Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is child support for unwanted pregnancies unfair on men Watch

    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why should a woman have responsibility for a child she didn't want? After all, once the man knew she was pregnant, he had the option of punching her in the stomach. If the man didn't want to punch the woman in the stomach, that is his choice but since she didn't get a say, why should she bear the financial consequences of his decision?

    It is clearly a ludicrous argument and it wouldn't be any better if stomach punching was legalised.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's an absolutely disgusting situation and basically the abuse of men.

    If a women tricks a man into getting pregnant e.g. Deceived about contraception or steals his sperm, not only is the man forced into parenthood but the state will force him to pay child support. There is not even a provision for child support.

    In the United States, it goes even further. Courts deem that men who are not even the fathers should pay child support because they earn more and it's in the best interest of the child. Furthermore they put poor men in jail who have lost thier jobs and are unable to pay, even if they are not the father.

    Men's rights have been trampled on and this is largely due to the fact that people have become afraid to stand up to the rights of the majority / traditional groups that are the target of progressivism.

    The state is clearly wrong and disobedience, resistance and campaigning is definitely required.

    Note to men: Never give your real details in a short sexual relationship. Use an anonymous pay as you go SIM card. Do not meet with a vehicle with a license plate registered in your name. Do not carry identification or use registered credit / debit cards in your own name in this situation. Carry cash. Do not send letters with a return address. Do not use work email addresses or registered email addresses only webmail with false details. They will never go as far as most of these thing but it's best to be safe. Even avoid using an IP address that is registered to or assigned by an ISP worth whom you have a registered account.

    This is not immortal as the woman has full ability to control the outcome but the man can be abused this way and so the solution is to hide the tools by which a man can immorally be dragged into slavery.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Very Important Poster
    Why should the child suffer?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    Why should the child suffer?
    Why don't we harvest all your money and give it to the poor children in Calcutta because they shouldn't suffer? Why should you suffer, why should I suffer, why should anyone suffer?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantum2017)
    Why don't we harvest all your money and give it to the poor children in Calcutta because they shouldn't suffer? Why should you suffer, why should I suffer, why should anyone suffer?
    True
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    Why should the child suffer?
    I dunno, maybe the mother should have thought about that before she had a sexual casual encounter with somebody she had no reason to believe wanted to start a family with her?

    Also, who says the child is going to suffer? It may be a shock for you to hear this, but women can in fact go and get jobs and earn a living to support the child they decided to have in the knowledge that a father wouldn't be there to help. I know, I was shocked when I heard this as well, but apparently it's been going on for some time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    I dunno, maybe the mother should have thought about that before she had a sexual casual encounter with somebody she had no reason to believe wanted to start a family with her?

    Also, who says the child is going to suffer? It may be a shock for you to hear this, but women can in fact go and get jobs and earn a living to support the child they decided to have in the knowledge that a father wouldn't be there to help. I know, I was shocked when I heard this as well, but apparently it's been going on for some time.
    Yes you are entirely right.

    Under cultural Marxism it's disgraceful to talk about teaching women how to cook and they are all going to be executives.

    Then when it comes to child support, men who aren't even the father or who were deceived into fatherhood need to be jailed if they are unemployed and can't pay because they are rich executives who can afford anything and the women are poor, (and still can't cook properly eating canned alphabet soup or take outs because it would have been too disgraceful to teach them how to cook).


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quantum2017)
    It's an absolutely disgusting situation and basically the abuse of men.

    If a women tricks a man into getting pregnant e.g. Deceived about contraception or steals his sperm, not only is the man forced into parenthood but the state will force him to pay child support. There is not even a provision for child support.
    What on earth are you talking about? If you have sex with a woman, there is a chance she may get pregnant. At that point (and rightly so), the man should have joint responsibility for the child. If this concept offends you so much, I suggest you keep your trousers well and truly zipped up! Problem sorted and everyone is happy!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    It strikes me that a lot of the responses on this thread seem to be predicated on a mistaken assumption that women have some sort of legal right to abortion-on-demand in this country. They don't. Once a pregnancy begins, neither the mother or the father have any sort of absolute control over the outcome.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    What on earth are you talking about? If you have sex with a woman, there is a chance she may get pregnant. At that point (and rightly so), the man should have joint responsibility for the child. If this concept offends you so much, I suggest you keep your trousers well and truly zipped up! Problem sorted and everyone is happy!
    I would agree in situations where two people have been together for a period of time and made a child.

    Do you really think someone who insemiated themselves with your sperm alone in a bathroom without your knowledge should be allowed to make you force them to pay them? That's insane yet it's the insane law in this country.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    It strikes me that a lot of the responses on this thread seem to be predicated on a mistaken assumption that women have some sort of legal right to abortion-on-demand in this country. They don't. Once a pregnancy begins, neither the mother or the father have any sort of absolute control over the outcome.
    They do though. The abortion act permits abortion under the following grounds:


    "Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—

    [F1(a)that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or

    (b)that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or

    (c)that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or

    (d)that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.]"

    What's crucial in this is section (c). In the case of ANY pregnancy section (c) is always true. It is always riskier to the life of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to terminate. The abortion act casts such a wide net that it is abortion on demand.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    What on earth are you talking about? If you have sex with a woman, there is a chance she may get pregnant. At that point (and rightly so), the man should have joint responsibility for the child. If this concept offends you so much, I suggest you keep your trousers well and truly zipped up! Problem sorted and everyone is happy!
    This isn't an argument though is it? You're just stating your opinion as though it's fact. You've simply asserted that this course of events happens and happens rightly without justifying it. At best this is an is ought fallacy.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChickenMadness)
    There doesn't have to be any risk for either party.

    If the woman doesn't want the child she can abort it. If the man doesn't want it he can opt out. The woman can decide if she has the finances to take care of the child and if not she can abort it.

    Pretty simple and straight forward solution. We shouldn't be putting 100% of the risk on half the population when it can be equal.



    These are the same arguments that are used against abortion by pro-life as well.
    I'm not anti-abortion, but you make it seem so simple and carefree. I know women who still feel guilt about an abortion they had decades ago. Adoption is also an option.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by YaliaV)
    I'm not anti-abortion, but you make it seem so simple and carefree. I know women who still feel guilt about an abortion they had decades ago. Adoption is also an option.
    Okay, let's address that point It is already the case that a couple who do not want a child have the ability to give it up for adoption etc. after it is born. Let's slightly adjust what we're saying to compensate for the fact that some people might have a moral issue with abortion, if the man wants the child and the mother does not give her the right to surrender all parental rights and allow him to raise it by himself if she does not want to go through an abortion.

    That to me seems to me to be as fair and reasonable situation as we can possibly hope for. I don't see why it's some unreasonable and unrealistic request to afford reproductive rights to everybody. What is so morally egregious about a man not wanting casual sex to lead to him being responsible for a child for 16-18 years. Let's not forget that back in the 60's when contraception became a mainstream thing, and abortion was legalised that a good portion of the reason for these things was on the grounds of women being able to control when they became mothers, because a bout of unwanted motherhood was a massive impact on a woman's life, and the women and feminists at the time fought to give women power and agency here. I don't see why we shouldn't be doing the same thing for men.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    As it stands, if a woman wants to have the baby but the man doesn't want it, he doesn't really have a say; and vice versa, if she doesn't want the baby but he wants her to give birth to it, again, it's her body, he doesn't really have a say. So yes, anyone should be able to see, the current situation isn't exactly fair.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    With regards to pregnancy, if you have unprotected sex then there are more chances of getting pregnant. You should make sure you're protected before you consent to having sex.

    However, what I really dislike about men isnwhen they find out a girls (regardless who they are to them). They're eager for excuses not to step up. Fair enough, you may claim not to like or love them but you must have felt something towards her to have sex. Or am I being really naive?

    All I really expect from men is to take some sort of responsibility, be nice and understanding at the end of the day she's bearing your child. She's the mother of your child. The least you can do is be nice and civil towards her.

    As for child support money, I think the Dad should contribute his own money to buy whatever the child need and it SHOULDN'T go to the Mother if he doesn't trust how she will spend his money. He can just buy what he wants and have it delivered to her house. This way she hasn't got his money, he's in control and playing a part too.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    What's crucial in this is section (c). In the case of ANY pregnancy section (c) is always true. It is always riskier to the life of a woman to carry a pregnancy to term than it is to terminate. The abortion act casts such a wide net that it is abortion on demand.
    That paragraph is essentially a statement with further provision: "that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman" is key. The second part of the sentence raises the bar slightly higher: that if there is a risk to life, then it must be greater than the risk presented by carrying out an abortion.

    In all cases of pregnancy is there a "risk to the life of the pregnant woman"? I would argue that is an unreasonable conclusion to reach - whether now or in the late 1960s. Delivering a child, for a healthy woman, is a safe procedure. Any risk that you are pointing to is, at best, negligible.

    If the statutory intention was to make abortion available on request, it could just as easily (in fact, rather more easily) have written just that.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByronicHero)
    A man should be able to abdicate legal responsibility early in the pregnancy but must, at that time, also relinquish all parental rights to the would-be mother. The female then can consider the full realities of her situation and decide whether or not to have, and indeed then keep, the child.

    Obviously provisions need to be made to support both parties in this regard, and we should be doing more to support all single mothers anyway, but I am yet to see a truly compelling reason why something like this wouldn't work.
    I agree


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tiger Rag)
    It's a risk he takes imo. If he really doesn't want to risk being a father, why sleep with her in the first place?
    So do you also support banning abortion? If a woman doesn't want to be a mother why sleep with a man?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LegalDiaries)
    When you get into live sex aka sex without protection, dont expect that the result will be a car. It will probably be a pregnancy.

    A child is a product of two people and therefore it is childish for one party to think that they should not be involved because "they don't want." A child is not some plate that you may decide not to eat from. This is a human being. Suck it up and take responsibility.
    Are you pro-life?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.