• 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!

Should Woman's Choice Trump the Man's??

Should the woman's choice dictate that the man has to pay child support?


  • Total voters
    32

Bodi

Just waiting for my set...
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
122,645
Reaction score
27,411
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...
 
Child support is about giving the kid needed resources, not the parents. If for whatever reason the father ends up with custody of the child, the mother should be expected to pay child support as well. The current system is badly structured on numerous levels, but the basic concept is sound. Children need resources and care, so the parents should be the first to shoulder the burden.
 
Sorry....but the man should have ZERO say in it. He is not the one that carries the fetus. This is a woman's choice and a woman's choice only.
 
Sorry....but the man should have ZERO say in it. He is not the one that carries the fetus. This is a woman's choice and a woman's choice only.

If you want to make that argument then we can say that until women are physically stronger than men that men should be more dominant. We can choose equal treatment for both genders or unequal due to biological differences, but pick your side and stick with it.
 
If a woman wants to keep a pregnancy that the father wishes to abort, they should make their choices in writing, allowing the man to absolve all emotional and financial responsibilities.

I think that's an easy one - much harder than the reverse, which I would have no idea how to handle.
 
If you want to make that argument then we can say that until women are physically stronger than men that men should be more dominant. We can choose equal treatment for both genders or unequal due to biological differences, but pick your side and stick with it.

That is a false argument for two reasons. The first is that there a female weight lifters and the like who are a lot stronger than your average guy. The second is that our society isn't based on strength, men don't get to dominate other men because they are stronger. It isn't physically possible for anyone other than women to carry children. If we develop some advanced biotechnology that puts a womb in a dude, the same standard would apply.
 
The man made a conscious choice to potentially become a father when he engaged in the sexual act with the woman. In that decision, he committed himself to provide at least 50% of the support necessary for the child until they turn 18 and at least 25% of the support necessary for the child's mother for that same period of time so far as I'm concerned.
 
So a woman can shirk responsibility via abortion, but a man can't?
 
So a woman can shirk responsibility via abortion, but a man can't?

Only in two cases:

1. When the pregnancy is the result of a sexual act to which the woman did not consent. Consent to sex is consent to parenthood for BOTH genders so far as I am concerned.

2. When the continuation of the pregnancy puts the mother at imminent risk of DEATH.
 
That is a false argument for two reasons. The first is that there a female weight lifters and the like who are a lot stronger than your average guy. The second is that our society isn't based on strength, men don't get to dominate other men because they are stronger. It isn't physically possible for anyone other than women to carry children. If we develop some advanced biotechnology that puts a womb in a dude, the same standard would apply.

No, it's not a false argument. It's a medical fact that men naturally have more muscle on average. I'll see your female weight lifter and raise you with a male weight lifter. Who are you putting your money on? You see it naturally in other types organisms, physical strength or intelligence determining the leaders of the pack. There have certainly been previous civilizations based on this. If women want to use biological differences to determine rights then I'm going to throw it back at them. If they want society to treat men and women the same, then a man and woman should have equal rights to their child, given that the child was literally created by both of them. When a woman learns how to create a child on her own, then she can have full rights to the child.
 
Last edited:
So a woman can shirk responsibility via abortion, but a man can't?

Yep. In return, only women have to deal with crap that pregnancy throws at them. Personally I think it is a reasonable tradeoff, but feel free to send the wambulance to mother nature if you don't like it.
 
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...

Just what on earth is going on with your computer? It's puzzling - this block formatting when it chunks your hard returns.

Does it do this anywhere else or just one this forum?
 
Um... yeah, I think he's on the hook. Though I don't know about half. The fact that he's not receiving any of the benefits of parenthood but none of the perks... I'm not sure about this one, honestly.

But the 18 years later thing... that's bull. Child support is about supporting the child, not paying back someone for past actions.
 
Um... yeah, I think he's on the hook. Though I don't know about half. The fact that he's not receiving any of the benefits of parenthood but none of the perks... I'm not sure about this one, honestly.

But the 18 years later thing... that's bull. Child support is about supporting the child, not paying back someone for past actions.

You have to realize that given the power, I'd force him to marry her and raise the child with her, but that's not feasible in our current system.
 
For a group of people who are so anti-birth control and safe sex, this question seems fairly hypocritical and whiny:

"Should the man be forced to pay child support due to the choice of the woman?"

The last time I checked, the guy played a part in getting a woman pregnant as well.
 
If you want to make that argument then we can say that until women are physically stronger than men that men should be more dominant. We can choose equal treatment for both genders or unequal due to biological differences, but pick your side and stick with it.

OK. If the dude gets pregnant with a child, I think he should be able to have an abortion too.
 
So a woman can shirk responsibility via abortion, but a man can't?

If the woman "shirks responsibility via abortion" then there is no child who needs child support payments.
 
You have to realize that given the power, I'd force him to marry her and raise the child with her, but that's not feasible in our current system.

Why is an unhappy two parent household filled with strife and resentment better than a happy and stable one parent one? Maybe she'll meet someone better two years later, whom she'll marry and be happy with, who'll be a good father. If she had to marry the first guy, none of that would come to pass. Maybe that won't happen, but there's a lot of potential if one isn't limited.
 
You have to realize that given the power, I'd force him to marry her and raise the child with her, but that's not feasible in our current system.

You mean "force them to marry eachother" - marriage isn't a one-way street, you know.
 
Why is an unhappy two parent household filled with strife and resentment better than a happy and stable one parent one? Maybe she'll meet someone better two years later, whom she'll marry and be happy with, who'll be a good father. If she had to marry the first guy, none of that would come to pass. Maybe that won't happen, but there's a lot of potential if one isn't limited.

Remember that in my mind a marriage is much more a business proposition than a relationship based on emotional attachment and "love".
 
You mean "force them to marry eachother" - marriage isn't a one-way street, you know.

However you want to look at it, I would force the two of them to raise the child together.
 
Remember that in my mind a marriage is much more a business proposition than a relationship based on emotional attachment and "love".

*snort*

Trust me babe - there's no 'business' to it. Those who marry for financial and other reasons beyond love (or something of that nature) often end in divorce or worse. You must have something that keeps you together and gives you a reason to deal with each other's issues and troubles.

And put a child in the middle - wow - children in a relationship can be the most challenging aspect which can test even the closest of couples.

The worst thing that happened to my first two children and myself was my marriage to their sperm donor - we were doing the 'right thing' (to appease everyone else in the world when I was knocked up) and it was a horrid idea that led to nothing but abuse, neglect, drug addiction and everything else.
 
Last edited:
*snort*

Trust me babe - there's no 'business' to it. Those who marry for financial and other reasons beyond love (or something of that nature) often end in divorce or worse. You must have something that keeps you together and gives you a reason to deal with each other's issues and troubles.

And put a child in the middle - wow - children in a relationship can be the most challenging aspect which can test even the closest of couples.

It's only in the last two centuries that marriage has been anything other than an arranged concept in the vast majority of society, yet things worked out fairly well for the millenia before that when arranged marriages, often based on politics and money more than anything else were the prevailing relationship model.
 
Back
Top Bottom