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.
Also, child support isn't being set fairly by the courts. Just because the man is wealthy, doesn't mean that it costs more to raise the child. Women receiving child support should be audited and made sure that the mother isn't using any of that money for herself. Having an unwanted child isn't a ticket to making a career out of raising that child.
Prior to Roe v. Wade, a woman who wanted an abortion had to have the money &/or connections to go away somewhere for a few months & then return, miraculously child-free.
The majority view in the US seems to be: If you're old enough for sex, you're old enough to understand the responsibilities entailed in having children. If you want the state to pick up after you, you have to change that consensus.
Not to nit-pick since I mostly agree....but to think that 13 or 14 year olds understand the dedication of their entire LIFE to a child...just because they feel "tingles" would not seem...well, it's not true. Now...you may be getting at that some people THINK it is true. But it isn't. I can vouch for that.
In the hippie era we DID take our girlfriends to planned parenthood almost first thing. And they willingly wanted to go and not only learn, but get the script for birth control. But, realistically, that was 2-3 years after sex and preggy were possible and also I tend to think that we (suburban and better off folks) were perhaps the exception rather than the rule.
I did just finish a book about the woman who performed 10's of thousands of terminations in one city...back when. It was accepted by the pols, police, society, etc. as just one of those things that was a safety valve for society. It was looked at somewhat like gambling (card games), brothels and the like. Everyone knew about it and where to get it safely....and that was that.
It was only after certain pols decided to "make a name" for themselves that it became political. In the long run it's similar to other issues that tend to eventually get codified instead of being "under the table".
Isn't society also being punished by these selfish women when society has to pick up the tab for feeding and giving other forms of aid to these babies with only one parent?
Indeed, that is the argument against men declaring their want nothing to do with a pregnancy.
Why should the rest of us pick up the tab for the children others create?
Just one final thought on the general topic. All this debate and argument about abortion and parents' rights and financial responsibilities would be a lot less necessary if we hadn't abandoned or at least weakened the concept of good old fashioned family values. Those values existed for a number of reasons, not all of which were bad or rooted in oppression. Celebrating promiscuity and embracing the hook up culture is robbing our society of its soul. We all, from both genders need to start taking sex a bit more seriously and stop relegating it to a mere bodily function without any moral, emotional and physical implications.
I often hear people argue "well who are you to judge others for their sexual decisions?", especially when it pertains to women, but any society that cares about its children has an obligation to take its sexual mores seriously or we all suffer. This is still true even with the existence of birth control and abortion. It is not something the government can take care of for us either. It's up to ourselves to do that as a community. Sometimes that will involve social pressures towards people choosing their partners wisely and treating their own bodies with respect.
Then in your view biology has dictated it and the woman chooses, fine then the man can choose to not be involved and she can run solo. There is no clear cut answer but what is currently missing is the mans option to not be involved financially or otherwise. The woman's decision places the burden on both and in so many cases the woman only want the money (for the child) but doesn't want the man involved. Court procedures can be lengthy & costly and are not always an option.
I don't know if it's universal, but certainly the Federal & state legislatures encouraged it in 1996: When a single mother with dependent children applies to her state of residence for TANF funds (it may be called something else now), she assigns her child support money to the state, which then makes every effort to collect from the father of the child(ren).
Even if no formal child support agreement is on file, the state calculates a reasonable amount, based on the number & age of dependent children & the location of the family, & pursues the father for that amount. No state in the US, TMK, is willing to go to its voters & ask them to permanently bear the costs of raising children abandoned by either or both parents.
The law's POV is that financial responsibility, @ least, follows the penis. If there are no children, presumably there is no financial responsibility for non-existent children. & if there are no dependent children, the state can avoid a fair amount of expense.
& of course, in the real world, the man already chose to be involved in the body of the woman. If the man truly does not want to be a father, he should be sure to take pregnancy precautions himself. Otherwise, he's merely gambling with the odds - & the house always wins in the long run.
Only if mothers have the same option to walk away and leave the child with the father. Good for the goose good for the gander type deal.
Essentially no. It takes two people to make a child, you don't get a free pass by just having a penis. If it's that unwanted, perhaps abortion is an option.
Women already can walk away, there's elective abortion and adoption. There's your goose.
The right for privacy is a rather weird justification for abortion. I always see abortion as a right we extend women so they have full control over their bodies. But men need to have full control as well.
People have sex, and not always do they want a child to result. In the case of women, they can get an abortion. But men don't have such an option and they need to have one, as it's quite an undue burden on them to be forced to pay child support for so long.
You can say: "tough, they shouldn't have had sex then, if they're old enough to have sex they're old enough to bear the consequences." But then, why not say that women and take away their legal right to an abortion?
We give women the right to abortion so they have full domain over their life as much as possible. Men should as well, I think a timely statement of intent not to pay is the moral solution. A woman can always abort if she doesn't like her partner's choice.
Men do have full control, they can abstain from sex, or they can figure out how to have sex without her becoming pregnant. It's not all that difficult.
Men's undue burden on them to be forced to pay child support is the price of admission to the big leagues. There's a long history of how society has structured marriage & childbearing - you can look it up, if you're interested. & it's fairly brutal to women, especially early on. We're making up for that now, perhaps. But in no successful society that I'm aware of, do you get to walk away from your financial responsibilities towards your children.
Not legally. Of course using that logic, men have the choice not to pay either today.
It's only a government issue if the woman can't afford to raise the kid on her own, and applies for government help. The number of women who can afford it on their own is not as large as many of us would like, but it's sure larger than it used to be. And it's no longer unheard of for women to decide to have and raise a child without benefit of a man's financial input.
Believe me, MANY women regret the financial necessity of having their child's father in their lives. They would be thrilled to have him gone, except that it means loss of opportunity for the child.
Men do have full control, they can abstain from sex, or they can figure out how to have sex without her becoming pregnant. It's not all that difficult.
Everything you said can be transposed as an argument against abortion for women.
But no, society cannot expect people to remain celibate. Pregnancies do happen, there needs to be a choice available to both parties at that juncture.
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.
The other side of the state's interest
