Abolish Child Support

[missing]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

I haven't read all these posts but my take on this issue is simple:

A man, by agreeing to sexual intercourse, is agreeing to gift his sperm to a particular woman. In that exchange, the man loses his rights to whatever happens with those sperm. End of story. You give, you accept.

He always has the opportunity to wear a condom and NOT gift his sperm with the caveat that condoms are not 100% effective. He also has the right to not have intercourse at all. He has the right to only have intercourse with a partner that he is certain is properly using the most effective birth control possible.

If biology was fair, there would be male birth control that is just as easy and reliable as female birth control. If biology was fair, our primal impulses would always take 2nd place to our common sense. If biology was fair, a male/female couple would have a 50/50 shot of either one of them getting pregnant in any encounter.

Biology is not fair. But you can choose to not gift your sperm but most men would rather have sex and worry about what happens to his sperm later. Whining about it after the fact is lame. Be careful who you gift your sperm to or accept the consequences.

Jennifer

I'm pretty sure that it's politics, not biology that prevents the male birth control pill from coming onto the market. The technology certainly exists. In the meantime, pretty much all men have that is fail safe is sterilization, where women have option, after option, after option.

ah equality... still a long ways to go on this issue... in the meantime, gotta play the hand you are dealt, I suppose.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Dreamline

A man, by agreeing to sexual intercourse, is agreeing to gift his sperm to a particular woman. In that exchange, the man loses his rights to whatever happens with those sperm. End of story. You give, you accept.

He always has the opportunity to wear a condom and NOT gift his sperm with the caveat that condoms are not 100% effective. He also has the right to not have intercourse at all. He has the right to only have intercourse with a partner that he is certain is properly using the most effective birth control possible.

If biology was fair, there would be male birth control that is just as easy and reliable as female birth control. If biology was fair, our primal impulses would always take 2nd place to our common sense. If biology was fair, a male/female couple would have a 50/50 shot of either one of them getting pregnant in any encounter.

Biology is not fair. But you can choose to not gift your sperm but most men would rather have sex and worry about what happens to his sperm later. Whining about it after the fact is lame. Be careful who you gift your sperm to or accept the consequences.

Jennifer

Dreamline,
You are saying that sperm is a gift that a man is giving whenever he has sex. I disagree with this point however lets say that what you are saying is true and that it is a gift.

By the definitions of giving someone a gift then after you give something as a gift you are no longer required for the maintenance or liability of that gift once its the sole possession of the receiver.

Your argument that sperm is a gift and no longer the property (or responsibility) of the the giver actually works against the argument of child support.

Under our current laws when a man's sperm is involved the man still has rights to visitation BECAUSE the sperm was not viewed as a gift but rather the resulting baby is viewed as still partly the possession and therefore responsibility of his.

Also I find it interesting the way you say that the man has the opportunity to use a condom or not to have sex at all. Your general tone regarding this subject seems very one-sided. Many years ago a man would almost take possession of the woman if she became pregnant with his child. Women used to be viewed as a vehicle for birthing the man's baby. I don't agree with this old way and I like the way women are treated as equals. I do feel, however, that your view on this subject is more in line with being the female version of the 1700s.

A man is simply a sperm donor seems to be your viewpoint. Very harsh.

[spirit4711]

LOL @Still Growing, I actually agree with you here!

Making babies is the responsibility of 2 people. If a woman chooses to raise a child on her own, without any child support from the biological father, that is her prerogative. As long as she is upfront about it before getting pregnant.

@dreamline, the analogy of sperm as gift ignores that men, like women, have a biological need to procreate.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by mercuryrising

I would like to ask a related question to abortion that never seems to get addressed. It is largely based on my own experience, but I think there are many men who would agree with me.

The argument for abortion is that a woman has rights over her own body and that another person (i.e. men) have no say whether a woman goes to term with a baby or not.

Ok. If that is true, why does that same woman have rights over a man's income if she chooses to take that baby to term? If a man has no say in her bearing a child, why is he potentially obligated for 18 years to pay her to raise that child? Or do anything else with that child?

If the counter-argument is that a man makes his choice at the time he chooses to have sex with a woman, then the same restriction on a woman should apply. She makes her choice when she decides to have sex with a man. I don't think that scenario would be beneficial to either the woman or the man.

What I see is that we are playing both sides of the issue when it comes to reproductive rights, and the ball always lands on the woman's side of the court. Feminists want to get rid of the traditional family because it is repressive to women. But on the other hand, they want men to take responsibility for a child that is fitting to their traditional role in a family.

If it is voluntary for a woman to decide whether she wants to have a baby, I think it should be voluntary for a man to support her decision to have that baby.

What are the errors in this argument, if any?

Thanks

Ahhh, it is simple.

After the baby is born, from a social perspective, the most important question is no longer about whether it is the man's decision or the woman's decision. The most important question is about the welfare of the child.

So Daddy must pay.

It is incorrect to suggest that men have no choice in the matter. Men do have a choice in the matter. KNOWING that a woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and KNOWING that a woman may decide to carry the pregnancy to term whether the man agrees or not, the man's choice is whether to have sex with the woman in the first place, or not.

Simple as that.

[Still Growing]

ALG,

I'm not saying I'm for abortions for myself however if abortions are an option and if the man is for an abortion and the woman choses not to have an abortion then isn't she choosing to have the baby?

If the woman thinks that abortions are against her values or if she just wishes to have a baby because she wants to bring a child of her own onto the earth then isn't she making the ultimate choice?

What if pregnant women had to contact men before a certain trimester so that they could decide as a couple? This would be the man's opportunity to choose an abortion. If she chose under her own free will based upon her body and her beliefs that she wanted the baby and he did not then he would not be obligated to pay. Her options would be:

1. To abort
2. To have the baby and he would have zero rights if he chose abortion. He could however reverse his decision before a certain age to be in the baby's life but of course he'd have to pay; potentially even back pay for past expenses.
3. To put the baby up for adoption. There are thousands of couples that would feel so blessed to adopt nowadays.

If I got a woman pregnant and she chose to have the baby I'd pay and be in the baby's life myself. However, if we are in a society where abortions are legal then why do we say that the woman has no options?

Certainly you can't make a woman have an abortion however she has the choice. Its not the man's problem if its against her values if its within his values as long as abortions are legal.

BTW, I'm not committed to this ideology since my values are different than the predicaments we speak of however I am posing a serious question as to "Does the woman really have no option and so therefore the man must pay?"

[Brutha]

I'm not saying I'm for abortions for myself however if abortions are an option and if the man is for an abortion and the woman choses not to have an abortion then isn't she choosing to have the baby?

The man also chooses not to excercise his right over his own body by commiting suicide. Nobody punishes the man for commiting suicide and as a result of commiting suicide he doesn't have to pay child support anymore.

Of course the man might have reasons for not commiting suicide just as a woman might have reasons against killing the fetus.

Both decisions are about excercising one's right over one's own body.
That right happens to be the legal reason why nobody can force or forbid a woman to abort in the US.

[ns123]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Ahhh, it is simple.

After the baby is born, from a social perspective, the most important question is no longer about whether it is the man's decision or the woman's decision. The most important question is about the welfare of the child.

So Daddy must pay.

It is incorrect to suggest that men have no choice in the matter. Men do have a choice in the matter. KNOWING that a woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and KNOWING that a woman may decide to carry the pregnancy to term whether the man agrees or not, the man's choice is whether to have sex with the woman in the first place, or not.

Simple as that.

ALG - I love the way you write. Yes, we can all lament that the law is unfair... but men KNOW that the law is currently this way and can make decisions accordingly.

So... as a man, you KNOW if the woman become pregnant, you have no say in the matter and you must pay for the rest of your life. You KNOW she might be tricking you to have your baby... so um... that kind of helps you in deciding whether you will sleep with her, no?

This is probably why men don't marry as much as they used to any more. And probably also why men don't commit to women any more. sigh.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Brutha

The man also chooses not to excercise his right over his own body by commiting suicide. Nobody punishes the man for commiting suicide and as a result of commiting suicide he doesn't have to pay child support anymore.

Of course the man might have reasons for not commiting suicide just as a woman might have reasons against killing the fetus.

Both decisions are about excercising one's right over one's own body.
That right happens to be the legal reason why nobody can force or forbid a woman to abort in the US.

YOUR ANALOGY CROSS POINT
Yes, however if the man exercises his right not to commit suicide as its his choice to live and so therefore he must be self sufficient and responsible for his own life without assistance from (his girlfriend or the unemployment office) to support his life. Furthermore, being that he has this choice... if he has an option of getting a job (being adopted) then he choses not to take that job (keeping the child) then the unemployment office will no longer issue the checks (child support). In my view your analogy actually supports the point that our own free will over our body actually is an argument for self sufficiency and not indefinite support of that decision from someone who doesn't have control of your body. END ANALOGY

I never suggested that anybody could or should force a woman to abort. What I said was that if abortion exists and adoption options exist and the woman decides to go full term and then keep the baby then that is her choice.

She could make a choice to abort or she could make a choice to put up for adoption however she instead made a choice to have the baby. Her decision not to abort could be specifically because of her religious reasons however the decision not to put for adoption is strictly because you have chosen to have a child.

Children love adopted parents just as they do their blood parents and vice versa. So to choose not to let adoption happen is one based upon a desire to parent. At this critical point the person is making a commitment for their time and their money for 18 years.

In the case of the man he may have no qualms against abortion. Of course he should not be able to force a women to abort (thats rediculous). However there are no religious reason not to let a child to be adopted. There are thousands of willing and eager parents, many that have more stable homes with a father and mother both there to support the child.

At the juncture that the woman makes the choice for the man that she chooses to commit her time and money for 18 years that is a choice.

Now some may identify her choice not to abort and some may not. We can all understand a woman not wanting to have their baby adopted however simply because a couple had sex does not mean that both are consenting towards having a baby and raising it for 18 years.

There are many cases whereby women and men are irresponsible for birth control, there are many cases where women use men as a sperm donor as well. She could choose to pay a sperm bank but sperm banks don't pay for your baby for 18 years. When many laws were created abortions were much more taboo, adoptions were less popular and women were not able to earn a living like they are today. Time has changed and now there are many independent and strong women who simply don't need a man or simply don't want the wrong man BUT, they still want a baby. Again times are changing.

Having a baby should be a joint decision even after conception. In cases whereby the women choses to have a baby and cannot afford it the government does have programs to assure that the woman and child won't starve. Yes this cost tax payer dollars however I wonder how much tax payer dollars are spent jailing all the kids coming form one parent homes. Granted not all single parent kids are problems however if we must split hairs over a few women who get support from the gov't then we should also split hairs over how many percentage wize end up costing more for society. If we did a study of adopted parent's kids going to jail vs the single parent homes what do you think the numbers would show? People who give thought, get interviewed and really long for children but can't seem to be slightly different. There is something demographically different about an adoptive family going through infertility and then the interview process for adoption.

I know that only 5 years ago what I'm saying would be viewed very negatively however I feel now its only slightly controversial. There are many men AND women surprisingly who see the logic we are discussing here.

[missing]

as a guy let me put it this way. I'd rather die than live as a prisoner, in jail. And if I don't much care for my own life, you can bet I won't care for others. Knowing the law, I'm not about to stick my penile unit into some random vagina, but hey, ♥♥♥♥♥ happens. I could always get stuck with life destroying "child support". Funny, considering I can hardly get motivated to take care of myself, let alone some kid I don't even want or care about. I'd have 2 options. Live as a slave, either at a job or in a jail cell, or get free, via suicide or escape from the law. Harsh as it sounds, the second option has a lot more appeal. Of course, if I have nothing to lose, I can always send one final message. Even if only one person hears it for a few short moments, it's still worth it compared to wasting away as a slave. I'm not going to get any more specific than that. Anybody who cares enough can likely fill in the blanks.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

[B]
I never suggested that anybody could or should force a woman to abort. What I said was that if abortion exists and adoption options exist and the woman decides to go full term and then keep the baby then that is her choice.

She could make a choice to abort or she could make a choice to put up for adoption however she instead made a choice to have the baby. Her decision not to abort could be specifically because of her religious reasons however the decision not to put for adoption is strictly because you have chosen to have a child.

Children love adopted parents just as they do their blood parents and vice versa. So to choose not to let adoption happen is one based upon a desire to parent. At this critical point the person is making a commitment for their time and their money for 18 years.

In the case of the man he may have no qualms against abortion. Of course he should not be able to force a women to abort (thats rediculous). However there are no religious reason not to let a child to be adopted. There are thousands of willing and eager parents, many that have more stable homes with a father and mother both there to support the child.

At the juncture that the woman makes the choice for the man that she chooses to commit her time and money for 18 years that is a choice.

Now some may identify her choice not to abort and some may not. We can all understand a woman not wanting to have their baby adopted however simply because a couple had sex does not mean that both are consenting towards having a baby and raising it for 18 years.

There are many cases whereby women and men are irresponsible for birth control, there are many cases where women use men as a sperm donor as well. She could choose to pay a sperm bank but sperm banks don't pay for your baby for 18 years. When many laws were created abortions were much more taboo, adoptions were less popular and women were not able to earn a living like they are today. Time has changed and now there are many independent and strong women who simply don't need a man or simply don't want the wrong man BUT, they still want a baby. Again times are changing.

Having a baby should be a joint decision even after conception. In cases whereby the women choses to have a baby and cannot afford it the government does have programs to assure that the woman and child won't starve. Yes this cost tax payer dollars however I wonder how much tax payer dollars are spent jailing all the kids coming form one parent homes. Granted not all single parent kids are problems however if we must split hairs over a few women who get support from the gov't then we should also split hairs over how many percentage wize end up costing more for society. If we did a study of adopted parent's kids going to jail vs the single parent homes what do you think the numbers would show? People who give thought, get interviewed and really long for children but can't seem to be slightly different. There is something demographically different about an adoptive family going through infertility and then the interview process for adoption.

I know that only 5 years ago what I'm saying would be viewed very negatively however I feel now its only slightly controversial. There are many men AND women surprisingly who see the logic we are discussing here.

Your suggested approach will lead to some highly undesirable situations in society.

Why, if I lived in such a society, I might be tempted to have unprotected sex with many innocent, gullible virgins. And if they get pregnant, I could say, "Oh too bad, you better go get an abortion or raise the kid yourself. As you well know, under the law, the man never needs to bear any responsibility if he does not want."

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by missing

as a guy let me put it this way. I'd rather die than live as a prisoner, in jail. And if I don't much care for my own life, you can bet I won't care for others. Knowing the law, I'm not about to stick my penile unit into some random vagina, but hey, ♥♥♥♥♥ happens. I could always get stuck with life destroying "child support". Funny, considering I can hardly get motivated to take care of myself, let alone some kid I don't even want or care about. I'd have 2 options. Live as a slave, either at a job or in a jail cell, or get free, via suicide or escape from the law. Harsh as it sounds, the second option has a lot more appeal. Of course, if I have nothing to lose, I can always send one final message. Even if only one person hears it for a few short moments, it's still worth it compared to wasting away as a slave. I'm not going to get any more specific than that. Anybody who cares enough can likely fill in the blanks.

You must understand that although you are speaking "as a guy", your personal views are not very representative of most men.

Among other things, most adult men do care about their own lives; would not wish to commit suicide; do not desire to be in jail; and are able to look after themselves. Furthermore, some are even willing, able and proud to be a father.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by missing

as a guy let me put it this way. I'd rather die than live as a prisoner, in jail. And if I don't much care for my own life, you can bet I won't care for others. Knowing the law, I'm not about to stick my penile unit into some random vagina, but hey, ♥♥♥♥♥ happens. I could always get stuck with life destroying "child support". Funny, considering I can hardly get motivated to take care of myself, let alone some kid I don't even want or care about. I'd have 2 options. Live as a slave, either at a job or in a jail cell, or get free, via suicide or escape from the law. Harsh as it sounds, the second option has a lot more appeal. Of course, if I have nothing to lose, I can always send one final message. Even if only one person hears it for a few short moments, it's still worth it compared to wasting away as a slave. I'm not going to get any more specific than that. Anybody who cares enough can likely fill in the blanks.

You might consider a vasectomy, saves you from prison .

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Your suggested approach will lead to some highly undesirable situations in society.

Why, if I lived in such a society, I might be tempted to have unprotected sex with many innocent, gullible virgins. And if they get pregnant, I could say, "Oh too bad, you better go get an abortion or raise the kid yourself. As you well know, under the law, the man never needs to bear any responsibility if he does not want."

You mean versus all the innocent and gullible male virgins being tricked into having babies now?

Sounds ludacris when reversed doesn't it?

I don't think young (legal age) women are any more virgins or any more gullible than males.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

You mean versus all the innocent and gullible male virgins being tricked into having babies now?

Sounds ludacris when reversed doesn't it?

Yes it does. Basically your reversed scenario just doesn't happen (or is very rare).

You cannot really view men and women as "identical equals" in our current discussion. For one thing, men don't get pregnant. Therefore it is impossible to have a situation where a woman runs away from a man, leaving the man with an unwanted pregnancy.

[Acting Like Godot]

But for the sake of discussion, let me set out how your kind of proposal could be fair and equitable. It could work something like this:

The law could be changed such that if a man and a woman sign an agreement in a prescribed statutory format stating (1) the woman acknowledges that the man does not wish to have a child, and (2) the woman agrees that if she becomes pregnant as a result of having sex with this particular man, the man will not be responsible for providing child support

.... then the man need not pay child support.

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Yes it does. Basically your reversed scenario just doesn't happen (or is very rare).

You cannot really view men and women as "identical equals" in our current discussion. For one thing, men don't get pregnant. Therefore it is impossible to have a situation where a woman runs away from a man, leaving the man with an unwanted pregnancy.

I see your point however your perspective of specifying all the virgins being tricked into sex and subsequently getting pregnant and having a baby.

Girls develop much faster than the boys and are often as or more aggressive in the younger groups now. Our culture is changing very fast.

Your viewpoint seems a bit outdated about all the unknowing virgins out there.

[spirit4711]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

But for the sake of discussion, let me set out how your kind of proposal could be fair and equitable. It could work something like this:

The law could be changed such that if a man and a woman sign an agreement in a prescribed statutory format stating (1) the woman acknowledges that the man does not wish to have a child, and (2) the woman agrees that if she becomes pregnant as a result of having sex with this particular man, the man will not be responsible for providing child support

.... then the man need not pay child support.

In theory this could work. I don't see it happen when people are actually dating though.

Furthermore I still feel this leaves the men too much advantage. If you don't want to get someone pregnant, don't have sex or get a vasectomy. If you do get her pregnant, face the consequences.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by spirit4711

In theory this could work. I don't see it happen when people are actually dating though.

It does not happen because it does not work. The law itself needs to change before it could work.

The man's obligation to support the child does not arise out of a contractual agreement with the mother, but is imposed by the state. Therefore a contractual agreement between man and woman that the man shall not need to provide child support is in itself insufficient to override that obligation, unless the law itself is amended to say that the state will respect such an agreement.

The contractual agreement is still necessary, so that there is clear evidence that the two parties had agreed on the issue, and that the woman was aware of the risks that she was facing (i.e of being left stranded without a male partner to help with the child.).

Furthermore I still feel this leaves the men too much advantage. If you don't want to get someone pregnant, don't have sex or get a vasectomy. If you do get her pregnant, face the consequences.

That would be my personal philosophy.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I see your point however your perspective of specifying all the virgins being tricked into sex and subsequently getting pregnant and having a baby.

Girls develop much faster than the boys and are often as or more aggressive in the younger groups now. Our culture is changing very fast.

Your viewpoint seems a bit outdated about all the unknowing virgins out there.

Nope. My viewpoint is not outdated.

The point you have missed is that there are all kinds of men and all kinds of women out there. There are promiscuous men; there are promiscuous women; there are inexperienced men; there are inexperienced women; there are financially capable women who want a child but do not want a husband; there are teenagers; there are young adults; there are older adults; there are old men who are quite capable of impregnating young women; there are women who mistakenly believe that their lover would want to support their child; there are men who won't use a condom because it lessens their sexual pleasure; there are young girls or boys who don't know much about sex, but are experimenting.

When you talk about abolishing child support, you need to consider ALL these sorts of people out there in your country. You cannot just say that "Oh, nowadays there are more women who are like this," or "Oh, nowadays there are more men who are like that", and ignore all the other men or women who are not like this or not like that.

[Still Growing]

ALG,

You reject the notion that there are some inexperienced men that may be tricked into having a baby is so very rare, yet you completely validate the rare situations whereby young virgin women are getting pregnant by experienced men.

Its interesting that you validate one group of rare cases and then invalidate other cases for the opposite sex simply because you say they are rare.

I say that there are more women who intentionally have babies against the man's will than there are young virgins who were impregnated intentionally by men.

I can't speak for Singapore but I can tell you that in the US these young virgins you speak of do know what sex is. Also we call it rape when an adult has sex with them. So yea, the rapists should pay child support.

[Acting Like Godot]

I think that you have some interesting ideas but you are somewhat divorced from real-world practicalities.

By the way, have you ever considered the interests of the child?

[Still Growing]

ALG,

Interest of the child ?

OK think about it.

Most fathers would choose to stay in the child's life and would pay child support.

For those fathers who did not wish to have a child they would have chosen abortion or adoption. Since the mother chose not to abort or not to put up for adoption then she must have a plan to support the child right?

And if she doesn't have the plan the gov't does offer assistance.

Furthermore, if a man doesn't want a child, doesn't want to pay child support is this a good person to have in that child's life?

I guess we can force him to begrudgingly pay child support for the child he doesn't want so the mother can then still have cable TV and get her nails done.

I'm all for child support where there is a divorce or where the father chooses to have the child also.

I'm only against child support in cases where the man elected for abortion or adoption before the baby was bourne.

Our current policy that enables some women to get a check from the gov't, a check from her ex and a new baby doll to play with is not working.

Now thats the real world.

[Acting Like Godot]

I think you are mixing up a whole lot of issues. It's difficult for me to carry on this discussion in a meaningful way, when your thought process is so confused. Examples:

Originally Posted by Still Growing

Furthermore, if a man doesn't want a child, doesn't want to pay child support is this a good person to have in that child's life?

Sorry, this thread is about the financial support. So your comment is irrelevant.

I guess we can force him to begrudgingly pay child support for the child he doesn't want so the mother can then still have cable TV and get her nails done.

Sorry, this thread is about the financial support for the child. So your comment is again irrelevant.

Where I come from, these sorts of issues are easily managed. Eg an arrangement can be made whereby invoices for the child's school fees are sent directly to the dad, who pays the school directly. So the man's money is used for school fees, not for nails etc.

I'm only against child support in cases where the man elected for abortion or adoption before the baby was bourne.

Our current policy that enables some women to get a check from the gov't, a check from her ex and a new baby doll to play with is not working.

Now thats the real world.

As I said, one of your conceptual head-blocks is that you are unable to think about the child's interest. Your recurring focus is about "fairness" for the man & woman, but you keep forgetting about the other human being involved.

You know, the one that you describe as a "new doll".

Try to imagine the "new doll" being a real person and having a few opinions about fairness, how about it. Eg:

"It's not fair, I didn't ask to be born, two persons made me and then one just walked out. What about fairness to me? I'm just a baby, I won't be able to earn money to support myself for the next 15 or 16 years at least. What shall I do? What if Mummy also just decides to walk out on me" Etc.

[Acting Like Godot]

Really, if you wanted to solve your root problem, there is a more sensible way.

Why don't you start a public awareness campaign, telling men to think more carefully before they go insert their penis in someone's vagina?

Eg you could tell them: "You could make the woman pregnant. She might want to keep the baby, even if you don't. You would be liable for providing child support. Condoms don't always work. Some women might trick you into having a baby. By the way, have you ever considered a vasectomy? Here's some medical info for you."

Etc.

[Indiana]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

I guess we can force him to begrudgingly pay child support for the child he doesn't want so the mother can then still have cable TV and get her nails done.

Our current policy that enables some women to get a check from the gov't, a check from her ex and a new baby doll to play with is not working.

Do you have ANY actual idea of the monetary, physical and emotional costs involved in raising a child as a single mother?

Contrary to the bizarre ideas you seem to have, it is not a party where you lie around watching cable TV and prancing off for manicures at your exes expense, in between playing with your new 'baby doll'.

It is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hard work, emotionally and physically exhausting, and expensive. If you can't understand that, no wonder you have such a hard line against child support.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Do you have ANY actual idea of the monetary, physical and emotional costs involved in raising a child as a single mother?

He doesn't even have any idea of the importance of the financial support from Daddy, never mind all the other stuff.

[Still Growing]

ALG,
I should start a campaign telling me to be careful where to put their penis???

Thats such a rude and sexist comment.

What if I had said as an argument to this serious discussion "Women should be more careful about who they spread their legs for".

[Still Growing]

Originally Posted by Indiana

Do you have ANY actual idea of the monetary, physical and emotional costs involved in raising a child as a single mother?

Contrary to the bizarre ideas you seem to have, it is not a party where you lie around watching cable TV and prancing off for manicures at your exes expense, in between playing with your new 'baby doll'.

It is ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ hard work, emotionally and physically exhausting, and expensive. If you can't understand that, no wonder you have such a hard line against child support.

Indiana,

I think men should pay child support when there is a divorce involved or if the man had chosen to have a baby and had consented to having a baby rather than aborting or adopting.

I am not speaking ill of women but only of certain individuals who are using the men for sperm donations that come with a check to boot. This is the smaller number of cases of course.

What I am discussing are equal rights for men and women.

Somewhere in our society we have confused equal rights with women to mean more rights when it comes to children.

Men should have a say so regarding whether to have a child or not.

Here's my point:

1. Both men and women decide to have sex; equally.
2. Both men and women should decide to have a child equally.
3. If the man agrees to have the child (which many do) then they would be required to equally support the child. They should have equal visitation rights and the most qualified person should get majority custody.
4. If the man choses not to have a child but she choses to have the child it should be her right. She choses not to abort or to put for adoption. With this choice comes responsibility. She should know the man's decision before the baby is bourne so she can decide whether or not to put the child up for adoption, get help from family or gov't assistance.

Do single moms have it tough? Yes

Do they have a choice? Yes

With tough choices comes a rewarding experience with their children. There are all types of women. Some want to try to keep the man, some want gov't assistance and child support but the vast majority of women just want that special little one in their lives. They may not have planned for the child but they may be morally against abortion BUT too attached to put up for adoption. This is an option however and the choice to make a decision should be based upon knowing BEFORE you make that decision what type of father you will be getting to help. If the woman knew before making her decision what type of man she had as a father it MAY weigh in her decision making.

Men should be forced to make a decision and then they must live with those consequences. If they chose to have the baby too then they must pay. If they chose to not have the baby and didn't help the mother then the mother shouldn't have to deal with him and to share HER child with someone who didn't want the child to begin with.

There are dozens of scenarios where men do wrong and dozens where women do wrong in matters of relationships.

Its simply my view that men should have some say so over whether to have a child or not.

The argument in the past is that the man should have thought about that before pulling it out. That argument is based upon an older culture where premarital sex was not viewed to be a right. Nowadays sex does not need to equal baby. You may say its a risk and it could happen however there are options that are in line with our culture as a whole.

There are thousands of families with a mother and father who can afford a child and can give that child a better home. Children who come from adopted families rather than single parent homes do just as well or often better.

If a woman cannot bare to let her baby go and has a man who DOES NOT chose to have a child must deal with the consequences (with gov't assistance if necessary).

See I do understand.

[Angela]

Originally Posted by Still Growing

What if I had said as an argument to this serious discussion "Women should be more careful about who they spread their legs for".

Actually, that's kind of what I was saying earlier in this thread, except for without the *shoulding.*

It would work really well, I think, for women to carefully consider the likely consequences of of having sex with a potential partner, and to consider that they may be living with a brand new entity for the rest of their lives because of it. How might she proceed? What steps can she take to protect herself from unwanted consequences, and what might she find out about the partner's beliefs, conscious and unconscious desires, and the "gifts" he'll be transmitting to her in the act of sex? Is she willing to take on the responsibility for accepting those gifts? I described my own ideas about that earlier; each woman is wise to figure out what works well for her in this regard. For some women, just leaving it to the winds is what works -- Surprise!

Same goes for men.

[James81]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

After the baby is born, from a social perspective, the most important question is no longer about whether it is the man's decision or the woman's decision. The most important question is about the welfare of the child.

It's ok to kill a child, but if the mother doesn't get a bunch of money that she doesn't even have to spend on the child, then that would be wrong?

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It is incorrect to suggest that men have no choice in the matter. Men do have a choice in the matter. KNOWING that a woman has the right to carry a pregnancy to term or not, and KNOWING that a woman may decide to carry the pregnancy to term whether the man agrees or not, the man's choice is whether to have sex with the woman in the first place, or not.

Simple as that.

Congartulations. You just argued your viewpoint with a pro-life arguement.

Interchange the words man and woman in that last paragraph, and you'll recognize the arguement as an age old pro-life arguement.

Originally Posted by ns123

ALG - I love the way you write. Yes, we can all lament that the law is unfair... but men KNOW that the law is currently this way and can make decisions accordingly.

So... as a man, you KNOW if the woman become pregnant, you have no say in the matter and you must pay for the rest of your life. You KNOW she might be tricking you to have your baby... so um... that kind of helps you in deciding whether you will sleep with her, no?

So if the law were that women couldn't have abortions, they could make the same adjustements. That's the fun part of this arguement, every arguement I've ever heard about this (a guy choosing to support the child) can be turned right back around and used on abortion as well. I like it so much because it makes pro-choice people use pro-life arguements to support their view.

Originally Posted by ns123

This is probably why men don't marry as much as they used to any more. And probably also why men don't commit to women any more. sigh.

Watch the generalizations toward a specific gender. In my experience, men are much more likely to commit than women. I know that's not "true," but it appears true from my point of view.

It's most likely that neither sex is willing to commit anymore, because commitment is frowned upon. And that's because divorces are so common.