opposed, well boo hoo hoo.

Men, too, are "free from consequences" if the woman aborts. The woman's choice, in such a case, requires no responsibility for the potential father. I have known as many men as women who benefitted from the woman's "right" to abort. So, the ones "not willing to share that freedom" are not the ones choosing abortion, are they?
How would you enforce that requirement, assuming abortion remained legal? There is no way to prove paternity at that point.

There is no way to make this issue 'fair'. There is very little inherent 'fairness' about biology to begin with. The woman might play "I've got a secret", the man might run away. Pregnancy is not a sweet deal for the woman, but she has more say in the process. If she aborts, both she and the potential father forego their responsibilities. She is not assigning financial responsibility to the father by making that choice. The fact that not every woman opts to abort if her lover wants her to, IMO, should not preclude all women from that choice. I don't see how eliminating abortion would make things 'square' and equitable. All of the nightmare scenarios of 'tricked pregnancy' would still exist, the woman would just then not have the option to abort. If the man 'aborts' his responsibility, that child will then potentially become the obligation of the rest of us. Who should pay first?

I'll be glad to explain it. For centuries, rich and powerful men have considered the world theirs to exploit. Nowadays there are some women who realize that should they become pregnant by a member of America's wealthy class, they have a meal ticket. Now not all women would approach it in such a crass manner. But the men should not expect to get away Scot-free with their philandering.

If it can be proven that a woman is just in it to extort money from a man, then the man does have a case to sue for custody of the child.

As far as the woman is concerned, I am pro-Life. When a woman is pregnant, she is carrying a baby. The life of the baby should be given consideration and not be merely viewed as an inconvenience or a parasitic growth. For some women, it is altogether too easy a decision to say, "It's a mistake," and go to an abortion clinic to fix the mistake.

I know there are a lot of people who feel there should be no barriers to the way they express their sexuality and with whom. There are relatively so few people these days to shake their fingers and scold them for licentious behavior. Abortion is not supposed to be the panacea for every unintended pregnancy. More circumspect behavior would curb a lot of accidental pregnancies and prevent many abortions from taking place.

I maintain that not only women but men also should assume responsibility for bringing a child into the world.

Paladin, I think we are just looking at the issue from different perspectives. You are speaking against philandering men (as would I); I am speaking against deceitful women. We seem to be in agreement on taking responsibility for actions and the need for consequences, so I suspect that once we recognize the different perspectives we would be in agreement. Essentially, the argument being made to condone support of this is that, well, paybacks are a bitch. I could understand the sentiment, but maintain that this is still unfair, and our society should be beyond revenge for centuries old behavior.



Therein lies my issue, Mrs. P. With the 'if'. I feel that this needs to be a joint decision. In this regard, yes, the ones choosing abortion are the very ones not willing the share the freedom of choice. There is an inherent assumption that only women should have control over that choice. Given that the man is obligated to share the consequences of that choice, he should also have a say in it. Women, in general, seem unwilling to concede that choice. I'll be the first to admit, as is frequently stated, I don't have any idea what its like to go through pregnancy. Granted. Just as most women don't know what it's like to get hit with child support for life for a child that was not intended (or that sometimes the man didn't even know about). Given the relative time frames involved (9 months vs. 25 years or so): who's to say which side bears the higher consequence. It is at the very least debatable. Yet the man is allowed no say in the decision. There is just something wrong with that--I can't think of any other circumstance where one side so commonly gets to make a choice while the other side is then forced to bear the consequence. It goes against every principle in our society, to the point in some cases of legalizing a con job.

As I stated previously, I don't think this issue can be viewed by itself. It is inextricably intertwined with abortion rights, child support, and custody. All of these issues need to be put into a big pot, with legislation that takes all of them into consideration. If any of these issues are dealt with separately, you will be left with legislation that fails to take the full reality of the situation into account. Both man and woman are involved in the act of creating the child. Currently, only woman are allowed the decision in whether to carry the child to term, but then men are brought in again to bear the consequences of that decision. There's a disconnect in that process that needs to be corrected.

Choice includes a range of things, including freedom from consequences. Individual motivations will vary. Some women do share that "freedom" or "choice;" I am aware of an instance where a man and woman got pregnant, the woman was leaning in the direction of keeping it, the man wanted an abortion, and the woman acquiesed; while in another instance, the woman wanted an abortion, the man wanted the child, and she ended up having it and giving it to him. However, when a woman will not share that choice, what should society do about it? Ultimately, when the parties disagree, someone has to prevail.


Because society is supporting the child, not the someone using the child; and even if we changed public policy to prohibit a woman getting pregnant specifically to extract child support, it would still happen anyway, they just wouldn't admit to it. It is going to be very difficult in the courts to prove anything.


Unfortunately, engaging is such a subterfuge would not even come close to demonstrating the necesssary facts to find a person unfit as a parent - it is based on an entirely different set of criteria. I can appreciate the frustration; you're looking for a way to solve the "problem" for the victimized male in this scenario, and if sole custody of the child is given to him, he won't have to pay the scheming mother for child support. But we don't even know if he wants the child; he wanted her to get an abortion, remember? Custody of the child will be awarded on the child's best interests, and not as a reward to the parent who wasn't dishonest in their intentions. The father can still try and press for certain rights (joint decision making power, visitation, maybe even sole custody on other grounds), but he isn't going to win his case based on the mother's intentions to deliberately get pregnant and later sue for child support. To be found unfit, the mother needs to truly be unfit.

You're absolutely right. I have known people on both sides to be on the receiving end of the bad deal. The bottom line is, I see no way to remedy it. A man cannot (in a free society) force a woman to abort. A man cannot force her to have the child without proof of paternity. How would you make the 'father aborts figuratively' policy equitable to begin with? What if the woman can't find the father during the first trimester? She no longer has that choice...should he? What if she doesn't know, definitively, who the father is? Should she take a poll? I agree with your remedy for legalized 'con jobs' (father takes custody), but those can be impossible to prove. Many times, the father truly believes he was duped, though he wasn't. A woman can be on the pill and conceive. The man can withdraw and still impregnate the woman (I have a child to prove it).

We have been discussing this issue pretty coldly, but very few individuals consider the aborting of a fetus to be the equivalent of squashing a gnat. It is a difficult decision, and requires an uncomfortable and invasive procedure. MANY women would never even consider the option, because they believe the fetus is the equivalent of a baby, and signing an "I don't want to be a father" paper is not the same. The woman has about 6 weeks to make this decision (until the end of the first trimester), because she would likely not know she was pregnant very early on. That is a very small window of opportunity.

Again, I agree it's not fair. I just don't see any way to make it so. I appreciate the impact child payments for 18 years can have on one's bank account, but children do effect the mother's bank account as well. I don't think Titus' mother was raising him on that 300 a month.

Edited to add: Yes, indeed. I know several of those cases.

Hobbes I'll admit there is an inequity in that argument at first glance. But by the same token the woman bears the ultimate risk if the man decide to tuck tail and run. The man technically assumes less risk because of his potential ability to abate it. A risk still exists for him because of the potential for a paternity lawsuit to obtain support. But that also assumes the woman has the resources to do so.

The woman on the other hand assmes risk at 3 levels: medical, financial, and long-term (caring for the child vs. opportunity lost). Because of this elevated risk the woman gets a 2nd choice (to carry to term) that ultimately the man will never have. Once he can carry a child to term, he'll get the same consideration. Though I'm convinced if men could ever have children an abortion would be easier to get than aspirin.

Doc

I totally agree with this, Mrs. P. I got the same feeling as I was reading through the thread and saw all this "women get to choose" stuff, as if it was as easy as choosing between chocolate and vanilla ice cream.

As someone who had to make this choice during my first pregnancy, I can tell you it is one of the hardest decisions I've ever had to make. My daughter's father was very much against becoming a parent, but luckily didn't try to push me in one direction or another.

There are so many things to consider when making this choice -- how it will affect my body, my health, my financial situation, my future relationships, my career opportunities, my sense of self, my morals.

I felt so guilty about choosing to have my daughter when her father didn't want to have a child, I had planned on not asking for child support from him. Then I had a good friend get really angry at me and she let me have it. She reminded me that I owe it to my child to take child support. Her needs are above my need to assuage my guilt and his needs to have an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Suzy Steamboat put this very eloquently in her post.

Whether or not abortion is a nerve-racking experience really has no bearing on the fairness of the situation. I imagine that for many men, the idea of walking out on a son or daughter would be difficult as well. Even if the child has not been born.

The law should not be decided on such individual issues.

In general if a woman has the ability to abort parenthood for financial reason in the interest of fairness so should a man.

Why exactly should be idea of forced parenthood be fine, while forced pregnancy is not?

This is assuming that women are aborting for financial reasons only -- I doubt very few women abort for this reason alone. As stated in my previous post, there are many things to consider when making the decision.



Once the child exists, the child's needs comes before the parent's needs.

And there's our point. The father didn't want to be a parent, but didn't have the same options as you.

And as far as all the considerations, there was no "we" in your sentence. Only "my". Can't you see the difference?

There is not equality there. Our future (the father's) is out of our control, but the conception was a joint effort where both retain responsibility.

There is no "a few extra dollars a month". It is above child support. If the kid has special needs, we pay. Medical insurance, etc - we pay. There are a plethora of things added that as fathers, we pay.

I'm not saying we shouldn't, but maybe WE can't afford that and want a say-so. Many women's groups (i.e. NOW) states one of the reasons we need legalized abortion is because some young mothers can't afford to raise a child. Why doesn't a man have that same opportunity? It is a double-standard and there is not an equitable post-conception burden.

I don't think we should be killing babies before they are born for any reason, but they should be put up for adoption. The waiting list for healthy babies is quite long, so that seems to be the most equitable option for all.

I have two kids to prove that one. Needless to say, we don't use that
method anymore.

There are excellent arguments on both sides of this issue. I'm not sure
where exactly I stand on all of this, as of yet.

I would like to address the issue of failed birth-control. Condoms break,
the pill isn't 100%, the rhythm method, etc. - all have populated our planet
very well. So, unwanted pregnancies will occur, even if two consenting
partners are taking precautions. Why shouldn't the man have equal say
in what would dramatically alter his future? If he cannot ultimately dictate
whether or not his partner will keep or abort, he should at least have the right
to decide if he wants to step up to the plate and be a responsible parent (if
the woman has decided to keep the child), or to bow out, letting her decide
if she wants to go it alone.

If the mother-to-be wants to go it alone, she should have the resources
to rear the child, without becoming a burden to the state.

Women have the power to choose. Too often, they make the wrong choices
in men, and they pay the price by having children that their counterparts
want no part in raising.

We’d sorta discussed this issue previously in Men's Abortion Rights, Abortion considered.

Here was/is my opinion on the issue:

This attitude that women have full control of the fetus has so permeated our society it spills over into child support, visitation rights and other aspects of men's reproductive rights.

Men are forced to pay child support for children that aren't even theirs.

A man plays around, gets a woman pregnant and many say, you played, you pay. But if the circumstances are reversed and it's the woman who is doing the playing we refuse to hold them to the same level of accountability. Instead, we tell her, YOU have a choice, abort the baby OR you can keep the baby and sue the father for child support. Oh and by the way, let's make sure the father has no visitation.

Two extreme cases in point:



Men should have EQUAL rights (financial, custody) to the unborn/born baby unless it can be proven to the court he is unfit to "have rights" to his children.

Women have rights and choices while men have responsibilities and are expected to support any choice a woman makes.

A man should be allowed to petition the court to "abort" his parental rights and responsibilities within a limited time of being notified of the pregnancy just like the woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy.

Men are completely disenfranchised in the decisions about having the child. They are seen as an ATM if the kid is born, but seldom more than that.

Lots of women have abortions and the men never even know that they could have been fathers. Everyone, on both sides, say that it is a women's choice, whether that is right or wrong. The men have no voice at all.

I have no problem with the woman then making the choices in these situations, assuming an effort was made to find the father. Basically, if the dad doesn't step up to the plate himself, he probably falls into Paladin's philandering category.



Very well said. Jenreiautter, we are not trying to minimize the abortion decision. I feel your struggle there, and recognize that this is the process many women go through. But, as DR puts so well here, it is not a struggle that you should go through alone. You not only shouldn't have to bear that burden alone, you should be required to share it.

One aspect that I think is being missed here is that this issue is one of the reasons many men run away from a girl that becomes pregnant. They know they'll have no say in the process--essentially only burdens to bear. Give them some say, and I think you'll see that many (not all, but many) men will be much more likely to participate in the process, and the consequences (support) that come out of it. There are definitely benefits to be gained on the women's side if this situation could be addressed.

The other reason many men 'flee the scene' has to do with onerous child support (as I said, it's impossible to deal with these issues separately). Courts have basically decided that not having two parents is disadvantageous to the child, and they're going to make the man (or woman, if she's the one paying support) make up for that. Support laws dictate actions that go way beyond what married couples are required to do for their children. Why is that fair? (Can you imagine the uproar if married parents were forced to provide proof that they spent 20% of their income on their child, and were required to provide this funding through their educational years?). This is yet another disconnect that needs to be addressed. I think it is through frustration with this that the issue being debated has come about.

What other reasons?? On second thought, let me respond like this. Outside of rape, incest/molestation, and danger to her own life, a man will want an abortion for the exact same multitude of reasons that a women would. The bottom line is they are not ready, for whatever reason, to not have a child. Now if the only credible response to that is, "he should have thought of that prior to sleeping with her." Well, that street can go both ways. Therefore, abortion should only be legal in the cases of rape, incest/molestation, and danger to the woman's life. I swear some pro-choice reactions to this topic make me feel like I am on the wrong side of the abortion debate, not for moral reasons, just cause I am feeling women's movements have duped me into believing that they are for choice.

If you are saying that legally it should be acceptable to bind a man to his child that he doesn't want, then it is just as fair to bind a women to a child she does not want. Of all the arguments for supporting abortion most would agree that the physical(it is a woman's body) argument, is the weakest one of all. Most people wouldn't say, "yeah, she should be able to get an abortion because she's going to get fat and she doesn't want to." No, the social and economical reason for abortion have always been the bread and butter of the cause. But while the physical reasons can't parallel to the mans reasoning not to want a child, the other reasons can. So why are pro-choice, now anti-choice?

I agree that once a child is born the parent's must put the child needs before their own, but if this is the case could we as a society not decide if there are going to be parent's or just a parent. I know there would be circumstances when the mother wouldn't know the paternity... or she will be unable to reach the father, but these would be exceptions not the rule...at least I would hope so. In either of these cases it would probably be better off for the mother to have an abortion, because she is probably going to have a fatherless child, regardless.
But looking at it from a more realistic stance, she would know who the father is and how to contact him. Yes the window would be short...6 to 8 weeks sounds about right. But why not let them both decide if they are ready for a child. If the man bails, the woman may continue....on her own, or realize her situation and choose to abort. If the man wants to keep it the woman should still be able to abort, after all she is still the primary decision maker. If they both decide to continue they sign a paper in which the man will be locked in. It's a one time shot.

Come on pro-choicers, be fair, make me feel positive about the liberal way of thinking.

I'm sorry Beladonna, but he shouldn't. Spiritually you may be correct, and in all reasonable circumstances he should at least have input. But at the end of the day, until that child is born it is the 100% property of the person carrying it. Philophically it can't be held any other way. If you give right to the father as part of some compelling social interest and bind it in law, you inevitably give way to the slippery slope of government interest in this equation and completely violating a woman's personal liberties or even the basic right of self-determination.

If it is in fact unfair to give the woman an extra choice (abortion) for biological differences, do the same men calling for male choice in the abortion debate also support lowering physical standards for infantry, fire departments, etc.?

Ultimately I agree with Mrs. P, this may not be fair in the universal sense, but biology and basic principles of social contract/governance avail no remedy at this time.

Doc

I don't think we need to go down that slippery slope Doc, at the heart of Beladonna's post I think she is basically saying that if a woman chooses to have her baby and raise it herself, she had better be planning on getting married or have the appropriate financial resources to support the child. I don't think anyone is talking about forcing abortions or the like.

If a woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't want a child and the woman refuses to consider adoption but the woman doesn't have the financial resources to support the child -- how is that fair to basically consider the man an ATM machine as Beladonna so eloquently put it? Isn't that attitude inherently a little sexist making the assumption that women don't work and don't have the capability of providing for themselves? Isn't defeating that attitude the goal of the women's equality movement?

And, again that leaves us with the bone of contention. A woman's 'choice' to terminate a pregnancy costs no one. A man's choice to terminate his obligation likely costs all of us. This is an irreconcilable problem. The only way I see it could work is if the woman is already financially stable, and able to stay that way and go it alone for the next 18 years (or with family help). Otherwise, who should pay first? The father, or society? Kids in the foster care system cost money, too. She might adopt them off at birth, but I don't believe that forcing a (competent) woman to relinquish her newborn is compatible with a free society.

Now, if we are speaking of father's rights to their children after birth, that is a different matter, and the system can and should change. But, I see no way to make the inequities during the pregnancy and birth 'fair' by terminating the father's legal obligation, unless it does not impose on the rest of us.

There have a lot of interesting points made in this discussion that make me rethink my position a bit (call me a flip-flopper heh heh heh ). It does seem pretty unfair for a man to have to pay for a child he did not want, but that assumes a set of situations:

*The woman lied to him about birth control and/or her desire to have children
*A married woman cheats on her husband and leads him to believe the child is his
*It was an accident and she refuses (for whatever reason) to abort/give up for adoption.

But then you head toward situational ethics, like PaladinElspeth describes:

So maybe the lawmakers are wiser than we think. Let's turn this around. For instance, if a man rapes a woman and she gets pregnant; should he have rights as a father? Can he force her to have the child? And if he can force her to have it, should he have to support it? If a case of incest results in pregnancy, can the “father” force the woman/child to have the child and should he support it?

I think men and women are both guilty of lies and conniving when it comes to sex (well, men are a lot better at it… ) and I sure as heck don’t condone women who connive to get pregnant by a man without his knowledge or consent, but neither do I condone a man lying and conniving to get a woman into bed.

Sidetrack to personal story: I've only been pregnant once, it was an oops and I miscarried, but what I vividly remember is the night that it happened, we were both (ahem) tipsy and had unprotected sex...after which he exclaimed "oh, ****, why the **** didn't you do something" at which point I threw the condom I had brought at him and told him at least I came PREPARED, unlike someone else. He acted like it was all my fault that we weren't coherent enough to pause at that moment. And later, when I told him I'd been in the hospital with a miscarriage, do you think I got any sympathy? Hardly.

OK, back to our regularly scheduled programming...

How in the world could these amorphous situations be proven in court? “Your honor, she lied to me about birth control.” What do you think a judge would do with that? What COULD he do with it?! It comes down to he said/she said.

I believe part of the reason men are held financially responsible for their offspring is that men can abdicate their responsibility much easier than women, whether they wanted children or not. The woman has to carry around the developing kid, birth it and nurse it. At no point in that cycle is the man physically needed (calm down, I’m trying to make a point). He can take off at any time, and gestation and birth will continue. After birth, if the man takes off, the kid is still there to be taken care of. And unless the mother is a total skank, she isn’t going to abandon the kid like a stray puppy. So, who pays for the burden of taking care of the child? The state? That’s a question no one has addressed yet. If we make laws abdicating a man’s obligation to support his offspring, who’s gonna shoulder the burden?

But on the abortion issue I will stand firm, even if I get called a hypocrite. The woman has a right to have an abortion, and no man (or woman) should be able to tell her what to do.

Edited to pull my head out of my...and get my wording correct

I have ultimately thought of the argument that you present Mrs. P. And as DaffyGrl points out...no one has addressed it. Who gets stuck with the bill. Let me state that I think this is the best argument put forth against whether or not to allow men to abdicate themselves of their responsibility. Bottom line is...Yes the state flips the bill. Before you go... "Why should I have to pay for some deadbeat dad"... ask yourself, why should you have to pay for anything. Why should you have to pay for someone's education or healthcare or social security or any other program that the state provides? Because these are social issues. Now ask yourself this, if it is determined that a women will be unable to raise a child on her own, should that woman be compelled by the state to give up the child to an adopting family. As Daffy said

If this argument holds no water in making a woman give up her child, then it holds no water in making a man take responsibility. Sure it appeals to our sense of outrage of having to pay for someone else's mistake, but it really isn't relevant to the principle of why a man should have the same rights as a women in term's of taking responsibility for an unwanted child. I also don't believe that a child support check in most cases is going to keep a woman out of the system or put her in. The man would have to make a sizable amount of money to be able to keep her off of welfare just from a percentage of his check. We must also take in account the likely possibility that she has some family support.
So yes the State will flip the bill and it is as fair for them to flip the bill because of a man's bad choices(choosing not to support his child) as it is for the mother (choosing to have a baby she KNOWS she can't afford).

I think the challenge here CJ is that now we're getting into circumstance/nuance. The tricky part of this question was that its asked as a general question, and unless you answered the "it depends" camp the nuance dominates, which I think is incorrect. Ultimately, the man gets one chance at doing this right (protecting himself and perhaps insisting that she do so as well). The woman gets two chances (arguably 3 if you include her ability to insist on protection "no glove no love").

The "fairness", from a liability standpoint is that he had a chance to protect himself from that risk and he chose not to. "Baby, you don't have to, I have protection", while despicable, is no defense on his part. I've had lovers on occasion tell me I didn't have to, and each and every time I reach for the package or make that infuriating run to the convenience store. The only time I've had unprotected sex (partly, she was on the pill) was with my wife and implicit in doing so was the idea that we accepted the consequences if a pregnancy resulted.


The problem with this example CJ is its rife with nuance. IF, he doesn't want it, and IF she doesn't want adoption, and IF she can't afford it. Do you honestly think the mother is a deadbeat and is going to be able to support the two of them on the $300 a month she may get in child support? I don't consider this sexist at all to accept that in current times, there is STILL inequity in wages for women at many levels. And the overriding issue here is not her financial ability, but the mans responsibility in providing support for the child.

In a vacuum, all social issues being equal, is a woman capable of raising a child on her own without child support? Damn skippy, my mother did it for 12 years with two children after my Dad offered up his first 2 child support payments then disappeared. Did he have a responsibility, yep. And so would I if I made a conscious choice to have sex with someone and not protect myself (and insist that she do so as well).

This isn't about sexism in any form, its about responsibility. Should a man be responsible if he has sex and the woman gets pregnant? Yes, because her responsibility/assumption of risk is a given. The man's ability to abdicate that responsibility (and history has proven the frequency of that) means he now legally runs the risk of being financially responsible for the child's welfare. There are many examples where that sucks and where the woman doesn't use the support for the child and those are wrong, but the examples do not disprove the philosophical base upon which the fairness is judged.

Doc

You can still have fairness, Doclotus, go back to the system that bans abortion. You say yourself, if you made a mistake by making a conscious decision to have unprotected sex that you should be expected to take responsibility. Fine. She should be forced to take responsibility by carrying the baby to term. He should be forced to take responsibility by being forced to make child support payments if he is not with her. There you have a world that is fair , where both men and women are forced to take responsibility. I believe neither should be forced. Others believe that both should be forced. My problem is with the ones that believe that only one of the two should be forced. What's up with that?

That is a good point Doc, but in all fairness I never suggested this should be an absolute right, I said it should be an option. Preferrably it would be the decision of a judge based on situational facts. There are circumstances where this would be appropriate and there are circumstances where it wouldn't. I can't argue that it is absolutely right or wrong all the time.

I personally don't think you should be raising children if you can't support them financially - period. I don't care what sex you are. Now given that adoption lines for healthy babies are pretty long, I think we should be making more use of that personally. If a woman chooses to have a baby, denies adoption as an option and then doesn't have the financial resources to raise the child but also doesn't want to marry the father -- why should he be penalized for that? As soon as he ejaculated his input into the process ceased and I think we are giving the woman an incredible amount of power and influence over the future trajectory of his life when she is holding all the cards and making all the decisions. It is very situational in my mind.

Where do rights end and responsibilities begin??? Perhaps they are one and the same. I really think we need to alter the entire concept of what we consider acceptable. If a man impregnates a woman he has a moral obligation to support that woman and child to the best of his ability. That responsibility should be equal, so we should conclude the woman has the responsibilty to support that man and child to the best of her ability. When a child is conceived, it is not some inanimate object that needs things, it is a potential being which needs a family. This means one house, one set of parents, one family. A woman and man who conceive a child have an option to live together and share that responsibilty equally, put the child up for adoption, or go through an abortion procedure. This concept of child support and surrogate parenting is obscene. In this type of arrangement, implicitly, the father is expected to contribute in a solely financial manner while the woman is expected to contribute solely in a emotional manner. That is neither equal nor fair to either individual, nor is it equal and fair to the child.

And forcing the man to be the sole financial support for a child he didn't intend and doesn't want, without any recourse whatsoever on his part, is somehow compatible with a free society? Not that I'm necessarily arguing in favor of forced adoption (although it is certainly a very viable alternative that addresses all of your other concerns here about society bearing the costs); rather, I am pointing out again that it seems almost impossible to argue in favor of the current system without injecting any logical fallacy. That, to me, speaks volumes about how broke the current system is.



Interesting point. Courts rule the way that they do, supposedly, in the interest of the child. There seems to be uniform agreement that children are better off with two parents. Everyone here seems to be in agreement that both parties, ideally, should have to accept the consequences of their behavior. This leads to one potential solution--both parties should be forced to be married . Courts, of course, aren't going to enforce that solution--thereby indicating that they are not really as concerned with the well-being of the child as they claim (making them, too, hypocritical).



Really? Isn't this, then, legalizing the con job? Almost always, the victims of the con had an opportunity to protect themselves, and chose not to. If the lie told by the con isn't then a crime, which carries with it civil repurcussions, then why do we bother having laws against con jobs at all?

Is it unfair for men to be forced to financially support children they do not agree to have?

Men who choose to engage in sexual activities with a woman who is not using birth control are agreeing to the possibility of having children unless the woman is being dishonest. Unfortunately, that does happen, and it's not fair, but researchers are working on a male birth control pill that would create a solution to that problem.

It will be a few years before this is available, as it's still in the testing phase, and developing a birth control pill for men is inherently more difficult than developing one for women.

Until this comes to fruition, I can't think of a good and equal solution to this problem. The biology involved naturally places more control in the hands of the mother, but it doesn't absolve the male role in the process.

I believe that a woman having an abortion is a much harder decision than a man aborting his financial responisibility to a child. The man that leaves a child doesn't make the decision to end it's life, a woman that aborts a fetus does. There are less moral and religious implications to a man's decision in this case.

A man that plants a seed gives his right to choose up to the woman that he plants it in. I see nothing wrong with this. He may not get the second chance that a woman has, but that (to me) means that his initial decision should carry more weight. It doesn't mean that he should be afforded more leeway after the fact. He should know going into a relationsip that his initial actions carry more of a burden than the female's, and own up to that fact in the case of a pregnancy.

My opinion is definitely swayed by being raised by a single mother that never put my father's name on my birth certificate or sought child support. But she never hid his identity or location from me (and to this day has never said a bad word about him to me). So take it for what it's worth!

Well, sure. A real solution would be selling the children into slavery. Then, they'd be productive and no one would be inconvenienced. Or forced abortion. Do you think that Titus' mother was raising him on that 300 a month? Where do you get the idea that the father is the sole financial supporter of the child?

I understand the injustice of it all, but those two 'decisions', while very similar at the beginning of a pregnancy, are entirely different in the final result. If the woman aborts, there is NO CHILD. No one is inconvenienced. If the man 'aborts', there IS A CHILD. Someone is going to be inconvenienced. There are conflicting rights involved there, to include society and the child, in addition to the mother and father's rights at that point. I don't see the logical fallacy there, and I certainly don't see how this makes any argument in favor of the elimination of abortion, because the father incurs no financial responsibility whatsoever when the woman terminates her pregnancy. He is freed!