abortion rights / child support question

[skipos]

The SC nomination had some of my friends talking about abortion rights.
One of them showed me this article. It isn't going to blow DUers minds or anything, but I do think it raises an interesting issue.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/columns/deLaubenfels/delaubenfels22.html

"A young woman, Tanya Meyers, is (or by now, was) ten weeks pregnant. Her ex-boyfriend, the father, John Stachokus, wants her to bring the pregnancy to term and have the baby so he can raise it; she wants to have an abortion. At first, Luzerne County (PA) Common Pleas Court Judge Thomas F. Burke Jr. issued an injunction forbidding Meyers from terminating the pregnancy. Much screaming ensued. Now Judge Michael Conahan has dissolved the temporary injunction and has also dismissed the father's lawsuit. Case closed."

"This story pushes a hot-button in me. On the one hand, it can be argued to be barbaric to force a women to carry a baby she doesn't want. I don't happen to be of the persuasion that says a fetus should have the same rights as a living, breathing human being, so I am sympathetic to Ms. Meyers' assertion that no one has the right to force her to bring the pregnancy to term."

"But hold on, something's fishy here: The law is taking an inconsistent position, stacked against men. If Mr. Stachokus had wanted to avoid all responsibility for the baby, but could be established to be the father, Ms. Meyers could have chosen to keep the baby and hit him up for 18 years of child support. Her choice, his money. But if, as in this case, the father is willing to support the baby all on his own, it's still her choice to terminate the pregnancy and end the life of the baby."

"This is not just. Both partners begin the pregnancy, but the woman is given all power to choose how it continues (or doesn't), and the man's role is relegated to standing by and forking over dollars if she demands them."

So what do you think?

Is it fair for men to have no rights in regards to the fetus, but required financial reponsibility to the baby if it is born?

(and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE I would love for this thread to stay civil, I am interested in knowing what everyone thinks)

[Rainscents]

1. I don't know!

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

2. Yes. The rights of the mother are over her body and they are separate

and distinct from the rights of a born child.

The man has as much responsibility over where he deposits his sperm as the woman does over who she sleeps with.
Furthermore, he cannot and should not be able to force her to term as that mitigates her right to her body.
Biology isn't fair..neither is justice and in the case of child support the justice is to the child and has nothing to do with the decisions of the mother nor the father.

[Bunny]

18. Thank you, that is the best way of answering the question. n/t

[formernaderite]

99. if the mother "chooses" to keep the child and the father

doesn't want to rear a child, he should not be forced to pay for it. After all, she could put the child up for adoption. The father should have NO say in whether or not she wants an abortion....but rearing of the child and financial responsibility should be his choice, as they are hers.

[rosesaylavee]

3. My opinion is that the woman is making the bigger

commitment here. It's her body and statistically, it is the woman who probably raise the child. Maybe not in this case but in most.

And until our culture decides that it will allow child care to become standard in workplaces that, of course, offer women equal pay for equal work, this is a fair law.

[Walt Starr]

4. The day a male can carry a fetus to term over nine months and pass it

through his penis is the day that you can start changing this.

Sorry, the woman's body is the life support system, ergo, the woman and the woman alone has the say in whther the fetus is carried to term. If she chooses to carry to term, the man has no choice but to provide child support. End of discussion.

[rosesaylavee]

6. Hey, nice imagery, Walt. n/t

:rofl:

[Hekate]

114. Graphic -- but quite apt.

Some things in life are the way they are, period.

Men don't get to have babies -- they don't HAVE to have them, either.
Women, unfortunately, can be inseminated by force.
Men can choose to wait a lifetime before settling down and starting a biological family -- women absolutely do not have that option.
Pregnancy changes everything for a woman -- win, lose or draw, she is changed.
Pregnancy is proof-positive of a woman's sexual life, whether she wants it to be or not.
The potential for pregnancy influences women's career trajectories: will she or won't she; is she really serious about her career if she has to go home to the kids at 5:00; the Mommy Track.

We don't really get to choose our gender, but it affects everything about us. And those who decide to surgically transform their bodies into the simulacra of the other gender lose their fertility altogether.

Compassion for one another is the key...

Hekate

[kikiek]

5. Giving birth has many complications. Can be life threatening. No one

should be forced to do it.

[bloom]

7. Is it fair for men to strip women and sell them as sex slaves?

"According to the UN Development Fund for Women, trafficking in women for prostitution is one of the fastest-growing organised criminal activities in the world, and follows, in frequency, only the trade in narcotics and weapons. The sex trade brings in $7-12 billion annually."

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/sexisrael69690531.html


What the hell is fair?

Are men and women ever going to be biologically the same? - uh no.

[rocktivity]

8. It's THEIR fetus, but it's in HER womb and it will be HER pregnancy

Therefore, she and only she should be able to make the call. ANYONE who compels a woman to give birth against her will violates her civil rights--even if that someone is willing the take the child off her hands. I don't even believe that parents should have that right over their minor daughters.

This couple isn't married. If the father wants to be father that badly, he should seek out a like-minded woman.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BoneDaddy]

19. hmmm

In this situation it is understandable, but what if it is a married couple who agreed to have children, but she decides halfway through the pregnancy that she wants to terminate the pregnancy. He still has no rights to this child?

Be careful before you respond, that compassion and tolerance for other people's pain (men are people?)might just bleed through.

Let's not make the same mistake as the black/white, right/wrong conservatives do issues and think one answer applies to every single individual situation.

And for every man who has wronged you in your life, I can find 10 men who do their fucking job every single day, love their wives, their kids and are good people.

I marvel at the audacity of the women make all or none statements about men, and I pity the men who have bought into and support that nonsense. You are no different than the reactionary right. You just have a different set of beliefs, but are equally repulsive when framed within the memories of how you view men. Seek therapy and get over with it.

As for the new age guys, grow a set and refuse to be shamed by people with unresolved shit.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

32. It's a fetus at that point not a child. It is a child when it is viable

outside the womb.

[ultraist]

61. Exactly, And until viability it is part of the woman's body

It's not a seperate entity until it reaches viability.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ultraist]

63. Sexist BS if I've ever seen it.

:puke:

Women who demand equal rights are neonazi feminist man haters. :eyes:

[serryjw]

46. BoneDaddy..this is not a feminist position.

NO LAW should make any person to anything they do not want to do with their body. It is immoral. They did not have SEX with the goal of making a baby.It was an accident.

I posted something similar to this thread a couple of weeks ago. I disagree with some here.....The flip side is true for me also.
Too many woman try to trap men in this lifetime commitment..that too is immoral!

[ultraist]

62. "Too many women try to trap men in this lifetime committment'

That is such BS. Stop demonizing women!

BTW, it's not a lifetime committment, it's 18 years of child support. The child support is for the CHILD, not the woman. MOST child support doesn't even cover half the cost of raising the child.

You are repeating misogynistic myths rather than basing your opinion on facts about child support.

[serryjw]

64. Soory..I stand by my postion

the Court are forcing men to pay support for children they didn't want. You want a child that was not planned YOU pay for it.

[ultraist]

67. It wouldn't be as big of a problem if women had equal rights

Including equal access to opportunity and equal pay for equal work.

Why don't YOU work towards creating an equal playing field for women so that it's not such a financial struggle for them to raise children alone, meanwhile, understand that every child has a RIGHT to food, shelter, clothing---the basics that most measly child support payments only partially cover.

YOU are proposing that the child should suffer so the man, who was irresponsible and didn't put on a condom, should be able to walk away from his responsibilities.

Men have more than their fair share of rights and you want to give them more at the expense of a CHILD? WTF kind of selfish, arrogant BS is that?

[serryjw]

70. This is jsut reactionary

You are stirring the pot by adding equal protection/rights for woman.
The conversation is about abortion vs a right for a man to demand a woman bring a fetus to term.
I stand by my beliefs. It is based on the INTENTION. If both partners did not intend to make a baby; the woman has a RIGHT to an abortion, she has a right to bring the fetus to term and raise the child BUT she can't DEMAND a man pay if he does not want to be a father.

If we want to be liberated we can't have it BOTH ways

[bread_and_roses]

116. If the man doesn't want to father a child he should take steps to make

sure that he doesn't. Once the child is born, support is about the CHILD, which now exists, and to whom he now has an obligation.

[bloom]

69. women should just stop having sex with men

then they wouldn't have that problem.

no children and no men who dump and run.

[formernaderite]

100. She can put the child up for adoption....

if she wants to keep it...and he doesn't want to raise a child, that's her decision. She should have to show the financial ability to do so on her own. That does not negate my position that she has absolute power over what she chooses to do with the pregnancy.

[rocktivity]

56. It's their marriage and their problem

but it's still her womb and her pregnancy.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Crunchy Frog]

80. Nobody has the right to force another person to be an incubator.

I can understand and sympathize with the man's pain under that sort of scenario but ultimately, he does not have the right to compel another person to continue to carry an unwanted pregnancy.

This has nothing to do with whether or not most men are decent people. It's about people ultimately having autonomy over their own bodies. There are lots of tragedies in life and that sort of scenario is one of them, but it doesn't alter people's fundamental rights.

By the way, who exactly are the new age guys who need to grow a set?

[JerseygirlCT]

93. So long as her body is required to support that fetus

she has the right to do with it as she will.

Are you suggesting that the law compel a woman to incubate a fetus she doesn't want? What does that say about her bodily integrity?

There are plenty of children in need of fostering or adoption. He can go through other means to become a parent without essentially sentencing a woman to 9 months of indentured servitude.

[bread_and_roses]

115. A man has no right to control a woman's body. Period.

Pregnant or not, married or not. Ever. Under any circumstances in which she is "compos mentis" if that is the right term. (The only exeption would be if she were comatose and the medical system had to rely on the husband/significant other/relative/partner to make decisions for her.)

This is not about hating men, which I don't, or generalizing about men, which I'm not. It's not about men. It's about basic human rights.

[readmoreoften]

9. So....

If I had a penny for every schmo who said that they were going to pay for the baby if his reluctant girlfriend birthed the child, I'd be a rich woman.

Do you have any IDEA of how many men say they are going to 'be there financially and emotionally' and then BAIL? Almost every teenage mother I know was told by her boyfriend that he'd stick around and pay. I don't know a SINGLE ONE who actually did for more than a few months (usually they're gone before the actual birth of the child.)

[MojoXN]

15. My cousin got pregnant when she was 16...

She's 26 now, and happily married to the father of that child, as well as their other children. Not only did he stick around and contribute financially, he's there to raise his children.

Just because you don't know any men who were responsible enough to do the right thing doesn't mean that none exist. Although I'd be the FIRST to admit that this situation is the exception rather than the rule.

MojoXN

[readmoreoften]

37. Well, if you're the first to admit that he's the exception to the rule...

why take offense?

The law isn't written for the kind-hearted exceptions: the corporations that care about the environment, the landlords who would fix their buildings no matter what, or the employers who are committed to non-discrimination.

LIKEWISE, we can't let judges decide that women shouldn't have abortions because their husbands or boyfriends seem like upstanding chaps who will pay the bills.

This is repugnant on about a million levels.

But I'm talking about a general social phenomenon, not your cousin. Women should not be forced to have babies because their husbands and boyfriends swear that they'll pay.

[MojoXN]

48. Women should not be forced to have babies...

"Women should not be forced to have babies because their husbands and boyfriends swear that they'll pay."

I agree 100%. I was just pointing out that there ARE some good, decent, responsible men out there, probably a lot more than you'd think.

MojoXN

[ultraist]

65. Of course there are, like my husband

But guess what? Men not paying child support has been an enormous problem in our society. That's why they created the Child Support Enforcement agency and the Clinton Responsible Fatherhood program.

The term dead beat dad came about during the time this crisis of men not paying child support was first being addressed in a real way.

[calmblueocean]

10. If the law is stacked against men, it's because pregnancy is, too.

Any law that didn't reflect this would be unfair. If men got pregnant, I'd say they should have the same right to choose, and it would be fair then, too.

[Crunchy Frog]

11. It's absolutely wrong for a woman ever to be made

to serve as an incubator for a man. I think that there may be room for some healthy debate over the circumstances under which men should be forced to pay child support, but that should never be coupled with the question of whether a man has a right to control a woman's body.

No man ever died from paying child support. The same cannot be said about women and childbearing.

[ultraist]

68. Child support is about the CHILD, not the woman

For these guys proposing that men should get out of paying child support, they better be ready to pay increased taxes to be sure ALL of these children have adequate food, shelter, and medical care.

Children have a RIGHT to basic necessities and those rights take precedence over some guy's selfishness and irresponsibility of not putting on a condom.

[Crunchy Frog]

78. I agree, and I'm not making a statement about what the policy

should be. Only that I think it's a legitimate area for discussion and that it should be completely decoupled from the issue of whether anyone but a woman has the right to control a woman's body.

A woman having the absolute right to determine what happens to her body is non-negotiable as far as I'm concerned. I also agree that a civilized society has an obligation to make sure that all children are provided with the basic necessities.

I'm very familiar with the phenomenon of guys not taking responsibility for the consequences of their sexual choices. I have a 17 year old nephew who was abandoned by his father (my brother) at age three, and has had an extremely difficult life, and my sympathies are way with my nephew and not my brother on this one.

[MojoXN]

12. The law puts ALL of the responsibility, from a financial standpoint...

On the male. Now, I know what you're thinking: "No, it puts the responsibility on the non-resident parent." That may be technically true, but in practice, women are awarded full custody in most areas of the country well over 80% of the time. In Ohio, Women are awarded full custody in 92% of cases, and partial custody in another 6% of cases. Thus, the father is awarded full custody of his children only 2% of the time. Is THAT fair, or even justifiable? In my opinion, no.

The last frontier of the progressive movement is Father's rights. I expect to be flamed a-plenty for my unconventional views, but when it comes to custody disputes, there is an ingrained, institutional discriminatory sexism agaist those of us with a Y chromosome.

MojoXN

[bloom]

21. I don't think you have a clue about what you are talking about

Just because a parent pays child support based on a predetermined schedule where the income of each party is taken in to account - does not mean the non-custodial parent has ALL of the responsibility.

It's generally a far smaller percentage than what it takes to live.

If both parents make a similar, rather small amount of money - what the non-custodial parent pays is pretty insignificant. Not enough to live on. Thats for damn sure.

And it does sound like you've been reading too much baloney on men's rights sites.

[MojoXN]

25. Obviously the non-custodial parent doesn't have ALL of the responsibility.

That was a poor choice of word on my part. Just the same, how can you justify forcing a non-custodial parent to pay a significant portion of his/her income to support a child the he/she may not even be allowed to visit, let alone raise in any significant capacity?

Money aside, the disparity between custody granted to fathers v. mothers is very real, and very sexist. That was my essential point. And, let's not forget, child care and custody laws vary from state to state. What may be true (or untrue) here is bound to vary from place to place.

MojoXN

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

Because visitation and support are not the same thing

That's why there are plenty of men visiting their children and not paying for them too.

Furthermore, how can you place a dollar value on the time and energy of the custodial parent?

[bloom]

38. Would you rather I pay for a child that you have with another woman?

That's the case with a lot of women who get assistance from the state when the father doesn't pay.

We all pay. I would rather the father pay. The decent thing is also for the fathers/parents to take part in their children's lives.

Maybe when the entire society is no longer sexist - when women get equal pay for equally skilled work - maybe custody issues will become more fair. Don't hold your breath.

[LostinVA]

44. Significant??? Everyone woman I know ho gets child support

gets like $300 a month. That's NOTHING. And, generally the dude doesn't pay for things like glasses, braces, etc., and everything stops at 18. So, if you have aguy who doesn't care about his kids, he won't help with college, speech therapy, tutors, etc. If all he makes is $1000 a month, $300 is alot, but I suspect that's rare. I also think that is he doesn't want to pay, he should have stayed zipped. That's what Judge Judy says, and I agree with her.

"Unwed mothers".... how about "Unwed fathers," etc. The framing of the terminology is crazy.

For the record, I have no kids, I like men, have lots of male friends -- probably because I don't have to have a relationship with them! But come on. If the people on DU said this stuff about African Americans, etc.....

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. For good reason...97% of all sex offenders are hetero males

[MojoXN]

28. Now what the hell does that have to do with ANYTHING?

"Sorry, 0.0001% of your gender have been know to commit sex crimes, so you don't deserve the right to be considered a fit parent."

If you would endorse a statement like that, then we can stop right now, because we're not going to agree on anything.

MojoXN

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

30. We already don't agree on anything

[Name removed]

36. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

40. thought you wanted to keep this civil?

[MojoXN]

43. First of all, that wasn't me.

Second, you threw that out the window by implying that since the majority of sex offenders are male, men aren't as fit to raise their children as women are.

MojoXN

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

47. Not what I said but feel free to vent

but while we're at it let's include batterers in the equation too...sex offenses are just one small example of why custodial care is given to the mother...and lately the trend is joint custody anyway...so I don't get the big complaint...furthermore, in cases where joint custody is awarded, the percentage of males that even TAKE their children for all scheduled visits is a rather discouraging number....something like about 50%

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Beaverhausen]

89. flaming is not permitted here

you need to apologize for that. but I suspect you might not be here long.

[readmoreoften]

42. What on earth are you talking about?

Women support their kids. Men should support them too.

You and your poor Y chromosomes, give me a fucking break.

[serryjw]

55. Funny you should say this

When my brother was 49 he was offered to adopt an unborn fetus from a couple that didn't want it and couldn't afford it. He said yes....It took him 18 months during which he had full custody in county of LA for the adoption to become legal. The social worker drove him crazy becuase he was a single male. It was his dream and he is a fabulous father.

[ultraist]

71. WHAT?

Child support payments RARELY cover the full costs of raisig a child. Do you have children? Do you have any clue as to how much TIME and MONEY it requires?

Single mothers are the poorest segment of our society. If men were paying so much in child support, that wouldn't be the case, now would it?

[jane_pippin]

81. "an ingrained, institutional discriminatory sexism"

Yeeeee-ahhh, um, welcome to our world.

[bettyellen]

13. he coulda kept his legs crossed, doubled up on the barrier methods.....

gotten a vasectomy. but he was careless. she gets to deal with all the physical consequences if she gets an abortion or not. he gets to deal with the repurcions only if they bring a child into the world. he blew his chances to prevent that.

[MojoXN]

17. SHE could have kept her legs crossed, used a female condom, and spermicide

and gotten a tubal ligation, or been on the pill. She most likely chose to do none of these things. How in the world can you justify blaming the man for impregnating her when she OBVIOUSLY could have done more to prevent an unwanted pregnancy? He'll have to live with the fact that one of his children will never be born. That can be emotionally crippling, wouldn't you agree? He's equally responsible for his part in the pregnancy, of course, but not solely responsible. An important distinction, in my opinion.

MojoXN

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

23. No I wouldn't agree.

[bettyellen]

26. my point was that he is- or could have been- equally responsible

for the pregnancy, but never equally responsiblible for the ensuing physical consequences. he knows in this society, cutting and running is an option he'll get away with. or else he would not have reckless sex. she'll have the big belly and life to contend with. no it ain't equal, it ain't fair, it is largely the woman's burden, that's why it's her choice.

[MojoXN]

33. Notice I didn't weigh in one way or the other wrt the abortion question.

I would say that she has the right to have an abortion in this case. No woman should be forced to carry a child that she doesn't want. That havong been said, I can DEFINITELY understand where the man in this case is coming from. No, to play Devil's Advocate, the burden is solely hers for about 9 months, in this case. The burden would be solely his for the next 18 years. So, if you look at it that way, who would be making the bigger commitment?

MojoXN

[bettyellen]

54. to be honest, i've seen this from both sides in a scary way-

and my point being is both partners have the opportunity to behave in a completely responsible way.
it is not unkown for some people to engage in willful, controlling behaviour, to the point of enslaving others. and "your having my baby whether you want it or not" falls into that for me. both people have consequences to face, imho.
i would rather have died than had a child and give it up to a freak who would knock me up against my wishes. and the case you state sounds a bit too similar.

[WindRavenX]

50. maybe he should've kept his legs crossed

Just a thought.

[LostinVA]

53. OMG -- you really don't live in America 2005, do you?

Yup, it's that f*cking slut's fault for not keeping her legs crossed -- she shouldn't have seduced the poor guy... the least she can do is show him she loves him by having his baby, no matter what.....

You do realize these are all RW talking points, right? You seem like a really articulate, smart guy.... it's too bad you're not educated on the reality of this more. Maybe you don't want to be. I don't know.

No one on here are sexist against men or man haters. That is also a RW meme. That's one way women keep on being beaten down.... and it works, huh? I'm not debating this with you, because there's nothing to be debated. This thread has gotten way out of hand.

A woman has a right to make her own decision about her body; it's her legal and ethical right.

[rocktivity]

58. Ever heard of condoms?

Especially when you're with a woman you're not committed to? Birth control is NOT "women's work"--they CAN'T accidentally get pregnant by themselves.

If you're not interested in being a father, USE A CONDOM. EVERY SINGLE TIME. Even if you know she that uses birth control, too. And ESPECIALLY if you don't know. No birth control method is 100% foolproof. Both partners using birth control is the next best thing.

:headbang:
rocknation

[BoneDaddy]

86. Get Real

Of course birth control is not women's work but don't tell me that the consequences of that are balanced. In theory both are responsible but in reality it is simply not the case. I advocate men to use birth control, but the obvious reality is that women NEED to be the primarily responsible for it. Ideally if both are prepared that is the best scenario, but if they choose to have sex, then ALL women need to be educated on how to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is not true.

[Zhade]

20. What if the condom he used broke?

What then, in your black-and-white world?

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

24. Sue Trojan

[bettyellen]

29. i said double up, that means spermicide, making sure she has a diaphram.

that's the triple play that makes virtually impossible to get knocked up. and there are female condoms, but most men seem to prefer to leave it to the woman.
and she bears the brunt of it from there.

[Selteri]

72. Considering how this argument keeps slipping back

into the black and white area, I'm not sure...

My personal opinion - His is a case where it would take two mature adults with a pair of lawyers to draw up a fully binding contract to make this a fair situation... otherwise it's too black and white for anyone to get a fair shake.

[Guaranteed]

14. I wouldn't call it "fair," but that's the way that the rights of

everyone involved play out. It's the most just way of addressing things.

Once the baby is born, daddy can't just opt out. But his rights don't give him a binding say in whether the fetus is taken to term or not, either.

Once the woman is pregnant, the father basically has no more true choices.

It's not "fair." That's just the way it is for us men.

[The Doctor.]

16. "Other"

- Many women take advantage of men this way. They enjoy the courtship, become pregnant, then decide that they'll keep the child but not the father and take his money to boot.

And then on the other hand we have miscreants who knock women up and give little or no support... often after sticking around to play daddy for a little while before taking off.

I think that there should perhaps be some bit of code that allows a man to file a statement of non-support in the first tri-mester that would allow him to be legally exempt from making payments should the woman decide to keep the child.
That way, the woman will be able to make the decision based on a realistic assesment of her prospects should she decide to keep the child, and the man will not be taken advantage of.

Such a statement would not, of course, preclude the man from staying with the woman and being a father should the couple decide to do so.

I know it may not be quite so simple, but I see this as a way to settle quite a few issues.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

27. Parental rights can be terminated by mutual consent provided the

well being of the child is guaranteed.

[The Doctor.]

31. "mutual consent" means

that the woman can still feel free to expell the father but keep the child and his money.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

34. Not at all true. She can not unilaterally terminate his rights to

visitation/ parenthood without a showing of cause even if he doesn't pay child support.

[The Doctor.]

39. Right, but she neither has to agree

to terminate his rights and therefore bind him to make payments whether he wants to visit on weekends or not. Even if he wants nothing to do with her and the child.
Again, he has no recourse should she decide she doesn't want him in her life but would like his money. Sure, he will get to 'see' the child and be a part of its' life... but that is barely a concession. It is the woman who holds power here.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

45. So are you saying if the woman does not wish to see a man that abused

her but he still gets to see his children that is somehow unfair? I don't think so.

Seems to me you are complaining about the man's right to see his ex...not his right to be a parent to his child.

Alimony and child support are not the same thing.

[The Doctor.]

75. No, you are reading too far into it...

All I am saying is that it is unfair to a man that a woman can decide both to keep the child, and to take his support without having to have him as part of her life, and that if that is not what he wants, he has no choice but to pay the support and be marginalized as a father.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

83. No. I think you have now said twice that you think it is unjust that the

woman takes support for the child but does not want the man in her life. Support is for the child, not the mother.

[The Doctor.]

85. Well ok...

Ask a woman how she would feel if the man took support for the child without the woman in his life.

But that was not my point.

It is that by keeping the woman out of his life that he marginalizes her role in the life of that child to weekend visits and a monthly check.

She might have liked the child to take acting lessons, piano, fencing... she might have been able to get the child the speech therapy the child truly needed... but because the man doesn't believe in it, and because her role is marginalized, it is ultimately not fair to the child as he will ultimately decide how her money for the child is spent.

That is why it is unjust.

When one parent unjustly vilifies and marginalizes the other, it is ultimately unfair to the child.

[ultraist]

74. Keep his money, What sexist bs, The money is for the CHILD. n/t

[The Doctor.]

77. Wouldn't it be nice if that were always the case.

But there are plenty of women who decide they can keep the child because they know they can have a source of income from elsewhere. There is no question that such a consideration makes its' way into the decision making process a woman goes through when deciding whether to have the child or not.
Sure, there are many struggling women in tight spots who desperately need that support from abusive negligent jerks, but, even though you may not want to believe it, plenty of men are victimized by women who are either just plain greedy or vindictive.

All I am suggesting is that there be a something to protect men from being victimized... it really does happen. And often the CHILD suffers too.

There are a lot of rotten people out there, and believe it or not... some of them are women.

[Guaranteed]

76. "Welfare of the child" means that it's the baby's right to have

the best financial support that both of the parents can afford.

[Yupster]

112. I don't agree with that

The baby has the right to an adequate financial situation whether the parents can afford it or not.

It should be up to the state to guarantee that children are provided for even if their parents are both drug-addled zombies without a dime.

I don't believe the right of the child to support is reason to take money from a father who didn't want to be a father.

Children's welfare are all of our responsibility, and an unwanted kid should be well provided for by the state, not a man who wanted nothing to do with him/her.

[No Exit]

113. The man can cause his parental rights to be terminated and then

he wouldn't have to pay that 18 or 19 years of child support.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

41. She claiming her her right to refuse to provide service.

This man is looking at the pregnant woman as his personal baby machine. She has declined the role he has assigned to her or to produce the product that he demands and offers to pay for.

Perhaps he should seek out and purchase a more compliant machine for his use.

[dsc]

51. These are two very different issues

In the case of abortion the right is considered the woman's while in the case of support the right is considered the child's. I happen to think the child should be considered in both, but the father isn't the primary actor in either senario.

[cynatnite]

52. Her body...her choice

She's the one doing the carrying, taking the health risk and delivering.

I do sympathize with those men who feel differently with the woman, but considering what she has to go through...it's up to her and not him.

Now, if men could have babies, abortion clinics would be as common as gas stations. They'd offer a drive-thru service if possible.

The first time a man is given rights to force a woman to carry a fetus to term you can bet more will follow. Us women can kiss our reproductive rights goodbye.

[flaminbats]

59. Why do we have a court system?

All men and women have the right to bear arms, but do juveniles?

How many fanatical freepers have read the Constitution?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If Republicans love to equate abortion with murdering the unborn, why not give embryos all the same rights now available to citizens? Perhaps we should start executing women for having periods, men for masturbating, and every person using birth control for murdering countless unborn citizens!! :crazy:

Who wants a court justice with common sense? Why not have an identical judgment for every case, regardless of the circumstances?

[Selteri]

60. The way that is worded, no, but it's a slippery slope

If he wants to have the baby to term and is willing to pay all the bills plus she is in agreement, I could see it being acceptable that he agrees to adopt the kid upon birth... _but_ that doesn't give him rights over her body.

On the flip side, if the cases were reversed and he were demanding she abort the child, would it be right he has to pay for the child then?

[Ilsa]

66. I think she should take it out right away and give it to him.

If he is able to carry it to term, goody for him. :sarcasm:

Pregnancy is a real pain in the ass. I hated the hemorrhoid and the stretch marks and stretched skin and how my arches have gone flat. My first birthing experience nearly stroked me out and I was hospitalized for a week after delivery.

Pregnancy and childbirth aren't guarantted cakewalks. It's her decision, and I don't care if that is unfair to the father.

And if he gets tired of raising the baby, will the state force her to care for it?

[LincolnMcGrath]

73. A civil thread about child support / abortion?

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha :rofl:

[Llewlladdwr]

79. I'm really getting tired...

of the whole "my body, my choice, our responsibility" crap.

[sandnsea]

82. Male body, male choice,

keep it zipped. Men's choices end when a pregnancy begins in somebody else's body. The sooner men figure that out, the better off they will be. In fact, I suspicion men used to know this when birth control was completely their responsiblity, which is perhaps why there were less pre-marital pregnancies. Maybe if men went back to taking full responsibility for preventing pregnancies, there wouldn't be any surprises. Condoms and spermicides have improved in the last 50 years too.

[BoneDaddy]

88. bs

"Maybe if men went back to taking full responsibility for preventing pregnancies, there wouldn't be any surprises."

yes, you are right. men are responsible for all of the world's ills and women are perfect.
Such self sanctimonious drivel. Everything has a shadow side, this is a perfect example of the dark side of women.

[sandnsea]

96. Men = no responsibility

Not for prevention, not for consequences. That's what your post is saying. So just what dark side is really being shown?

Don't want to be responsible for a pregnancy, prevent it. What's so dark about that?

[BoneDaddy]

97. selective awareness

You obviously want to hear ONLY WHAT YOU WANT TO HEAR.

I have said ad-fucking -nauseum that I AGREE that men need to be accountable and responsible for their sperm, but in this imperfect world, the reality is that women have to be PRIMARILY responsible because the consequences will HAPPEN to THEM and not the man. That is the realistic approach.

I love the women who want it both ways. They want the responsibility of choice but if something goes wrong it MUST be the man's fault. The amount of incredible judgement about men on this board is ridiculous as men are consistently thrown under the bus and can do no right.

[sandnsea]

102. Babies happen to MEN too

See, the thread is all about why women have the final say on pregnancy. The reason is because of what you just said, attitudes like yours, "the consequences happen to them and not the man". Since that is the attitude of most men in this country, then naturally women should have the only say on carrying a pregnancy.

But that shouldn't be the attitude. The attitude should be that babies happen to men too. If men understood that, and took the preventive responsibility accordingly, there would be many many less surprises to deal with. It's to men's benefit to do that, it's how they take control of unplanned pregnancies.

Frankly, if all people accepted that any sexual encounter could accidentally lead to a baby, and thought about the long term consequences in that way, there'd be a lot less surprises too. And probably a lot less sex.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

84. Then conceive and carry

:shrug:

[uppityperson]

90. My reasoning.

Men have the choice of where they put their sperm. If they chose to put it in a woman, they run the risk of pregnancy and the responsibility of supporting any children resulting from where they put their sperm (child support). If they chose to put it in a woman and she gets pregnant, she has the responsibility and the choice of continuing the pregnancy or not.

Child support is not to support the mother of the child, but for the child. If you don't want to risk owing child support, don't risk making a child.

Choice to continue the pregnancy or not rests ultimately on the woman until some method is found to have the pregnancy continue not in the woman. If the fertilized egg/ovum/blob of cells/fetus can be removed without harm to the woman and brought to term elsewhere, and she choses to have it removed from her, the sperm maker can then chose to raise it. In which case, child support would fall onto her by the same reasoning as above (if she choses to have sperm in her, her responsibility to follow through with child support) IF THE SEX ACT WAS VOLUNTARY!

non-voluntary sex act, no child support due by non-voluntary person. Voluntary sex, not voluntary pregnancy.

[Matariki]

91. That lawsuit WAS HORRID and disgusting

I don't think it's fair however to force a man to pay for a baby he doesn't want from the outset. I'm NOT talking about father's who leave a situation after agreeing to support and co-parenting but situations where the father, if he were a woman, would choose abortion.

However, that said, I understand the incredible complexity of this issue and don't think it can really be summed up with "fair"|"not fair" simplicity.

[Yupster]

101. There are also many, many cases of courts

ordering men to pay child support for children who aren't theirs.

Woman has affair. Has child with boyfriend. Runs off to live wth boyfriend.

Couple divorces. DNA test proves child is boyfriend's, not husband's.

Woman is awarded child support so former husband must send monthly check to cheating woman and her boyfriend to care for their kid, not his.

Very celebrated case near me that was on tv for a while.

Many custody and child support laws are currently extremely screwed up.

On edit -- in this particular case, the husband got in additional trouble with the law because the judge ordered im not to tell the two kids that he wasn't their real father. He told them and was arrested.

[Beaverhausen]

103. There are far more cases of fathers skipping out on their responsibilities

Your example is noted but come on...that is by far the exception and not the rule.

[Yupster]

104. The difference is that the guy who runs out on his

child support will have the law against him. He will be arrested at a traffic stop, have his wages garnished, have his name in the papers as a deadbeat dad.

The woman who cheats on her huband, has a kid with a boyfriend and then hits the fooled ex up for child support has the law on her side. Again it will be the man who will be arrested, have his wages garnished and have his name in the paper.

Either way, whether it was the man or the woman behaving horribly, the law will come after the man.

[Beaverhausen]

105. Not always -believe it or not this actually happened to my boyfriend

but he had the paternity test, proved that the child wasn't his and didn't have to pay child support.

I think your friend must have had a really bad lawyer.

[Yupster]

106. The law is different state by state

It's not a matter of how good your lawyer is but what the state law says.

The theory behind the law is that you have a certain amount of time to question paternity, and if you don't test by the deadline you are greeing the child is yours regardless of whether he'she is or not.

I had no friends involved.

The case I spoke of made national headlines a few years ago. It happened near me but I didn't know anyone involved.

Also, a major difference is the marriage. I'm assuming your boyfriend wasn't married to the mom.

If you are married when the child is born, and you only find out the child isn't yours years later, the law assumes for legal purposes he is yours since you've been parenting him for x years regardless of DNA.

I saw some report a while back that as people are having DNA tests done for different medical reasons, scientists are finding a surprising number of children in families are not the dad's though everyone (I guess except the mom) believes they are the dad's. It's been a while since I've seen this, but I think it was over 10 %.

Anyway, the man in the celebrated case near me had the very best lawyers working volunteer for him from all different cities since the case was so ridiculous, but the law was absolutely on the cheating mom's side.

The ruling was that child support was for the child not the mom, and since he treated the kids like his kids for 10 years, then legally they were his kids, so his garnished wages went to the woman who cheated on him and the man she cheated with, and they happily cashed his checks each month.

[Beaverhausen]

107. Yes my boyfriend was married to the mother - this was about 12 years ago

...but he also knew that she was having an affair. The paternity test was done soon after the baby was born. Needless to say they were divorced soon after. But he still pays support for the child that they had together.

and if the guy you are talking about thought the child was his and raised it as his own for 10 years then I think he SHOULD have to pay child support. At that point he is the child's father- biological or not.

Do you know if he was living with the mom or were they seperated/divorced?

[Yupster]

109. Here's a link to the case

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/8.30/lawrpt/stories/s281906.htm

I don't agree with you that if he acted like their dad then legally he should be their dad.

The corollary to that then would be that a guy who has a one night stand who doesn't act like a dad should not be legall treated as a dad and be forced to pay child support. I bet not many would agree with that position.

Anyway, I don't believe that a man should be forced to pay child supprt for someone else's kids just because his ex-wife was a really, really good liar.

He is the victim and so are the kids. The mom is the guilty party. So why is she the one getting the check, and why is the law on her side?

[LynneSin]

92. What we don't know is what the relationship was between the two

Maybe he beat the living crap out of her and she opted to get rid of it because of that fear.

Maybe he has several other kids with other women and he hasn't paid them child support

I think this is totally fair. This is a lifetime commitment where the women will have to do the bulk of the work carrying it around. He may then decide he doesn't want to be a father and now what?

Until men can carry a fetus and deliver a child - this ruling was totally fair

[Yupster]

94. This topic has come up many times before

In my opinion, here is the optimal solution.

First, the decision on whether to birth or abort must be the woman's and her's alone. It's her body and no one should be able to tell her she must be a mother if she doesn't want to be.

The slogans about how abortion should be a decision between a woman and her family or a woman and her doctor or a woman and her pastor are all crap. The decision to abort or birth must be the woman's and her's alone.

However, the opposite to that should be just as important.

No one should be able to tell a man he must be a father without his consent either.

So where does that leave us?

Here's how I think the law should read.

Upon learning she is pregnant, a woman has some reasonable amount of time to inform the dad or possible dads.

At that point, the dad has a reasonable time to respond in writing that he will either accept the legal rights, and responsibilities of fatherhood, or he will decline them

At this point the woman knows whether she has a legal father for her prospective son/daughter, and she can make her own informed decision on whether to birth or abort.

This allows the woman and man each to choose whether they become parents.

A few additional notes.

I am the parent of one child. We were using a condom when pregnancy occurred. Luckily we were married and stable, so it wasn't that big a deal to us.

The argument that if he didn't want to be a father he should have kept his fly zipped seems completely ridiculous to me. Am I the only one? If a person truly believed that, they would believe it for the woman too which would be the argument pro-lifers make. On this side we don't consider children a punishment for having sex do we? Or d some just for men only?

Every time this topic is broached there will be at least one person who says something like "If men got pregnant, abortions would be drive-thrus like a laundromat." Does this mean anything other than "I have nothing to contribute to this topic, but I'm such a hopeless sexist that I can't resist saying 'Men Suck' whenever this topic is broached." Do people actually think they're being witty by making these types of sexist comments?

Anyway this is my opinion on how the law should be written to treat both partners as fairly as possible.

[Hollow Shells]

108. Hey Yupster

Your post has some interesting ideas. I like how both the man and woman have some choice. Of course the man in the original scenario will still be upset about the abortion, but is seems like the lesser of two evils. Forcing a woman to carry a child seems harsh and unproductive to a civil society.

[Yupster]

110. Thank you and

I've thought a lot about the man still having his potential baby aborted, but that just can't be helped.

Someone has to make the choice and it must ultimately be the woman carrying the fetus.

My proposal is the fairest I've been able to come up with.

It is certainly more fair than the current system.

[sepia_steel]

119. That makes some sense to me, and it would be ideal

but it does cover the not ideal situations, like if the woman is a 14-yr-old girl, or her partner is abusive, or if she knows immediately that she does not want to be a parent (and yes I think BOTH parties should discuss this, prepare, and take precautions and use lots of birth control, but accidents do happen).

I knew an 18-yr-old who used condoms religiously but when she got pregnant it could have been 3 different men. She was completely humiliated to have to have all three of them do paternity testing. I don't think she should've been so embarassed, but it just seemed so unfair because she was so careful. The father of the baby was reluctant at first and as a result of the tense situation they have no relationship and their daughter shows the signs of stress that little kids have when their parents don't like eachother. THey don't fight in front of her or anything, but kids know...

I really wish that people knew exactly what they wanted and talked about it BEFORE they have sex without thinking about what could happen.

edit: typo

[Douglas Carpenter]

95. I believe it should be the legal right of the mother

However, the question of fairness (rather than legality) is a matter of personal ethics. I really cannot say.

[Bridget Burke]

98. Yet another reason for men to practice safe sex.

Since some of the poor dears are fearful of (a) being forced to support a child they don't want or (b) having a fetus they do want aborted. How many are more concerned with (a)--but pretend that (b) is the real problem?

Condoms Plus! And--I'd suggest they actually know the women they're screwing. Does she really care for you? Does she want children? Indiscriminate screwing with semi-strangers can have worse results than unplanned pregnancies.

I note that the non-father in question has NOT convinced the woman to marry him. He wants her to go through with the pregnancy--then, upon delivering a live baby, she must give it to him forever.

If he really wants to be a father, he should find a nice lady who wants to be a mother & marry her.

[DanCa]

111. Ideally this would have been talked about before the sex act.

I firmly believe that the only place a man has in the decision is prior to the act itself. However I do see nothing wrong with "asking" if his wife not to abort if he is willing to care for the baby. At the same time I have a problem with theocrats making it into a law.

[sepia_steel]

118. Right.

they can talk to eachother about it, and I think he has every right to at least ASK for that, but making it a law would be wrong, wrong, wrong. Ultimately it has to be up to the woman.

[sepia_steel]

117. Although I voted 'not fair'

it's one of those things that I just can't see any way around. I can't think of a way to make it totally fair. She simply can't be forced to carry that child. But I really do feel for the man who clearly will be hurt and scarred by the idea of losing the chance to be a father to his would-be child.

[verdalaven]

120. I'll try this again

I already tried posting once and lost my post. Ah, all those nuggets of wisdom gone. The pity.

Anyway, I agree with the very first poster on this question....I don't know! Nothing is ever black and white, though my gut reaction to this question is this- the pregnancy belongs to her because it is in her body, it is her choice. Once the baby is born, like it or not, it is his child, his responsibility, just as it is hers. Unfair? Yes. But since when is life fair?

I would like to know if the man in question would have expected the woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term then pay child support to him for 18 years.