Should men have a child support opt-out *if* women promised to get an abortion and changed their minds later? (government, 2015)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here's the problem the way I see it. Sure the man and woman both have sex which can produce a baby but the decision to carry to term is up to the woman. The man has no say. If she decides to abort no pay. If she carries to term he pays. It doesn't matter if he wants to be a father or not...
Here's the problem the way I see it. Sure the man and woman both have sex which can produce a baby but the decision to carry to term is up to the woman. The man has no say. If she decides to abort no pay. If she carries to term he pays. It doesn't matter if he wants to be a father or not...
A good rule of thumb:
Be selective in who you decide to swap DNA with.
It'll save both parents from having unwanted children.
The choice to abort is a very sensitive and personal decision for both man and woman. If the man is fine with that idea, that is his prerogative. It's not that easy for a woman who have to make the appointment, see the doctor, watch other patients cry in the waiting room, scared that she herself is going to be physically attacked by pro lifers when she leaves. The woman could promise anything until she witness these things herself. Love for her unborn, fear, doubt and confusion starts to blog her mind.
Yes, there are women out there getting pregnant intentionally for the sake of child support and government benefits. But it remains a personal choice, HER personal choice, not pro lifers, pro abortionist, or the man who refuse the child. As a man, you don't have to like her decision. Heck, you don't have to even like her. But that child is the innocent party that YOU helped create. Real men takes care of what is theirs.
Basically, you're asking the woman to do something that she might spend the rest of her life feeling guilty for, just so you won't have to pay a few hundred dollars a month to raise a child that's half yours.
The way to make sure you don't have to pay child support is to make sure you don't create a child with someone who you don't intend to spend your life with. Accidents happen, but your sperm isn't going to jump out of your shorts on its own and go off into the world to create babies. You have a fair amount of control over the process.
I think the opt-out idea is beyond stupid, because any man who is careless enough to get women pregnant when he doesn't want a child would automatically opt out of providing support. If people were more responsible with their sexuality, there wouldn't be any need for child support.
Needing less support?!? What world did you grow up in where older children are LESS EXPENSIVE?!? The older a child gets, the more expensive they get. They eat more, they wear larger (thus more expensive) clothes, their school costs increase (school supplies, expensive calculators), shoes cost more, activities cost more, transportation costs increase, etc.
They don't need a babysitter and can get a job. I'd say that 2-8 years old need more child support than 14-17 years old.
If you're careful with your sexual relations, it isn't an issue.
Man and woman buy a home together. Would it be fair if only the woman can make the decision on when to sell? Once the decision to buy is made the man can't back out of the deal unless the woman gives her ok no matter what. If she wants the house then he pays. If she decides she doesn't want the house the man doesn't pay. All decisions are made by the woman.
Now before people go off on me I was just trying to make a point.
Abortion is legal, giving the woman a chance to opt out, so I see no reason why men shouldn't have an opt out of its within a reasonable time period and not when the child turns 4 or something. If abortion wasn't legal, then I wouldn't support giving men a chance to opt out.
All of you saying men should keep it their pants need to realize that the same argument applies to women and abortions. If they don't want a baby, they can keep their legs closed. But if anyone says that, it's sexist and hateful.
@Caltovegas - There's an important difference that you overlooked between buying a house and procreating a child. In the latter case one party (the woman) carries the baby for nine months and the other one (the man) doesn't, so the woman is in a different position than the man since it's her body and there may be medical issues at stake. With a house neither party is in a different physical position than the other, so any laws putting one spouse in a more favorable position would probably be deemed unconstitutional.
Remember that courts when reviewing "sexist" laws will typically look as to whether the law is based on biological reality or mere social constructs - laws where the former applies have a much better chance of surviving.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
