Men's Rights in Terms of Child Support and Abortion

[RiverOfIce]

My point, from the beginning still stands. You guys all make wonderful points by stating that the woman has more to deal with than the man, EVEN IF the man paid child support. I completely get that. Again, the difference is that it is HER CHOICE to deal with all of that from the first second. We can define the first second as the moment she found out she was pregnant, or the moment she birthed the child. Fact of the matter is SHE decides whether she is going to have/keep the baby and ultimately SHE decides whether she is going to be collecting child support.

I personally suggest we put psychological issues aside, because this isn't about psychological issues. If it were, these men would be legally forced/obligated to be a part of their children's lives, not simply forced to throw some money their way. That is not being a father and, in my eyes, is no better than doing nothing at all for the kid.

The bottom line is this. Someone is going to have to give that woman money to take care of that child. So what do you prefer. The tax payer, the man responsible for that child, or would have have that child raised in poor condition where crime, abuse, and social problems are increased by 100 times.

Ok, turn that around. What if he said that and she decided to have an abortion without his knowledge?

Fact is, a promise isn't an entry into a contract. You promise to love a person forever for better or for worse, yadda yadda yadda, in the thing we call marriage. Ironically there is a legal way out of that, called divorce.

Once again, if there was a way to remove the fetus from the woman and give it to the man, they I would 100% ban the idea of abortion. But that is not possible. You can not force a woman to grow something in her body against her will. Forcing her to carry the child is equivalent to slavery.

Slave- A person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them.
Slavery- The state of being a slave.

When you make a decision about another persons body for 9 months you are treating them as a slave, and the body as property, in which they have no ability at self determination.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

And if the male promised that he would be there through everything only to skip out leaving her to hold the bag when she became pregnant? You are still stuck on the act, not the results or the responsibility of the act.

But you need to clear that up, what did you mean when you said what I have quoted?

lordofthereef pretty much said was I was gonna say on the first point.

What you quoted was me saying that both parents should have rights in the decisions made during the course of the pregnancy, not me saying that only the man should.

 

[lordofthereef]

If the woman doesn't have money to pay for the child, she has the option of giving it up for adoption, as I have stated many times. She already does have that option, but if she thinks she can do it with monetary support from the father, she can get the courts to force him to pay up. That last part is the only thing I have a problem with.

And I don't see where anyone but the mother is making a decision on what she does with her body. Nobody is forcing her to carry the child to term but her own emotions. If the father had any rights in terms of requiring the mother to carry the child to term, your point would stand. Because he does not, I don't get the comparison. Nobody is a slave here.

You are saying a man can't force the woman to have his baby. Fine. I find it equally unjust that a woman can force a man to pay for the baby he never wanted in the first place.

 

[RiverOfIce]

lordofthereef pretty much said was I was gonna say on the first point.

What you quoted was me saying that both parents should have rights in the decisions made during the course of the pregnancy, not me saying that only the man should.

So you support slavery? The willful act of forcing a person, against their will, to carry a fetus to term? Treating the body as property and enforcing your will over their self determination, so they can obey your moral ideals?

Is that what you where saying?

 

[lordofthereef]

Nobody is supporting slavery. What we are saying is, if the man cannot choose whether the mother brings the baby to term (this is fine, nothing wrong with it), then the mother shouldn't be able to choose to force the father to pay out of pocket for the next 18 years. Essentially with the way things currently are, the mother has 100% of all choices to be made here.

But, let's for sake of argument go a different route. Let's say the father was able to provide a host to birth the child that the mother theoretically didn't want. AFAIK, this still isn't his decision. If the woman he naturally impregnated says no, end of story. In an early pregnancy, this would be a simple procedure with no more risk than the abortion she theoretically wishes for.

 

[RiverOfIce]

Nobody is supporting slavery. What we are saying is, if the man cannot choose whether the mother brings the baby to term (this is fine, nothing wrong with it), then the mother shouldn't be able to choose to force the father to pay out of pocket for the next 18 years.

So what you are saying is this? Men should not be responible for their actions.

If I steal a car, I can say, opps got catch, I did not mean to steal the car, and get away with it?

I can rob a bank, but once I get catch, I can say, I did not mean to rob the bank.

If I willfully burn down your house, can I just say, I did not mean to burn down your house and you have zero ability to get money out of me?

You can not confuse the act, the result, and the responsibility of that act.

Let us look at it from a different point of view. Lets say a father of 5 just walks away from the marriage, should the mother just be left holding the bag?

PS. Adoption is not always the best idea for the child.

 

[lordofthereef]

No, I am not... unless you are saying that giving up a baby for adoption also equates to not being responsible for your actions. In that case, yes I am.

I am not advocating adoption. I am advocating giving the father equal choice in the matter.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

So you support slavery? The willful act of forcing a person, against their will, to carry a fetus to term? Treating the body as property and enforcing your will over their self determination, so they can obey your moral ideals?

Is that what you where saying?

Slavery is a system under which people are treated as property and are forced to work. Slaves can be held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase or birth, and deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to demand compensation.
Slavery - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A woman's employment status isn't even what is being discussed. Let's not make loaded, fallacious claims just to win a debate.

In one of my earlier threads you attempted to argue that taxation is voluntary, despite the fact that there are legal penalties for not paying your taxes. Likewise, carrying a child to term would also be voluntary even if abortion were illegal according to your line of thinking.

Prohibiting a parent from murdering their child is hardly an extreme position. Parents who are unwilling to care for their children, both before and after childbirth, have legal recourse. All states allow newborns to be abandoned at the time of birth, and some even allow the mother to go to a safe surrender site after the time of birth. While the mother is pregnant, it can be arranged in advance that the child will be given up for adoption to the state or to certain person(s) who wish to adopt.

We don't need to baby people who make poor choices with their bodies. Drug addicts are constantly punished for their poor choices by the legal system, yet expecting a woman to accept the natural consequences of her poor choices is asking too much?

 

[lordofthereef]

Let me outline two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
a.) pregnancy
b.) baby is born but mother wants to give up for adoption
c.) father decides to be the adoptive parent of the baby
d.) mother gets off scot free, no child support will be required of her

scenario 2:
a.) pregnancy
b.) baby is born but father wants to give it up for adoption
c.) mother decides she wants to keep it
d.) father is screwed and has to pay child support for 18 years

Clearly, in scenario one, the woman is getting off without being responsible for her actions, unless of course you say carrying a child for 9 months is the same as 18 years of child support payments in terms of paying for your actions.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Let me outline two scenarios:

Scenario 1:
a.) pregnancy
b.) baby is born but mother wants to give up for adoption
c.) father decides to be the adoptive parent of the baby
d.) mother gets off scot free, no child support will be required

scenario 2:
a.) pregnancy
b.) baby is born but father wants to give it up for adoption
c.) mother decides she wants to keep it
d.) father is screwed and has to pay life support for 18 years

Clearly, in scenario one, the woman is getting off without being responsible for her actions, unless of course you say carrying a child for 9 months is the same as 18 years of child support payments in terms of paying for your actions.

Yes. If anything, River seems to advocating that the father be subject to "slavery" according to his phraseology. The mother has several ways out, besides abortion. The father has no way out once the women is impregnated.

 

[lordofthereef]

Yes. If anything, River seems to advocating that the father be subject to "slavery" according to his phraseology. The mother has several ways out, besides abortion. The father has no way out once the women is impregnated.

I wasn't going to make that comparison, but since you went there...

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I wasn't going to make that comparison, but since you went there...

I just find it so hypocritical that the pro-abortion crowd are quick to say that a man needs to accept responsibility for his actions, but they exempt women from that.

 

[lordofthereef]

For the record, I am not sure River is pro abortion as a principle. Just that if it is going to stay legal it should be 100% the mother's choice. I am ok with that half of the argument (we just can't avoid pro or con abortion talk it seems - I had a feeling about this from the beginning though).

 

[FreakyLocz14]

For the record, I am not sure River is pro abortion as a principle. Just that if it is going to stay legal it should be 100% the mother's choice. I am ok with that half of the argument (we just can't avoid pro or con abortion talk it seems - I had a feeling about this from the beginning though).

I was trying to keep the pro-abortion vs. pro-life debate out of this, until I was accused of supporting slavery.

Also, making it 100% the mother's choice is again that double standard I pointed out in my last post where a man is expected to take responsibility for his actions, but a women is not.

 

[lordofthereef]

Fair enough. Just making an observation is all

 

[RiverOfIce]

The mother would have to pay child support for the child if the father adopted the child, sorry that is the law.

But I understand what you two are saying, I don't agree with it, because it is either fair nor right, but would be equal.

Freaky, it would not be slavery for the male to get off scott free. He now has a responsiblity, which he has to take care of. It would only be slavery if the mother was forced to carry child to full term, if she wanted an abortion. You are not forcing the male to carry a child for 9 months inside his body.

But bottom line, the male holds no responsibility for any of his actions. The woman has 100% responsibility for both their actions.

Regardless of what happens, the male gets away with out a problem and the woman will always be forced to take care of the problem, I got it.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

The mother would have to pay child support for the child if the father adopted the child, sorry that is the law.

But I understand what you two are saying, I don't agree with it, because it is either fair nor right, but would be equal.

Freaky, it would not be slavery for the male to get off scott free. He now has a responsiblity, which he has to take care of. It would only be slavery if the mother was forced to carry child to full term, if she wanted an abortion. You are not forcing the male to carry a child for 9 months inside his body.

But bottom line, the male holds no responsibility for any of his actions. The woman has 100% responsibility for both their actions.

Regardless of what happens, the male gets away with out a problem and the woman will always be forced to take care of the problem, I got it.

You have it mixed up. Under your will, the father will have 100% responsibility and the mother none. The father is stuck with a child support payment with no ifs, ands, or buts. The woman can get an abortion or put the child up for adoption. She has all the recourse, while he has none.

 

[lordofthereef]

The mother would have to pay child support for the child if the father adopted the child, sorry that is the law.

This is incorrect. The mother gave it up for adoption and the father adopted it. The mother has no legal obligation to pay child support towards that child.

 

[lordofthereef]

Even when a mother has relinquished her parental rights, California's adoption laws also consider the rights of the child's father before the child becomes legally available for adoption. The adoptive family or adoption agency must file a petition with the California family law courts to terminate the father's parental rights, unless the state has already taken legal action to terminate his rights or the father has denied paternity of the child. Additionally, under Section 7663 of the Family Code, the family court may require the mother to assist with the identification of the child's father. If the court identifies a legal father for the child, the adoptive family or adoption agency must follow the procedures required under state law to terminate his parental rights; the father may be able to object to termination of his parental rights, even if the mother has already consented to the child's adoption.

From: Giving Up a Mother's Parental Rights in California | eHow.com

According to that, in CA a father may not even have a say if the mother decides to give the child up for adoption. But still, if he does win the objection, the mother's parental rights are already terminated, thus she is no longer legally obligated to care for the child in any way be it monetarily or physically.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

From: Giving Up a Mother's Parental Rights in California | eHow.com

According to that, in CA a father may not even have a say if the mother decides to give the child up for adoption. But still, if he does win the objection, the mother's parental rights are already terminated, thus she is no longer legally obligated to care for the child in any way be it monetarily or physically.

This is some sigh of relief, but what happens if the father is the one initiating the giving up for adoption?

 

[nlsme]

Or... if you don't want to pay child support, be born a woman because you will never have to under current laws.

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. But a man should have the right to want nothing to do with his kid after it is born just like a woman currently has the right to do the same. How is the woman held responsible if she decides to give the child up? She isn't, but somehow the father is required to be held responsible depending on the mother's own decision.

You clearly have no concept of the laws you are currently discussing. The law doesnt take into account maternity/paternity with regards to child support. I am a father, with custody, that receives child support.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

You clearly have no concept of the laws you are currently discussing. The law doesnt take into account maternity/paternity with regards to child support. I am a father, with custody, that receives child support.

When you put a child up for adoption, you waive all parental rights, including the right to the child.

The person who adopts the child then has full custody. If that adoptive parent happens to be a blood relative of the child, that would not change the fact that the mother voluntarily terminated all of her parental rights.

 

[nlsme]

When you put a child up for adoption, you waive all parental rights, including the right to the child.

The person who adopts the child then has full custody. If that adoptive parent happens to be a blood relative of the child, that would not change the fact that the mother voluntarily terminated all of her parental rights.

A father can not adopt his own child. IF a mother chooses to put a child up for adoption, then the father can stop it, gain custody, and receive child support. If a child is put up for adoption, and the father is known, then the father is also absolving all responsability by agreeing to have the child adopted out.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

A father can not adopt his own child. IF a mother chooses to put a child up for adoption, then the father can stop it, gain custody, and receive child support. If a child is put up for adoption, and the father is known, then the father is also absolving all responsability by agreeing to have the child adopted out.

You're not taking into account a scenario where the father isn't aware that the child was put up for adoption until it's already happened.

 

[nlsme]

And you are relying on that one scenario. My advice, when you have sex with a girl, and you would actually care IF she got pregnant, stick around. It doesn't take long to see if she is pregnant. Besides, adoptions have been overturned in the past, because the father wasn't aware.