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

Is child support for unwanted pregnancies unfair on men Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    So what if the baby ceases to exist? That's the woman's choice, that's the point.
    If the woman decides to have a baby and the man exercises his rights in this hypothetical he has nothing to do with the child the woman took full responsibility.

    If she does that without having the method or means to take care of the child the state will pick up the tab like it does for all sorts of issues.

    The woman could be a person who chooses to smoke gets cancer and the state picks up the bill to treat her benson and hedges doesn't as it was her choice



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    The point is that I am not looking at this from what just benefits the mother or what benefits the father. It's like a warped playground argument "But why can she do that but I can't!" It's sad. The importance comes from the existence of another human and the wider society - the two parties who actually didn't make the decision to have sex in this particular situation.

    'So what if the baby doesn't exist?' Erm, so everything. If the baby doesn't exist, the liability doesn't exist, the responsibility doesn't exist, this discussion doesn't exist. It may have been the mother's choice, but it removed the product of the joint act. The financial duty disappears and so does the child who isn't in the undesirable position of having a parent that doesn't want to know or provide. When the father makes his choice, he is incapable of removing the product of the joint act.

    I disagree with your explanation that 'the man exercises his rights in this hypothetical he has nothing to do with the child the woman took full responsibility'. The father shirking his responsibility while the mother accepts hers doesn't mean that by default the man's responsibility disappears or has been accepted by the mother. The woman continues to accept and fulfil her parental responsibility, his space is still empty.

    You're right, the state will step in and pick up the tab and that's my issue. That along with just the stupidity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    I must admit I hadn't thought about this subject too much.

    I accepted it's a woman's choice on abortion and a man can't do anything about it, it's her body.
    I am also pro choice.

    But I have to say this thread has opened my eyes to the lack of rights for men in this area.

    To me it's completely clear a man should have the right to wave his parental responsibility, rights and financial responsibilities to a child.

    Yes this would have to be done early in a pregnancy and it would also have to have some sort of legal mechanism created.

    But surely this must be done.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Absolutely right. If a woman can abort a child without mans permission because its "her body, her baby, her choice" then she should pay for it all by herself. Sick of stupid feminists with their idiotic ideas about "equality" i.e. they are not responsible for her own actions
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeeceLondon)
    The point is that I am not looking at this from what just benefits the mother or what benefits the father. It's like a warped playground argument "But why can she do that but I can't!" It's sad. The importance comes from the existence of another human and the wider society - the two parties who actually didn't make the decision to have sex in this particular situation.

    'So what if the baby doesn't exist?' Erm, so everything. If the baby doesn't exist, the liability doesn't exist, the responsibility doesn't exist, this discussion doesn't exist. It may have been the mother's choice, but it removed the product of the joint act. The financial duty disappears and so does the child who isn't in the undesirable position of having a parent that doesn't want to know or provide. When the father makes his choice, he is incapable of removing the product of the joint act.

    I disagree with your explanation that 'the man exercises his rights in this hypothetical he has nothing to do with the child the woman took full responsibility'. The father shirking his responsibility while the mother accepts hers doesn't mean that by default the man's responsibility disappears or has been accepted by the mother. The woman continues to accept and fulfil her parental responsibility, his space is still empty.

    You're right, the state will step in and pick up the tab and that's my issue. That along with just the stupidity.
    Sorry, what?

    It's the mothers choice to have the child when the father has said he doesn't want the child.

    She has a choice, he has none.

    Therefore he shouldn't have to pay for it.

    What part of that don't you get?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Sorry, what?

    It's the mothers choice to have the child when the father has said he doesn't want the child.

    She has a choice, he has none.

    Therefore he shouldn't have to pay for it.

    What part of that don't you get?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    You don't seem to comprehend my premise so there is no point in continuing this discussion. About 'what part of that don't you get', take your condescension elsewhere.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeeceLondon)
    You don't seem to comprehend my premise so there is no point in continuing this discussion. About 'what part of that don't you get', take your condescension elsewhere.
    Cool story


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Sorry, what?

    It's the mothers choice to have the child when the father has said he doesn't want the child.

    She has a choice, he has none.

    Therefore he shouldn't have to pay for it.

    What part of that don't you get?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    She got it quite clearly, and provided a counter-argument. You chose to ignore it and simply rehash the same argument again. This is the reason she got frustrated and gave up; you appear unwilling or unable actually to with counter-arguments, preferring to simply believe that your argument is without fault and anyone who disagrees must simply not "get" it.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anarchism101)
    She got it quite clearly, and provided a counter-argument. You chose to ignore it and simply rehash the same argument again. This is the reason she got frustrated and gave up; you appear unwilling or unable actually to with counter-arguments, preferring to simply believe that your argument is without fault and anyone who disagrees must simply not "get" it.
    It was predicated on a child existing therefore retarded if in the hypothetical men had these rights.

    Either the baby doesn't exist due to abortion or it does and the man has signed his rights and responsibilities away where the mother has continued the pregnancy knowing this.

    The child is therefore her responsibility alone


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It was predicated on a child existing therefore retarded if in the hypothetical men had these rights.

    Either the baby doesn't exist due to abortion or it does and the man has signed his rights and responsibilities away where the mother has continued the pregnancy knowing this.

    The child is therefore her responsibility alone


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    It sounds like you've got an ideal vs practical argument going here. I totally agree with you that in an ideal ethical sense, the man should be able to withdraw from any parental responsibility. However, in practice, this would just create more state-dependant single mothers, which isn't something anybody wants or needs.

    And if you don't believe that last point, just look at all the women who *already* choose to keep children despite neither them nor the father earning anywhere near enough to fund a child. This is basically every teenage pregnancy, and plenty of other families. Allowing fathers to remove themselves financially would only add to this number. It may even be reluctant fathers who prevent more of these situations by talking their partners into abortion - if they had no financial incentive anymore then the idea of having a bunch of kids being raised by different mums might not sounds so bad (from an evolutionary psychology point of view it certainly should appeal).

    Only if the state decides that it just won't support children with benefits (arguably very unethical in itself, and probably still not enough to stop them being born), and/or if we have a massive cultural shift towards women only wanting to become parents when they're financially secure, could we have an environment where financial abortion could politically become a reality.

    ...although I totally accept that ethically a father's responsibility for a child he hasn't committed to is tiny, and that the system is ethically perverse at present
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    It was predicated on a child existing therefore retarded if in the hypothetical men had these rights.

    Either the baby doesn't exist due to abortion or it does and the man has signed his rights and responsibilities away where the mother has continued the pregnancy knowing this.

    The child is therefore her responsibility alone


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    That doesn't follow at all.

    Either the baby doesn't exist, in which case neither man nor woman have had a child, or it is born, in which case both have had a child, being its parents. Once conception has taken place, which one it is depends entirely on the woman's actions. Again, this not an issue of law, but one of fact.

    Neither parent has any responsibilities until the child is born. A woman getting an abortion is not parental giving up rights and reponsibilities, because there is no-one for her to have rights and responsibilities to in the first place. As such, it is not comparable to your proposal that a father be able to abdicate responsibilities to a real live person.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeeceLondon)
    The point is that I am not looking at this from what just benefits the mother or what benefits the father. It's like a warped playground argument "But why can she do that but I can't!" It's sad. The importance comes from the existence of another human and the wider society - the two parties who actually didn't make the decision to have sex in this particular situation.

    'So what if the baby doesn't exist?' Erm, so everything. If the baby doesn't exist, the liability doesn't exist, the responsibility doesn't exist, this discussion doesn't exist. It may have been the mother's choice, but it removed the product of the joint act. The financial duty disappears and so does the child who isn't in the undesirable position of having a parent that doesn't want to know or provide. When the father makes his choice, he is incapable of removing the product of the joint act.
    Excellently put. They're trying to crowbar together two essentially different rights that they think sort of sound the same from an entirely individual perspective.
    Offline

    5
    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?
    but you have to understand something here.. if that were the case holding all things constant, then surely the woman wouldn't have wanted kids as well (let alone with a ONS); then shouldn't the onus be on Both parties to bring protection? (female condoms; implants and the like Do exist you know. we can't blame men for everything.. after all, when does personal accountability come into this?)

    besides, true. Let's flip genders & paraphrase for a bit, this is what you said though: "it's a risk she takes imo. if she really doesn't want to risk being a mother, why sleep with him in the first place?". Now imagine a world, where there's no abortion/do over switch (as guys don't get any do-overs with unwanted pregnancies in real life). Imagine that she only did it for fun; not babies. In addition, she now has to Pay money for instances/situations that are out of her hands and is basically stuck for 2 decades paying sums of money to a baby daddy that will most likely spend said money on treating themselves to luxury holidays. And the final nail in the coffin, in this reality; the man can (and will) choose Not to get involved (by draining the womans' visitation rights to the point of non-existence in addition to constantly arguing that 50/50 visitation rights are wrong and unneeded, pandering to the courts that Because she's a woman therefore she's the defacto bad parent with the kid ending up with the man 9/10 times the case is in court and lobbying for money from the woman - regardless of her financial stability). he can also choose not to get involved as it's his body, his sperm: once she's pregnant and he wants the baby, the woman doesn't have a say about it. she can't go for an abortion as it's not her sperm in her therefore she can't have a say as to what happens to it. on the other hand, if he doesn't want the baby but she wants to give birth to it; again it's his sperm. she doesn't have a say.

    a world in which a man can (and will) go sleep with a woman, have a baby with her, take the kid away from her, deny all rights the woman would get by sticking all manner of restraining orders on the chick and force her to go beyond and above financing for a child that she'll ever see. a world in which this is the norm and not even the government will ever listen to the chick.

    She's a Bit stuck isn't she?


    look at the brad and angelina divorce case for example
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thrift2017)
    We start this debate off with two presumptions. The first one, a favourite of the liberal left: abortion is moral and available. The second is that everyone needs a sex lite which is why the LGBTQQIA need to be catered for.

    If a guy has a one off sexual encounter with a woman. He takes precautions but she still becomes pregnant, he asks her to have an abortion but she refuses. Should he be forced through state violence to pay child support for his entire adult life?

    Is this persecution of heterosexual men? I did some research into this and read some web BBS, many women are very smug about this: he did the deed, he must therefore be responsible, even though they have full decision making power here yet the guy takes full accountability. Accountability without decision making power, it goes against all of our modern values.

    I noticed women are smug until a partner of theirs, or brother or close relative or friend gets into this situation and then they panic like hell.

    Isn't it time we examine this rights for men issue?
    It's interesting to note that a woman who does not want a child can get rid of it without the mans consent. Even in cases where the man has agreed to take on the role of single parent the mother can abort his child against his wishes.

    And yet if the man does not want the child then he has no say in the matter and is forced to pay for the childs upbringing..

    There was a case I heard about where the guy wanted to keep the child so badly that a contract had to be drawn up agreeing that the mother would be absolved from any financial responsibility as long as she agreed to carry the child to term.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, but there's nothing to be done about it. The unfairness is superseded by the practical necessity for children to be fully resourced.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • 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.