Abortion

[7Deadly$ins]

So what do you guys think about mandatory child support? I'm just curious. Because in many cases even if the guy doesn't want the child he still ends up having to pay money for it for 18 years, but if it were the other way around (man wants baby, woman doesn't) then he wouldn't have any say in if she gets an abortion or not.

[whitebaron]

@sock: Actually, this is standard procedure in the country I live in. You need a valid legal document to go voting. I don't see any problems with that, besides that the US has a crappy legal/voting system to start with.

 

So what do you guys think about mandatory child support? I'm just curious. Because in many cases even if the guy doesn't want the child he still ends up having to pay money for it for 18 years, but if it were the other way around (man wants baby, woman doesn't) then he wouldn't have any say in if she gets an abortion or not.

Sadly, this is a question where most pro-choice people would turn around and say: of course the father would have to pay, it's his son/daughter after all. And that seems hardly fair.

[Obscure_Trash]

So what do you guys think about mandatory child support? I'm just curious. Because in many cases even if the guy doesn't want the child he still ends up having to pay money for it for 18 years, but if it were the other way around (man wants baby, woman doesn't) then he wouldn't have any say in if she gets an abortion or not.

In order for me to address this question, I would also want to address the issues of a sexist society where (in the US) there's no paid maternity (or paternity) leave, where women are shamed for being working mothers, where women are shamed for being childless and working, where childcare is thought of as the mother's job and bread winning of the father's job, where all responsibility of birth control or contraception is put on the one with a uterus, where many men with penises don't even know how to put a condom on themselves, where the porn industry rules sexuality helping to result in women literally being viewed as objects, where men have more chances in colleges and to be hired (although affirmative action has greatly helped out white women), where birth control can be expensive and hard to get, where just the cost of giving birth not to mention actually raising the child is extremely expensive due to bad healthcare practices, etc.

 

Simple answer: at this point in time. Yes, I'm fine with mandatory child support. Paying some money for a child doesn't control someone's bodily autonomy. It doesn't put them at risk for the same things a pregnancy does (gestational diabetes, postpartum PTSD, etc.) - things that can be lifelong. It really can't be compared.

 

In an ideal or at least closer to ideal than the US society, no, child support wouldn't need to be mandatory.

 

@sock: Actually, this is standard procedure in the country I live in. You need a valid legal document to go voting. I don't see any problems with that, besides that the US has a crappy legal/voting system to start with.

 

I think you missed something in the article.

Edited January 10, 2014 by SockPuppet Strangler

[Alpha1]

So what do you guys think about mandatory child support? I'm just curious. Because in many cases even if the guy doesn't want the child he still ends up having to pay money for it for 18 years, but if it were the other way around (man wants baby, woman doesn't) then he wouldn't have any say in if she gets an abortion or not.

There's also this to consider:

 

http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/...eport2010-a.pdf

 

"Approximately 10.4% (or an estimated 11.7 million) of men in the United States reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or tried to stop them from using birth control"

 

*** be crazy.

 

Though, if he doesn't pay, then the taxpayers are stuck with it.

 

 

[hazeh]

I don't find those comparable either, for the reasons that Sock stated.

Pregnancy and child support are completely different things, as well as a man will never have say over a woman's own bodily autonomy, so the comparison is pretty moot.

[7Deadly$ins]

I'm not making a comparison, I'm bringing up a related issue.

[Syaoransbear]

Sadly, this is a question where most pro-choice people would turn around and say: of course the father would have to pay, it's his son/daughter after all. And that seems hardly fair.

Wait so you want women to 'take responsibility for their actions' and be forced to give birth but you don't think it's fair for men to take responsibility by giving child support?

 

Also, about the poll of 1000 people: where did these people live, southern US? Because that's going to make a big difference when they believe their religion is against abortion.

[whitebaron]

@sock: The new texas law states that you need an official document that includes your CURRENT LEGAL NAME. That's not discrimination, that's rather an ordinary way of doing things. Here, you are required to get your new documents within WEEKS of your name change. Just because US people want the system to endorse their lazyness, does not mean it is a good way to go.

When I changed my name at the marriage, I had to request no less than 8 legal documents anew. But that's the way it is here, and it is a very good way, since you can never have outdated documents.

 

@Alpha: Surprisingly, the rates are pretty similar. 10% of women trying to get pregnant without the male knowing, 10% of men trying to get the woman pregnant without the female knowing. I'd consider both of those cases rape - because its basically unsafe intercourse without consent.

 

@Shiny+Sock: Of course they are related. If it's only a womans choice to have or forfeit the pregnancy, and the father has no say whatsoever, what if the father would think its responsible because HE can't afford it and she still wants the kid? Also, kids are a life-long commitment, or at least as life-long as the life-long in criminal convictions (25 years + if the child goes to study a long time, maybe even more). And that can very much ruin the man, too. Also, if the woman decides to go into pregnancy, and suffers damages from that, she likely can sue the father (even though he did say to abort) - talk about only her own body, then.

 

@Syaoran (1): unless stated otherwise, I always assume its either from their point of origin (web-based, huffington post) or nation wide. So lets just assume it was nationwide. I don't really think that this attitude is a southern only symptom, its rather widespread from what I can tell - abortion is no easy topic and the opponents sit in Alabama as well as in NYC.

 

@Syaoran (2): Firstly, I never said anything about forcing birth. That aside, no I think it is not fair to deny men their responsibility and opinions, but then want them as caretakers and paycheckgivers.

[Fuzzbucket]

excuse me? I already have a child. And of course, as a responsible person, you are stuck with the consequences.

 

I might not have suffered some of the adverse effects, but I also did not get to feel the positives. Also, in the long term picture, the 9 months pregnancy are a small commitment, i'm really at a loss of words what to answer to tha as it is even worse sexism than the initial statement.

 

Did it EVER occur to you that foul days of your wife might be foul days for the man too? That bad health is additional stress, too? That morning sickness someone needs to clean who's a little healthier?

 

So please spare me that ridiculous double standard. Its silly and sexist, to ignore the father.

At any time, you could have walked.

 

Yes you didn't, and that's good - but you could have. You had that option. Your wife did not. THAT is the MASSIVE difference. A man has the option, the totally get out of jail free option, that the woman cannot have.

 

(The man will also not end up with the results of an episiotomy, the damaged muscle system, the stress incontinence later in life, the change in body shape, never mind the actual pregnancy - which is not all joy and delight, I assure you - by the end most mothers feel like they would happily shoot themselves rather than carry that very much wanted baby one STEP further. 9 months of sickness, excruciating backache, constant visits to the toilet, an aversion to your favourite foods and the rest are not entirely wiped out by the happy bits; ask any mother.)

 

But the huge issue is that you - as a man - can walk. I am glad for your child that you didn't - but it was an option your wife did not have. It's about choices, as well as about issues surrounding unwelcome and unexpected pregnancy.

 

And - to echo a few posts further up - when you have children who are STILL told that babies come from the vegetable patch - is it surprising they aren't aware of what sex can result in ? For those - more in number than you may think - young people, there's no connection.

[whitebaron]

fuzz, i was there and in the mud all the time. my wife was sick for 16 weeks. But she was very healthy and as sportive as ever in the weeks after, once the sickness stopped. You don't get a kid when you are not ready to support it. It's not as hard to contracept as people make it out to be. and no, you cant as easily walk away from your duties. You can walk away from your wife, but you'll always have to pay. And I think its right for the man to have to pay, but I also think that thus, he has to have a voice in the process.

[Fuzzbucket]

fuzz, i was there and in the mud all the time. my wife was sick for 16 weeks. But she was very healthy and as sportive as ever in the weeks after, once the sickness stopped. You don't get a kid when you are not ready to support it. It's not as hard to contracept as people make it out to be. and no, you cant as easily walk away from your duties. You can walk away from your wife, but you'll always have to pay. And I think its right for the man to have to pay, but I also think that thus, he has to have a voice in the process.

A voice - assuming he really will stick around, sure, but NOT a voice with the same weight as the woman.

 

I'm sorry. I know you were there, and you are clearly an OK man. Kudos to you. But the fact is, and will always be, that the man can always walk, and the woman cannot. And that it is the woman's body that goes through the pregnancy and is permanently changed by it, not the man's. Your wife was lucky with the good health. I was pretty lucky, too. (Though be sure to ask her again when the stress incontinence kicks in when she's older... )

 

For the record - I just asked the father of my two what he thought - and he agrees. It is the woman's body. NOTHING can ever change that. Money is - while vital - only money. And to be blunt, there are many MANY fathers who never pay one red cent towards the fruit of their activities. Even after court cases and DNA proof. And it is easy for a crap guy to walk. Just because you aren't crap, just because you have a conscience and a decent attitude doesn't mean all men are OK - sorry but that's the truth of it.

 

That is part of the reason all these MALE lawmakers are so gung ho about banning abortion - it is - in their view - all down to the woman. PUNISH her for becoming pregnant. Why do you think women were banned from the contraception consultation ? THEY are almost always the ones expected to take responsibility for it, after all. But they aren't allowed to make decisions about it, because their bodies are (as perceived by these lawmakers) there for men to use, and they better be sure not to get pregnant, but they aren't going to get contraception easily, OH no....

[brairtrainer]

fuzz, i was there and in the mud all the time. my wife was sick for 16 weeks. But she was very healthy and as sportive as ever in the weeks after, once the sickness stopped. You don't get a kid when you are not ready to support it. It's not as hard to contracept as people make it out to be. and no, you cant as easily walk away from your duties. You can walk away from your wife, but you'll always have to pay. And I think its right for the man to have to pay, but I also think that thus, he has to have a voice in the process.

Except some methods of bc may be out of control forsome people. ex: I've been told not to attempt hormonal bc except by one method which keeps getting recalled by the FDA. I'm stuck right now with only one method because I'm still under my parents health care plan (although thanks to some new info from this thread I think I might be in better shape). Some women are unable to use certain methods of bc and not all of it is covered.

 

Heck, my sister has been attempting to take hormonal bc of all types for a hormonal imbalance, and we had to fight with the insurence company to cover it. My parents were at a point of just deciding to cover it, except the lotion she uses to keep down symptoms is not covered because its a newer drug and is considered a cosmetic.

 

BC is not easily accessable to all women, and there are blocks put on getting it (elemenating Planned Parenthoods funding defunds a way for women in poorer communties from having access, insurence won't cover it because its considered elective to take it making cases where a woman is taking it for other reasons (or because they have genetic issues and they are trying to protect themselves) harder.)

 

Honestly if I were to say what say should the man get? Some.

 

Specifically, if the woman chose to keep it without his consent I believe he should have the right to not pay child support, but he must also give up parental rights to the child. In this case I believe a medical history should be recorded in a way that the mother can communicate to doctors offices if the father's family has a predisposition to certain illnesses. I also believe that men who raped a woman should forfeit his rights to that child upon conviction, only to be reinstated by will of the mother or through an overturning of said conviction.

 

If the guy wants the child but the woman doesn't? Well there are now belts that can make a man feel the pains of childbirth, perhaps they can be modified so the guy has to go through the same feelings as his pregnant partner, but she is still left with a body that could be damaged. If the guy is fully willing and able to wear the belt the entire time and cover all medical expenses of medical issues brought on or made worse by pregnancy as well cover what lost income his partner suffers (in the case of hourly workers), or (if the theory I made can be utilized by humans) then he hires a surrogate. However, I still don't feel that the woman in this case should be denied an abortion, more told that the father is willing to go through these steps to keep the child, are these acceptable to her.

 

Why? because nine months is a long time. Its mostly a year. Pregnant women may be passed up for premotions because they will be out of the office more because of doctors appointments (somewhat avoidable but not all women can be seen in the evening), and child illnesses. Also the US does not have mandatory maternity or paternity leave. Meaning a woman who just gave birth could loose her job by not showing up to work. Sure you could sue (in theory) but the people most affected by this are hourly workers on the lower income scale. Unless they are in a union who has negotiated out maternity benefits they are SOL. And even if there is a union, if any union places are using temp workers and one of them get pregnant they can be fired for missing several days of work while they do what they can to keep themselves healthy.

 

When the man is willing to pick up the slack and consequences, or is able to find someone who is willing to carry the fetus to term then he can choose, until then leave it to those whose bodies are the most affected, the ones who could die because of your choice, should have the most say.

 

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Honestly if I were to say what say should the man get? Some.

 

Specifically, if the woman chose to keep it without his consent I believe he should have the right to not pay child support, but he must also give up parental rights to the child.

ONLY if she had the option to abort. (Which, yes, is implied in your answer.) To say that if MALE legislators have deprived her of that option and her only option was to go through with the pregnancy - even if she gave the baby up for adoption, he can walk away just like that - no. The father should at the VERY LEAST pay for her medical care and any other losses (like her pay, if she needs to quit work) she suffers while carrying his child. She takes the consequences - but so does he. That might actually wake up a few guys who make the misogynistic laws that seem to be in the pipeline.

Edited January 10, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Syaoransbear]

And I think its right for the man to have to pay, but I also think that thus, he has to have a voice in the process.

Men are allowed a voice(but the ultimate choice depends on the woman), but don't you think a man's opinion should only matter to the woman he impregnated instead of being turned into a law that affects all women?

 

That is the beauty of pro-choice. It gets to be my choice, a tiny bit my husband's choice, and a total stranger's opinion(who has no idea what my circumstances are) will have no effect on me.

[brairtrainer]

ONLY if she had the option to abort. (Which, yes, is implied in your answer.) To say that if MALE legislators have deprived her of that option and her only option was to go through with the pregnancy - even if she gave the baby up for adoption, he can walk away just like that - no. The father should at the VERY LEAST pay for her medical care and any other losses (like her pay, if she needs to quit work) she suffers while carrying his child. She takes the consequences - but so does he. That might actually wake up a few guys who make the misogynistic laws that seem to be in the pipeline.

Of course, if the woman can't abort the man shouldn't have the abilty to walk away. I was merely trying to address whitebaron's views of what he veiws as sexist as well as inform him that getting bc is not always easy and simple.

[Kith]

My short answer to the child support issue is no, I don't think that child support should be mandatory in all cases.

 

If the pregnancy was through the use of a sperm bank; or the father expressed his dissenting opinion early enough (prior to the pregnancy, prior to the cutoff point for abortion, etc); or even in certain situations where the mother makes a decent wage (as deemed by the court to be enough to support the child alone) and the father has a minimum wage or barely subsistence level job... those are just a few circumstances in which child support being mandatory isn't or might not be appropriate.

[brairtrainer]

My short answer to the child support issue is no, I don't think that child support should be mandatory in all cases.

 

If the pregnancy was through the use of a sperm bank; or the father expressed his dissenting opinion early enough (prior to the pregnancy, prior to the cutoff point for abortion, etc); or even in certain situations where the mother makes a decent wage (as deemed by the court to be enough to support the child alone) and the father has a minimum wage or barely subsistence level job... those are just a few circumstances in which child support being mandatory isn't or might not be appropriate.

That was covered in forfeiting parenting rights, most sperm banks require for you to forfeit any parental rights to offspring that are concieved in that manner.

[Kith]

That was covered in forfeiting parenting rights, most sperm banks require for you to forfeit any parental rights to offspring that are concieved in that manner.

Well, yes. I am hearing of recent cases where women are trying to get child support from sperm-bank daddies, however...

 

Also, I wasn't disagreeing with the whole "give up all parental rights" thing, I was trying to provide specific examples of circumstances where child support shouldn't automatically be mandatory. People here have asked others for lists of reasons why women would want an abortion to prove that the person put some thought into it, so I felt it was only appropriate to list some reasons regarding this issue. ^..^

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kith

[Fuzzbucket]

Well, yes. I am hearing of recent cases where women are trying to get child support from sperm-bank daddies, however...

 

Also, I wasn't disagreeing with the whole "give up all parental rights" thing, I was trying to provide specific examples of circumstances where child support shouldn't automatically be mandatory. People here have asked others for lists of reasons why women would want an abortion to prove that the person put some thought into it, so I felt it was only appropriate to list some reasons regarding this issue. ^..^

And it has been shot down every time it made it to court.

 

Also I think you will find that where the mother has way more money than the father, child support is set at something like a penny a month, just to establish a precedent in case the child ever DOES need support later.

 

But to the other bits -

 

or the father expressed his dissenting opinion early enough (prior to the pregnancy, prior to the cutoff point for abortion, etc)

 

No. He is equally responsible; he had sex too. The baby is as much his as hers, if carried to term. He has no right to force her to have an abortion. WE come back to - it is her body. (I would have some small degree of sympathy there actually, if she flatly refused a termination after he had offered to meet all the expenses, but still.... He did not have to impregnate her.

[Kith]

No. He is equally responsible; he had sex too. The baby is as much his as hers, if carried to term. He has no right to force her to have an abortion. WE come back to - it is her body. (I would have some small degree of sympathy there actually, if she flatly refused a termination after he had offered to meet all the expenses, but still.... He did not have to impregnate her.

I never said that the mother should be forced to have an abortion. I don't think forcing someone to have an abortion is any more right than forcing someone to give birth. I also didn't mean that no child support would be required ever in those cases, but that it might be a case in which child support would not necessarily be mandatory. Thus the "isn't or might not be" as opposed to just "isn't" in the original post and "automatically" in the further one - I'm trying not to deal in absolutes for gray areas, since a lot of them need to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

 

If, say, the birth control honestly failed (or was intentionally sabotaged by the mother) and the mother wishes to keep the baby and the father states immediately that he doesn't, that might be a case where the situation needs to be evaluated before child support is awarded instead of slapping him with it automatically. Especially if he offered to pay all the costs associated with an abortion and she refused.

 

Conversely, if a father is all supportive and offers to pay everything in the beginning, and then some months later decides to disappear, leaving her alone in the final weeks of her pregnancy (when it's too late for her to terminate)... he needs to pay the money to support the kid.

 

Edited for clarity

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kith

[Fuzzbucket]

You said: (my bold)

 

My short answer to the child support issue is no, I don't think that child support should be mandatory in all cases.

 

If the pregnancy was through the use of a sperm bank; or the father expressed his dissenting opinion early enough (prior to the pregnancy, prior to the cutoff point for abortion, etc); or even in certain situations where the mother makes a decent wage (as deemed by the court to be enough to support the child alone) and the father has a minimum wage or barely subsistence level job... those are just a few circumstances in which child support being mandatory isn't or might not be appropriate.

 

Which suggests that if he told her to have an abortion and she refused, he should not have to pay towards the child's support. Which I think is very wrong, given that he is as responsible for the pregnancy as she is. And you seem basically to agree when it comes down to it, in fact .

Edited January 10, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Kith]

Which suggests that if he told her to have an abortion and she refused, he should not have to pay towards the child's support. Which I think is very wrong, given that he is as responsible for the pregnancy as she is. And you seem basically to agree, in fact .

 

 

I'm sorry that my statement looked that way. I didn't mean it like that at all, but rather that if the mother expressed her desire to keep the child, and the father expressed his opposition early enough, she still had the option to abort. Not that she had to. And not that child support would automatically be denied if she refused, but that the situation would have to be reviewed.

 

Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Edited January 10, 2014 by Kith

[Fuzzbucket]

 

I'm sorry that my statement looked that way. I didn't mean it like that at all, but rather that if the mother expressed her desire to keep the child, and the father expressed his opposition early enough, she still had the option to abort. Not that she had to. And not that child support would automatically be denied if she refused, but that the situation would have to be reviewed.

 

Again, my apologies for the misunderstanding.

Fair enough Peace and stuff !

[Alpha1]

Paying some money for a child doesn't control someone's bodily autonomy. It doesn't put them at risk for the same things a pregnancy does (gestational diabetes, postpartum PTSD, etc.) - things that can be lifelong. It really can't be compared.

 

The state forcing child support can lead to suicide.

 

(The man will also not end up with the results of an episiotomy, the damaged muscle system, the stress incontinence later in life, the change in body shape, never mind the actual pregnancy

 

Fuzz

 

 

No. He is equally responsible; he had sex too. The baby is as much his as hers, if carried to term. He has no right to force her to have an abortion. WE come back to - it is her body. (I would have some small degree of sympathy there actually, if she flatly refused a termination after he had offered to meet all the expenses, but still.... He did not have to impregnate her.

 

Uh, why should he have to pay? She can do the responsible thing and abort the stupid baby. Consenting to sex is not consenting to years of payments.

 

[Fuzzbucket]

Uh, why should he have to pay? She can do the responsible thing and abort the stupid baby. Consenting to sex is not consenting to years of payments.

Why should she have to, when he had sex too ? He didn't have to have sex any more than she did. Consenting to sex is not consenting to bearing a child, either. And someone who really feels they cannot have an abortion has as much right NOT to have one as someone who believes in that choice has to go that route.

 

If men thought about the possible years of payments ahead in the same way as women are expected to expect a pregnancy whenever they have sex, everyone would be a lot better off.