Abortion is not the same as flippantly signing a piece of paper disavowing legal responsibility for one's offspring. Many people view it as tantamount to murder and would never even consider it. Many others view it as something that's not quite that bad, but still something that's awful and would be extremely upset if they had to make that decision. To just callously say that she "should" have had an abortion unless she wants to raise the kid herself is the opposite of choice: it's making abortion into a DUTY...something that she had better do if she wants to avoid getting shouldered with the ENTIRE financial burden of caring for the child.
It is not a burden or a duty. Most people that view abortion as murder I would suspect are not having casual sex in the first place. Women “callously” have abortions all the time when they don’t want the child, how is this any different? It isn’t. It is just another time that a woman will initiate birth control for a pregnancy that she wants to terminate. That’s all and all the emotional posturing going on will not refute this simple fact.
Umm it IS about conception. That's why the courts don't order random people to pay child support for children they had nothing to do with; the responsibility is on the biological parents unless otherwise specified.
If there is no child, there is no child support. I have already explained this. It is about her choice.
It is NOT "all about her choice"; it's a child who needs to be supported, not a punishment for the actions of one or both parents. The adults in question are not the only ones whose interests are at stake...and more specifically, the MAN in question is not the only one whose interest is at stake.
Yes it is all about her choice. If she chooses to abort then there is no child that needs to be supported. How can you not see this, let alone admit it. If the seed is taken out of the ground then there will be no tree to water and care for. Basic fact…
It will soon become a kid and need to be supported. Actually, it needs to be financially supported even as a zygote. Many woman don't bother to press the issue legally and it's usually not resolved until after the birth, but in most states a man is technically on the hook for half of her maternity costs as well. As he should be.
As he should be? For her choice? I thought forced servitude was unconstitutional in this country…
And I notice you didn't address the actual point of that section: A woman unilaterally deciding to have an abortion doesn't make the man any worse off financially; a man unilaterally deciding to disown his kids DOES make the woman worse off financially.
And I notice that you didn’t address what I said about emotional insults either…
A woman unilaterally deciding to have an abortion doesn't make the man any worse off financially; a man unilaterally deciding to disown his kids DOES make the woman worse off financially… and if this is the case she can use birth control. Simple.
I had a feeling that this was all about you and your selfish desire to avoid paying for your children. What an immature rant.
Grow up child. We were married for eight years and had two daughters. I was making a point about your percentages… which are false. I am a happy father and pay more than what was asked of me since I can and I love my kids. Not many times that I would actually like to stand in front of the faceless sissy that I am debating and hear him say something like that, but this is one of those times. Oh well…
You made a comment about finances being 50/50 when they aren’t. I used myself as an example not to complain, but to demonstrate how naïve you sound. If I was being selfish I would not have said that I pay far more. Actually it is far worse than you seem to understand. My ex is playing a custody game for money with me, a game that she has admitted to me and to the lawyer for child.
The system is so screwed up that I have to take her to court, and this has gone on for almost two years now as well. We agreed to 50/50 once the girls were both in school and she has gone back not only on her word, but a written contract. I have them two nights and two other afternoons, in which one of those I have them right up until bedtime, where I drop them off to her in their PJ’s with brushed teeth and hair as well as bathed. They simply fall asleep at her house and wake up for breakfast. If I simply had them from 7pm when they fall asleep until they wake up and for breakfast the next morning, I would save $600 a month. I pay her $600 a month extra to let the sleep at her house. That is ridiculous.
The child support system has been corrupted by women and lawyers. You should really research it all a bit further.
Regarding the insults… gain some composure and move on. It is all good and we can continue to debate. If you continue on though I will ignore you.
Abortion is not the same as a man disavowing responsibility because if a woman has an abortion, it doesn't make the man any worse off financially. In fact, it makes them both better off (financially) than if she'd had the child. If the man disavows responsibility for his kid, it makes himself better off and the woman worse off.
So what? She has a choice, doesn’t she? If she can’t afford the child then she can have an abortion. You are making an illogical argument about supporting a non-existent child and confusing yourself.
This is simply incorrect. From the moment the offspring is conceived (whatever label you want to use), both parents are expected to contribute to its financial wellbeing until it becomes an adult or until it dies. There are some states where women are unfortunately expected to bear the cost of the entire pregnancy, but I believe they are in the minority. And they should be nonexistent.
Fine. He should have to pay for equal or more share of the abortion should she choose to use that option. If she chooses to not use that option, it is on her. Existing law is irrelevant. All that does is show that the legal system is sexist and illogical.
If you want to turn the "right" to an abortion into a "duty" to get an abortion, you are entitled to that ignorant opinion. But don't pretend that that isn't what you are arguing. No one is "forcing the man" to do anything; he was on the hook for his share of the financial costs for raising the kid to age 18 the moment that their child was conceived. And regardless of whether or not the woman has an abortion, her actions will not increase his share of the costs. It will either eliminate them entirely (if she has an abortion) or maintain the status quo in terms of his financial responsibilities (if she doesn't).
:lol: How is that opinion “ignorant” again? Seems more like a fact to me:
She has the right to get an abortion.
She has the right to continue the pregnancy.
You are the one claiming that it is a burden or a duty, not me.
The man is obviously being forced. Men can be locked up or fined for not paying child support. That is an obvious sign of force if ever there was one and you still haven’t once addressed why she can’t simply have an abortion if she does not want to support the child on her own.
Call it what you like. I use "child" as a neutral term to mean their offspring at whatever stage of development. But depending on where you live you may be incorrect if you believe that the man's financial responsibilities are "mythical" until the baby is born. That may have been YOUR experience if you didn't help pay for maternal care and no one forced you to, but it's not what the law of many states says, and it's not what common decency would dictate REGARDLESS of legal responsibility.
I paid for ALL of the maternal care and perhaps 98% of ALL CARE for their entire lives thus far. I would love to pay for 100% of everything and go for what I am going for, and that is 100% custody, and have her out of our lives. I am not your typical man and I suggest that you cast out yours simplistic notions that I am some guy bitching about child support since it affects me as if I hooked up with some woman and she got pregnant and instead see that I am arguing a position that has merit based on illogical and sexist laws.