|
|
|
|
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers??? [CLOSED Thread]
Posted: 7/13/2008 6:45:56 PM | | After reading several theads about child support a question occured to me. It seems that quite a few people believe that since a man has no say in a woman's right to choose to either abort, keep or give a their child up for adoption that they should not be required to pay child support. Even though they are just as responsible for the conception of said child. What is everyone's opinion on this. I am just curious to see what people think about this. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 7:28:23 PM | | I think that if you have sex then you should deal with what happens because of it. If you have a child/get someone knocked up then yes you should pay up even if you didn't want it. this goes for women as well as men | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 7:48:52 PM | ^^^ Just try to hold a woman accountable if she doesn't want to be, or to collect support if you are a custodial father. Let alone have her carry a child to term and hand it over to you if she "doesn't feel ready to be a parent".
Or consider those foolish women that will use pregnancy in the hopes of trapping a guy.
The OP brings up an interesting and very tricky question. A PARENT is a parent for life, but to be equitable it does seem a guy should have the same level of an "out" that the woman does. Let's say 24 weeks to make up his mind whether or not he wishes to become a parent, if he chooses "no" then he relinquishes access rights and does not pay support. This still would allow the woman to abort or go it alone if he says no, or if he goes for yes then to expect help in raising the child. This still leaves the balance of choice versus responsibility skewed in the favour of the woman since no man can realistically force a woman to give birth if she chooses not to, but it would level the field a bit more and hopefully discourage those making poor choices and using children as a tool if they know in advance they could be only setting themselves up. It also protects the rights of children in the event of a relationship breakdown where one has been a father willingly being unable to just walk away from responsibility.
Paternity tests should be part and parcel of the birthing process since it is known that between 10-30% of children have a mis-identified father on their birth certificate. Paternity fraud is despicable, it holds one responsible where he should not be unless by free choice, denies another from even knowing his own child and also denies the child a link to his own real background (which can be a serious issue with hereditary heath risks). | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:27:59 PM | I'm kind of going to have to agree with Loony on this one. Although I don't think it should be up til 24 weeks...my daughter was born at 28 weeks and one of her NICU mates was born at 23 weeks and is a healthy little 8 month old now. So...I think it needs to be before the child is of viable age. Although, I don't even really agree with abortion, but we will pretend I do for the sake of this thread.
Now....I agree with you on everything else. A mother can basically do what she damn well pleases. Without any regard to what the father may desire. It is her choice on what happens with the baby and the father has ABSOLUTELY no say-so at all. Yes, it does take two to tango and create a child....and that's exactly the point. It takes TWO. So BOTH parties should have a say-so in the childs life.
The other thing I have thought of is women who basically hold their kids ransom. Never let the father around them even if he WANTS to be. I don't exactly see them turning down that child support check every month. But yet they feel it is their right to deny a father access to his children. Pitiful excuse for a woman and a parent. I mean, I understand if dad is a homeless crackhead....but if you are just pissed off because dad cheated on you or treated you like crap...then that is just pitiful.
~Welder's Girl~ | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:41:04 PM |
The other thing I have thought of is women who basically hold their kids ransom. Never let the father around them even if he WANTS to be. I don't exactly see them turning down that child support check every month. But yet they feel it is their right to deny a father access to his children.
This is one of the issues about child support that drives me crazy. So many women cry and throw hissy fits whenever their kids dad is late with the payments each month, but will also do everything they can to prevent him from seeing his own kids. And these are the same women who will complain that the kids dad is never in thier lives. Duh.
I think that the father should have a say in the early terms of the pregnancy. If they want out, they should have to sign away thier parental rights and the woman can then decide what she's going to do. As many single mothers have shown, you don't need the father or his money to raise your children, of course it helps, but why should a man be made to support a child that he wanted to never have right from the get go? It's the same as the man who wanted to have the baby, but the woman went and had the abortion. If the woman is allowed to make that decision, then the man should have the same right. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:47:13 PM | *Nods head in agreement* ^^^^^^^^^
If there were ever a reason why I wouldn't want my child around her father, I damn well wouldn't ask for his $$$$. Like I've said before in another thread....it's like paying for a car and it's upkeep and you never even drive it. Hell, you've never even SEEN it.
~Welder's Girl~ | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:52:46 PM | Oh, Lordy! A topic that I could get really heated about!
A) NO...a man should not be able to just relinquish his rights to a child and be able to get out of child support!!!! He has the choice to be a sperm donor, and he has a choice to be a father. If he chooses not to be the latter...then he should still be financially liable. It would be one helluva sad day if every man who did not plan or want a child, could so easily say, "I give up my rights" and put a fvcking price on a child!
B) The CHOICE for both genders is available prior to conception. I don't care what the story is..."she lied to me about being on the pill" or "she trapped me intentionally" or any other of the six billion excuses! IF YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO PARENT, then practice abstinence or use condoms. (I know, I know...condoms break! RARELY! Purchase the non-generic, quality sort of condoms...not the thin sort which allow more feeling...duh oh!)
C) A child is the "risk" (for lack of better words) that occurs with unprotected sex. This is not rocket science. Everyone knows such.
D) The man has no say in a woman's choice to abort, adopt, or raise?!?! Since when? He has the choice from the beginning!
E) Now, I do think it is BULLSH1T that a woman can abort if their is a willing father...but until more men take a stand against such (cases as such have been won!!) then it will continue to be HER choice. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 9:22:59 PM | | I'm with Welder's Girl mostly here...I'd further it down somehow to.. the unsuspecting are the only ones who get to use this rule... The players? Not so much. They pay. It's easy enough to figure out... | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 9:56:50 PM |
After reading several theads about child support a question occured to me. It seems that quite a few people believe that since a man has no say in a woman's right to choose to either abort, keep or give a their child up for adoption that they should not be required to pay child support. Even though they are just as responsible for the conception of said child. What is everyone's opinion on this. I am just curious to see what people think about this.
My bigger question is why are these people having sex in the first place where much of it is unprotected. I could care less about the adults frankly, I'm worried about the child. Women and men making terrible choices in picking a partner, as well as having unprotected sex.
Look at the posts. many women don't even care if the sex is protected or not because it feels better. Most men are dogs and could care less too.
As society gets more selfish, this is happening more and more. In California it doesnt matter. If you are the father, you pay.
but in reality, the child pays because they are now in a single family home where most of the time the father isn't around much. Nice. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 10:36:33 PM | Harley
I'm sorry but on this one you are wrong.
A) If no Man should be able to relinquish his duties as a father then no woman shall relinquish hers which means no abortions IMO.
B) As of today the choice is in fact the same prior to conception yet post conception the schism between the genders arises. Women have an "out" men don't. At this point the excuses for both parties is for naught but the schism still favors women.
C) Whether a child be the risk or not. None of us asked to be born but the least we can do is place that child in a loving environment ..not force people who don't want to be parents to "ante up"
D) Yes..he had the choice to not place his "gozouta" into her "gozinta" but here both parties are at fault unless rape has occurred.
E) It is bullshiza and is so sickenly incongruent with any nation that considers itself a harbor of freedom and liberty.
In the end it IS about what's best for the child once the decision has been made by the mother. I believe the best thing for the child is a mother and father that love that child and neither has to be biological. Forcing a man to be a father is everybit as wicked as forcing a woman to have a child and become a mother. We willfully allow the former and have given women the option in the latter. This is in no way fair and equal treatment.
The most given reason for childless people not wanting to date people with children is the drama that comes not from the child but from the non-custodial parent. I have not doubt that if men who did not want to be fathers simply aquiesced in all manners to to that child another man would love to step into the empty shoes knowing that "Bio Daddy" isn't going to come huffing and puffing at his doorstep.
A portion of the 30% of my taxes pay so that single mothers/fathers don't have to keep derelict sperm/egg donors around. I am not in support of any laws from our government that create this hostile environment.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/13/2008 10:51:28 PM | Sorry, at the point of conception this is no longer about sex, just it's result. We can sit here for 40 pages and argue morality till were blue in the face. Mark, I understand the laws of California, New York and the moral precepts they were based on. Who's to say the condom broke, they were drunk, it felt better or whatever excuse you may choose. No birth control is 100% effective except total abstience, I strongly doubt the whole group on POF is about to endorse that. So where does that leave us?
Roe v. Wade gave women the right over their body to choose abortion or not. Morality aside, whether "right to life" or "self empowered" this law, aside from cases of criminal behavior(rape or incest) leaves a whole class of people disenfranchised. I fully understand it is the woman's body who must sustain the fetus. The male in this role or position, after the act is faced with the outcome, with zero input in the decision or it's subsequent impact on his life.
Now having said that, I must admit, my own feelings would run against abortion, thank God, due to the age range I am dating in, this point is moot, for the most part. But without creating a furor, to devine the answer about a man's rights, seems to need the wisdom of Salomon. If a man wants the baby and the woman doesn't, she has an abortion, he has no say. If a man wants her to have an abortion, and she chooses not to, he pays child support.
This is a case of involuntary survitude, against the anti-slavery laws, but enforcable in most countries. Were not talking deadbeat dads, who knowingly in wedlock had a child and now faced the expense of child rearing. We are talking about the result of mistaken conception. If you look at it this way, you have abrogated his civil rights. Taken any other way, you are enfringing on her rights. Somewhere there has to be middle ground, though as it is, the man has no rights. Let us face one fact, morality aside, unless this was rape, this was a joint decision on having sex. Should the outcome not also be a joint decision? Bob | |
|
~Kyn~
|
Joined: 2/15/2008
Msg: 12 | |
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 2:48:52 AM | I dont care whether you chose to have the child or not.
You pay unless you choose to relinquish ALL rights.
Frankly Im sick to death of men whining about getting "stuck" with the consequences of their actions.
MOST women do NOT choose to bear a child alone and even if they did...bad fcuken luck cos you wanted to screw someone...you just didnt want the consequences.
I wanna rob a billion dollars cos it feels good...but who am I to whine if I gotta pay the piper?
UNLESS a child is the product of a one-night stand (and even if it was)...Im tired of hearing the complaints men make about becoming fathers and having to pay for it.
WHO should pay for your child...EVERYONE else BUT you?
Gimme a fcuken break...
MOST women are not psychopaths or fricken stalkers or after your shitty averageto below-average income.
Have sex...and a baby can be created...step up to the plate, stop fcuken complaining and do the right thing.
You're just pathetic and playing "victim" otherwise. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 3:15:19 AM | Kyn: I forget where you are located...but about this:
You pay unless you choose to relinquish ALL rights.
I know here that whoever has custody of the child has to be the one to file for termination of rights for the other parent. Not many people are willing to do that b/c they want that $$$. Welder's lawyer even tried to petition the courts to have his rights terminated w/o his ex being involved in it. It's not a matter of him not wanting his kids....it's a matter of the courts keep ass-reaming him when there is such blatant proof of how poor of a human she is...not just a poor mom...a poor human all around that should never be left in control of a child. Plus the fact that his son doesn't know who he is and his daughter has never even met him. Now...not all cases are as extreme as Welder's....but here we are barely making it financially, she lied on her CS application and got more $$$ than she should, for some reason the courts are against him (her family is friends with the two judges in the county and I think they tend to turn a blind eye), DSS doesn't do shyt about the living conditions or the way the kids are being treated (hey...I understand kids get bruises...but how can you really explain at least 45 bruises on a kid that i counted in ONE picture? Half of those on her face!). Unfortunately, we are not Donald Trump or Bill Gates, and financially we just can't keep up this fight anymore. We have run out of money trying to make the situation better for those kids. But to no avail.
But yet now we will still have to pay for them until they are 18 and he will probably never even be able to see them until that time.
OT: Haven't changed my stance any. I think both parties should have an equal amount of time to decide whether or not to become parents. In cases of women who procreate just for the hell of it...I think after so many children they should be required to have their tubes tied (not saying married couples that have 10 kids...rather women who have 5 kids by 5 different daddies). Likewise for men...if there are x-number of women that report having a child fathered by this man and he is not active in their lives....he should have a vasectomy. But alas, as of yet even Big Brother can't meddle in our medical lives to that point.
~Welder's Girl~ | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 3:35:19 AM | ^^^ I get tired of the whining too.
Since the bilogical purpose of sex is to procreate, the entire a man not having a choice is bs.
To me, if you choose to have sex, you take the risk and are left soley responsible for your choice. Maybe if more people didn't have sex with people they're not willing to have a child, there would be fewer unwanted pregnacy.
At times it seriously concerns me now devalued children are in society right down to their conception. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 4:24:00 AM | | Sorry but all participants entering into this arena of parenthood must pay the price of admission. Please excuse me for my shortest on this subject but anyone that has a child must pay child support! | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 6:18:01 AM | Obsidian, we will just have to agree to disagree.
When talking about relinquishing rights...it's apples to oranges when comparing the financial burden of the father...and the medical aspects of pregnancy, of the mother. You cannot force a woman to keep or not keep a child in her womb! (But again...I would LOVE to see more men inflict their rights to choose...then maybe this would change?!)
But Obsidian...it will NEVER be an equal thing, until a man can carry a child. Unfortunate, but true.
And when talking about relinquishing a father's duties...I am strictly talking FINANCIAL. Probably 99% of relinquished rights, are based on financial reasons...if he "just" does not want to be a father...he can back out of that, HIS CHOICE, without court intervention. Happens all of the time. But WHY should a deadbeat father not be held accountable, financially?
I'm sorry...but I have never heard of ONE SINGLE CASE where I had empathy for the man not paying child support. If it were not planned, if he was misled or she "trapped him," if he does not get along with the mother, he makes a sh1tty parent,...NOTHING matters because HE DID HAVE A CHOICE AT CONCEPTION. (This is not to say that I don't empathize with men getting screwed on too high of child support or their rights not being enforced for those who WANT them!!) All I can say to that, is do not give up...get a kick ass lawyer...fight it.
And again...I am strictly talking about men who relinquish their rights for financial reasons. I am not supportive of the b1tches who keep the father away from the child...who expect child support, but use the child as a pawn. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 6:29:01 AM | I'm sorry ladies, but you fail to see the point. Unluckily I will illustrate it from my own life. Let me state at the outset, I am against abortion, FOR ME, I would not chose to enforce my beliefs on the general population. PEOPLE should have a right to chose.
In my early 20's I dated a woman, before my first marriage. She became pregnant. We had been dating 11/2 years, I wanted to have the child, again my beliefs. This may changed the course of my life, may have been hard, may even have negatively impacted my career. Perhaps I was naive, looking back, yes, I even offered to marry her. Of course it did help that I loved her.
She told me, she was not ready to have children, she said she may never want children. She had an abortion. We dated for 5 or 6 months more, then split up. Now you ALL represent, "you play, you pay" or some form of that. I was willing to pay, I was willing to take sole custody, a thing that was unheard of in the early 70's. When push came to shove I had NO CHOICE in this decision. This is the flip side to "guy pays" , though you all represent the guy took a chance having sex, so he should step up. Once sex is OVER, now you say, sorry charlie, you just live with what I do.
She also participated willingly in the sex, got the same gratification from it. Both are equally responsible for the consequences of their actions, I agree whole heartedly. But the ensuing decisions no longer get any input from the man. Nor has he ANY RIGHTS in this regard. Some men I will admit, are not good father material. Too young, immature, not dependable all these and other things far worse. When the sex ends, a man somehow should still have some say in the outcome. How would you answer that? Bob | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:02:48 AM | A) NO...a man should not be able to just relinquish his rights to a child and be able to get out of child support!!!! He has the choice to be a sperm donor, and he has a choice to be a father. If he chooses not to be the latter...then he should still be financially liable. It would be one helluva sad day if every man who did not plan or want a child, could so easily say, "I give up my rights" and put a fvcking price on a child!
B) The CHOICE for both genders is available prior to conception. I don't care what the story is..."she lied to me about being on the pill" or "she trapped me intentionally" or any other of the six billion excuses! IF YOU HAVE NO DESIRE TO PARENT, then practice abstinence or use condoms. (I know, I know...condoms break! RARELY! Purchase the non-generic, quality sort of condoms...not the thin sort which allow more feeling...duh oh!)
Ya like the single mom I used to work with whose little angel of a daughter admitted openly to puncturing her boyfriends condoms because she wanted a baby, the hell with considerring what he wanted or that he WAS taking responsible steps to prevent such an outcome. These kids were having sex at the single mom's home with her knowledge and now we have a pair of 14 year old (now 15) parents. All without the guy having any input in. Underage boys victims of STATUTORY RAPE find themselves liable for CS and cannot opt for termination in a case where they have been raped. That strikes me as overly simplistic "man bad, shouldn't have stuck his thing there if he didn't want this" reasoning to suggest they still bear the same level of responsibility as the mothers who have shown deceit and criminal activity to not be above them.
C) A child is the "risk" (for lack of better words) that occurs with unprotected sex. This is not rocket science. Everyone knows such.
A "risk" that only one half of the creating couple has 100% choice in whether or not to continue and follow through.
D) The man has no say in a woman's choice to abort, adopt, or raise?!?! Since when? He has the choice from the beginning!
Explain? As in he shouldn't have had sex? Then she should not be able to abort either since "she knew the risk" just as much and in some cases more than he did.
E) Now, I do think it is BULLSH1T that a woman can abort if their is a willing father...but until more men take a stand against such (cases as such have been won!!) then it will continue to be HER choice
We've actually had such a case here, it was in Quebec. Abortion was completely against the fathers religious beliefs and the woman knew this early in the relationship. He filed for a stay on the abortion procedure, she went ahead and did it anyway before the judge had heard the entire case, not even a contempt of court for that. The reason the judge stated was, "Well even if he proved his case and won she probably would have just drank herself stupid and produced another FAS child out of spite. Knowing that it would have been hard to find in his favour even if he was completely right."
Balancing this playing field IMHO will do one very beneficial thing for society and a few things just as good but to a lesser degree.
Women that abuse this in my eyes are NOT suitable mothers. This would discourage such people from cranking out kids "for a pay cheque" or to "trap a man". Knowing that a man used in such a manner is free to just walk away takes away most of that seedy motivation. Now don't make a fool of yourself and suggest this does not happen.
We are supposed to be a society of equals. Since due to differences we cannot all have exactly the same rights and choices it is in the interest of equality and reproductive freedom for ALL that COMPARABLE choices are made available to the whole of society rather than just one half of it.
The society those opposed to this idea seem to suggest would include abortion not being an option for women except in cases of rape or critical health issues, and raising boys to believe and live under the idea "you can NEVER trust a woman" if she claims to have had a hysterectomy or otherwise be infertile, don't buy into it. Sorry but one should be able to take their mates word at face value without fear of being liable if they should happen to believe a lie. Otherwise all relationships would become quite dismal.
Since the bilogical purpose of sex is to procreate, the entire a man not having a choice is bs.
Give him the SAME choice or a comparable choice in reproductive freedom that women have. Not more, but certainly no less. We are just tired of having to ride at the back of the bus. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:46:07 AM | Loony...I think the "punctured condom" story is few and far between...and if such happens more commonly than I choose to believe, then dudes need to carry their condoms as if their LIVES depended on them...because as we all know, pregnancy is not the only result of such. THIS IS MY POINT. There are risks...and if you choose to have sex over abstinence...then you need to glove up if you do not want to risk having a child, STD, or HIV.
Unfortunately, it will NEVER BE EQUAL...because we are not on an equal playing field since only the woman can GET pregnant. Yes...she needs his sperm...but once he has given it freely, the playing field is no longer his.
The case you had in Quebec...I empathize with the man. I empathize with the poster who was in a similar situation. Sad. Real Sad. I am pro-choice...but I am anti-abortion. If I were EVER to be put in that sort of situation where I became pregnant with an unwanted child...and HE wanted it, I would carry to term and hand it over to him. :)
Unfortunately, there is no solution to this. Even if they required two consents for an abortion...the mother and the father...it would result in women lying about who the father was...having a friend sign such, claiming rape, or unknown.
The society those opposed to this idea seem to suggest would include abortion not being an option for women except in cases of rape or critical health issues, and raising boys to believe and live under the idea "you can NEVER trust a woman" if she claims to have had a hysterectomy or otherwise be infertile, don't buy into it. Sorry but one should be able to take their mates word at face value without fear of being liable if they should happen to believe a lie. Otherwise all relationships would become quite dismal.
TOTALLY IN AGREEMENT. Unfortunately, it is the way it is. Too bad we cannot have some sort of guarantee of someone's word...other than our instinct and ability to judge a person well. And yes...DO NOT BUY INTO any excuse of a hysterectomy, tubes tied, low sperm count, infertile, sterile, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE NO RISK.
I got pregnant years AFTER getting my tubes tied! It would not have been a pliable pregnancy, but the trauma of such was still terrible. I had no one to blame but myself (though he and I stayed together long past this occurred) because I chose to trust having had sterilization, and I believed I was in a monogamous relationship. I have since had a hysterectomy..really! lol...and I still have nightmares about somehow freakishly becoming pregnant! (I am a grandma now, for petes sake!) So I can CHOOSE to only have sex with a condom, or risk it. Men have the same choice...that is the ONLY way to make the playing field, level. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:48:48 AM | I agree men have a choice whether to have sex or not and in the time of STI's I really do not understand anyone who takes this risk of contracting something potentially life threatening.
Guys need to not trust the woman or whatever she says about birth control. Take the control by using a condom everytime or if you have already had kids, have a vasectomy. The other issue though is what if the condom breaks. In my opinion driver her to the clinic the next day and have her take the morning after pill. If she refuses then the child is hers since she would not take reasonable steps to prevent the pregnancy. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 9:03:00 AM | | if i got pregnant and decided to keep it (which i know this is not what my boyfriend would want right now) then no, he wouldn't have to pay child support...but he wouldn't be in the childs life at all either. if i got pregnant without talking to a guy first (which is stupid imo) on what we would do if i got pregnant then i would expect him to pay, and if we both decided to keep it and he left me/i left him/we broke up yes he would pay. its either all or nothing from when i find out im pregnant, im not going to make someone be a father when he has made it clear from the beginning he would rather me have an abortion. | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 9:06:59 AM |
it will NEVER be an equal thing, until a man can carry a child. Unfortunate, but true.
Exactly. This is just one of those things in life that aren't fair. There can't be equality between man and woman in this. Would it be nice if there could be? Sure. Not gonna happen though.
One problem with men being allowed to relinquish their rights is that it puts more mothers on welfare. Then we all get to **** about that! Where does it stop?
If you don't want to be a father, make sure the woman you're sleeping with is on some kind of bc, AND use a condom. I don't buy this bullshit of all these condoms breaking. Seems like everyone has a story of getting knocked up because a condom broke. I've been having sex for like, 16 years or something and not ONCE did a condom break. That can't be just my good luck.
In a case of poking holes in condoms, if that can be proved without a doubt, then yes, I think in cases like that the father should be able to relinquish his rights should he choose to. HOWEVER I don't think any man should have the choice to terminate his rights until after the child is born. Pregnancy isn't as real to men as it is to women. Women become mothers the second they get pregnant. It's not real to a man until they can see and feel the baby. (FOR THE MOST PART. I hate hair splitting.) | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 9:32:15 AM | Regardless of how a child came into this world....
We know that not all individuals who helped are willing to own up to their responsibility.
I say that the custodial parent move on... do what they can to support their child/ren without anyone's help or money.
 | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 5:41:44 PM |
he woman spread her legs, she too, must deal with whatever outcome.
Well she's scott free from the responsibility with a $400 payment and trip to the doctor. I
know women that got pregnant and aborted and didn't even tell the boyfriend.
A man's ability or lack thereof has no relevance to this issue. We're not attempting to tell you
what you do with your body. We're saying that the current situation it is an egregious inequality
that is fairly easy to fix. Every woman that gets pregnant doesn't want to be a mother and we deserve
the same reproductive rights. In this case since immaculate conception doesn't happen it's a no fault
pregnancy.
The interesting question I'd love to have answered is this.
"if future advances allowed for the baby to finish gestation outside the womb, would the father of the
child then be allowed to obtain sole custody of his child?" I imagine we're about 50 years or less away
from such a scenario. Thus rather than an abortion..in some cases the father would assume the parenting
of the child.
I realize this is an emotive issue for many but really at the core it's very logical. Equality comes with a downside in
certain circumstances.
O | |
|
| Women's Choice=no support from fathers???
Posted: 7/14/2008 5:46:00 PM | You wipped it out, you deal with the outcome, whatever it is.
As I said above I agree with this but not totally. If I have taken steps to protect against pregnancy, the condom breaks and the woman refuse to take the morning after pill - then no I should not be held responsible since I have taken reasonable steps to prevent pregnancy but she has not. But if the morning after pill does not work, well then I am on the hook as well. | |
|
|
| Page 1 of 43
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
