• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child Support Payments

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,659
Reaction score
27,417
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.

This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.

That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?

As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.

This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?

Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.

Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.

Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.

If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.

Thanks...
 
Last edited:
No - he should not have to if he goes through the proper channels to annul his parental rights if she chooses to have the baby. This does not apply to couples in a union or marriage, naturally.

I also feel that DNA tests should be required.
 
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice.Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child. The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that. This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter. That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair? As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc. This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible? Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort. Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law. Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll. If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.Thanks...

Yes the man should be required to pay child support

If the women has the baby and wants to give it up for adoption, the man has the right to prevent it and take custody. In taking custody he can legally have the woman pay child support.
 
Pay up. I certainly shouldn't be the one who ends up reponsible for your actions.
 
Pay up. I certainly shouldn't be the one who ends up reponsible for your actions.

This is the problem... the last two posts. Neither of you are addressing the fact that she has the option to abort if she does not want to raise the child on her own.

The only issue is this: The child needs to be properly supported.

Well, if the woman cannot properly supprt the child on her own, she should abort. Why is this not acceptable? It is birth control. Nobody is forcing her to abort. She would be making a responsible decision rather than forcing you to support her through higher taxes.

Also, what is not being addressed are the men that are tricked into being fathers.

Sex is not all about having children and the man is not irresponsible if birth control fails.
 
The looming specter here is the child. Its opportunities can't be limited because of either of its parents' dysfunctionality.
 
The looming specter here is the child. Its opportunities can't be limited because of either of its parents' dysfunctionality.

How is the man dysfunctional if he does not want a child since the mother has the legal right to abort? The mother would be dysfunctional, that is for sure. Also, dirt poor people have children all the time in America and nobody cares about the world of dysfunctionalti ythat the child is being born into there. Same with abusive or neglective parents. Opportunites are limited all over America.

That argument doesn't fly and doesn't address her legal rigth to have an abortion.

It is sooo frustrating to see three of five posters not even address the OP properly. WHY?!?!?! ARGH!
 
It is sooo frustrating to see three of five posters not even address the OP properly. WHY?!?!?! ARGH!

Need a midol?

With the block of endless text that was your initial OP feel fortunate any of us even tried to read it.
 
The man's wishes became irrelevant when he decided to give a woman his sperm.

When a man has the responsibility of carrying a fetus to full term, then we can talk about equal situations.

Men and women were not designed equally in this regard. I'm sorry that it's hard for some to accept, but it's reality. This financial abortion business of trying to equalize something that is based in biology is preposterous.

I would rather the system stay as it is and force deadbeat dads to pay, even if it means that a few well-intentioned men get caught in chaos. It's more important to me that a child grows up with financial support than letting men impregnate women and then get off the hook.

And before someone tosses out that it's no different if a woman has an abortion when a man doesn't want her to get one, think again. Pregnancy can be a nightmare even if you want to have a kid - I can't imagine being forced into it against your will. Pregnancy entails medical risk; so does abortion. Either way, a woman is having to choose between risks and opportunity costs. She is the one having to deal with a pregnancy, not the man.

This is a matter of biology and medicine vs. finances. Sorry, not the same game. Apples and oranges. When the man donated his sperm he lost all say.
 
If the woman is going to use the argument "my body, my choice" then the man should reply "your body, your responsibility".

Personally, I disagree with it being solely her choice. I feel that if the father wants the child then she should be obligated to give birth.
 
If the woman is going to use the argument "my body, my choice" then the man should reply "your body, your responsibility".

Incorrect... unless immaculate conception has happened, the man played a role. Maybe he should have kept it in his pants if he didn't want to be a father?

Personally, I disagree with it being solely her choice. I feel that if the father wants the child then she should be obligated to give birth.

Been there, done that. It was called the Victorian era. You know... the one where women weren't considered persons and couldn't vote? Yeah, that one.
 
This is the problem... the last two posts. Neither of you are addressing the fact that she has the option to abort if she does not want to raise the child on her own.

I didn't ignore it. It's irrelevant.

The only issue is this: The child needs to be properly supported.

Well, if the woman cannot properly supprt the child on her own, she should abort. Why is this not acceptable? It is birth control. Nobody is forcing her to abort. She would be making a responsible decision rather than forcing you to support her through higher taxes.

Damn, and I thought it was all about choice. Only if it's the "right" choice?

Also, what is not being addressed are the men that are tricked into being fathers.

Sex is not all about having children and the man is not irresponsible if birth control fails.

He sure is. (in part)
 
Need a midol?

With the block of endless text that was your initial OP feel fortunate any of us even tried to read it.

The forum did not include my paragraphs. I went back and edited it after only two responses. And I am not actually frustrated... ARGH! Just trying to get people to take more notice that they aren't responding to the actual point.
 
The forum did not include my paragraphs. I went back and edited it after only two responses. And I am not actually frustrated... ARGH! Just trying to get people to take more notice that they aren't responding to the actual point.

Perhaps they are just not responding how you wish they would. There is a difference. If a child is born, the man is also responsible. None of the rest matters.
 
Incorrect... unless immaculate conception has happened, the man played a role. Maybe he should have kept it in his pants if he didn't want to be a father?



Been there, done that. It was called the Victorian era. You know... the one where women weren't considered persons and couldn't vote? Yeah, that one.

I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until you're willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.
 
Last edited:
When the man donated his sperm he lost all say.

Yeah? Why?

Men are stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex against their wishes. This is a matter of biology. Yet, there are laws that make this illegal. When the woman was born, she lost all say as to when and where she would have sex.

Yeah... right, apples and oranges. :roll:
 
I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until your willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.

I've made that decision before. "Would I want to be possibly attached to this person for years"? I told mysef "no" more than once.
 
If a woman chooses to keep her pregnancy and have a child against the man's wishes and she chooses to not use her legal option of birth control and have an abortion, should the man have to pay child suport for her choice. Should the man have to pay Child Support if he does not want the child and the woman decides to not opt to have an abortion as a means of contraception?

I think that he should not be legally liable if he does not want the child.

The woman has all the choice and can not only keep the baby and make him pay, but she can keep the baby, not tell him about the baby and then hit him up 18 years later for back Child Support.This thread is not about a woman's right to choose. That is legal and fine and all that.

This thread is about a woman's choice subjegating a man to the role of a wallet for 18 years due to the whim of a woman's choice to keep a child against his wishes. Before we hear the whole, he shoulda kept it in his pants and now he has no choice in the matter.

That is understood. That is the law. The issue is, is the law fair?

As far as I am aware, there is no case law that deals with him being forced due to her choice. There is law about her having a choice, but none about why he should have to pay for her choice. That being said, this thread is not about the law, but about what is right. This is also not about exceptions: ie, she found out 5 months into her pregnancy due to irregular cycles, etc.

This is about the woman that gets pregnant when the man wants to leave the marriage, or the woman that pricks the condom when having sex with a guy that she just met so that she gets pregnant and wants nothing to do with him or the times that a one-nighter turns into an 18 year nightmare simply because she wanted the child more and the state backs her decision out of sexism.Are women not responsible?

Can she not be held liable for her own decisions?If she wants the baby, that is fine. She should have the baby and the man should be able to be out of the picture, should he so choose. If she doesn not want to raise the child on her own with no support, then she should abort.

Easy as that. That is her right. That is the law.

Hopefull I have explained all of this well enough. Yes, this is about abortion and threads like this exist in the Abortion Forum, but this is also a poll. I would like to know what people think outside the abortion debating crowd.Be nice please and just stick to the poll.

If tangents occur please make a thread in the Abortion Forum as would be appropriate.

Thanks...

As long as the woman has the legal of abortion available then the man should have the legal choice in whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the child, after all no one is forcing her to give birth. He should be able to sign a legal document all the way up until a 40-50% viability of the baby that excludes him from any responsibilities for the child. Now if abortion becomes illegal then the man should not be allowed to opt out financially seeing how she does not have abortion as a option.
 
I didn't ignore it. It's irrelevant.

Since you say so... :lol:

Damn, and I thought it was all about choice. Only if it's the "right" choice?

You are again missing the point. She can make any choice she wants to. She needs to be responsible for her choices.

He sure is. (in part)

Sometimes yes... that is why I put the caveat into the OP.
 
What a crock of bull****. The woman did or didn't do this or that. The man doesn't have to this or he should do that.

What in the hell is the matter with everybody? Once a child is born its no longer about what the woman or man wants!

A kid is 100% dependent on adults....PERIOD! Stop ****ing over the kids' welfare. Grow the **** up people.
 
Since you say so... :lol:

More importantly, so do the courts.

You are again missing the point. She can make any choice she wants to. She needs to be responsible for her choices.

Which IMO she is doing when she takes you to court.
 
I can make the same argument that if she didn't want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have had sex either. I'm all about waiting to screw until your willing to take the risk of pregnancy. This applies to both sides.

Except that a woman has a uterus and a man doesn't. The man gets to walk away from the choice to have sex but the woman does not. She has to deal with it - whether she decides to have the baby or have an abortion.

I find it incredibly telling that on one hand, the pro-life want to stop women from "murdering babies", but since they can't, they'll turn around and try to argue for men's rights to financially coerce women into having abortions just so that men can have equal freedom to choose. That looks a lot more like punishing women than it does fighting for men's rights.

In your vendetta against women's rights, you are overlooking what child support laws are about: children. It has nothing to do with women, but providing children who are born with the best chance at life. So while you're busy trying to equalize a woman's right to choose because you perceive that men are at a disadvantage, the law is more concerned about the welfare of children.

Women have a right to choose because of biological determinism. It sucks for men but that's just the way it is. She can abort or have the baby. When men are capable of carrying children to term, then we can have this discussion. Until then, I care more about children being supported than I do men shirking their responsibilities.

Men will never have equal abortion rights because men don't carry fetuses. Get a clue.

Boddhisatva said:
Yeah? Why?

Men are stronger than women and can physically force them to have sex against their wishes. This is a matter of biology. Yet, there are laws that make this illegal. When the woman was born, she lost all say as to when and where she would have sex.

Yeah... right, apples and oranges. :roll:

Uh, what?
 
As long as the woman has the legal of abortion available then the man should have the legal choice in whether or not he wants to be financially responsible for the child, after all no one is forcing her to give birth. He should be able to sign a legal document all the way up until a 40-50% viability of the baby that excludes him from any responsibilities for the child. Now if abortion becomes illegal then the man should not be allowed to opt out financially seeing how she does not have abortion as a option.

The man should just go and get an abortion should he become pregnant
 
To all of the folks and ninnies who missed post #20 - I invite you to feel free to read it.
 
The forum did not include my paragraphs. I went back and edited it after only two responses. And I am not actually frustrated... ARGH! Just trying to get people to take more notice that they aren't responding to the actual point.

Apologies, then - but it's hit or miss with responses sometimes.
 
Back
Top Bottom