• 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
Am I? Really? As a man who has had some sex and a father of two, I didn't know that at all since I WAS forced. Thanks though, at least not all men were forced into sex like I was!

So you were raped by a woman? Are you a particularly little guy, or was she a particularly large woman? How did she force you to have sex with her?

She has the ultimate choice. Why do you keep ignoring that and go back in time and try to make it 50/50? Why do you keep talking about biology when it is law that is the issue? Why why why? :lol:

You both have a choice, except in the case of rape.
 
What if she honestly believes that she can support the child but this turns out to be an unrealistic belief that becomes plainly evident months after the child is born. Now what?

That happens to two parent families already... **** happens and we can't hold everybody's hand all the time, right?
 
So you were raped by a woman? Are you a particularly little guy, or was she a particularly large woman? How did she force you to have sex with her?

She said yes. I had no choice.

I am 6'2" 205 lbs and very fit athlete that knows martial arts. I don't think a woman could make me do anything against my will, except all the times I was forced to have sex.

You both have a choice, except in the case of rape.

We are talking about birth control... abortion. Not choosing to have sex. He has no choice in the matter. She has ALL of the choice, and consequently, power, as it is set up now.
 
Last edited:
That happens to two parent families already... **** happens and we can't hold everybody's hand all the time, right?

Yeah, **** happens and we can't hold everyone's hand. I don't argue with that. I'm still looking for an answer though. If this woman cannot support her baby, then what? Forcibly take her baby away from her and put it up for adoption? Let the mother kill the baby? Let the baby starve? What is your answer to what the women should, or must, do when she discovers that she can't support the child?
 
Yeah, **** happens and we can't hold everyone's hand. I don't argue with that. I'm still looking for an answer though. If this woman cannot support her baby, then what? Forcibly take her baby away from her and put it up for adoption? Let the mother kill the baby? Let the baby starve? What is your answer to what the women should, or must, do when she discovers that she can't support the child?

I guess that she would go on the dole. The same thing should happen that happens to two parent families that can't support their children or lifestyles... right? Why is there a diffference?
 
I guess that she would go on the dole. The same thing should happen that happens to two parent families that can't support their children or lifestyles... right? Why is there a diffference?

There's a difference because there is a viable culpable party, the father, who should have his pocket picked before the innocent taxpayers are held up.
 
She said yes. I had no choice.

I am 6'2" 205 lbs and very fit athlete that knows martial arts. I don't think a woman could make me do anything against my will, except all the times I was forced to have sex.

There is a difference between being forced to have sex and being a slut.


We are talking about birth control... abortion. Not choosing to have sex. He has no choice in the matter. She has ALL of the choice, and consequently, power, as it is set up now.

Ah, back to biology again. Perhaps this will help explain to you how not using birth control and having babies are connected:

Where do babies come from? - Telling Children about Pregnancy and Birth and About Answer: Where do babies come from?
 
It's not an epidemic yet, that is for sure. I knew of two women that did this and others who employed other measures to get pregnant, though almost all were in relationships. Most people don't find this stuff out. One got a guy drunk, played lovey with him, slept with him, pricked the condom that he bought and two months later hit him up for support and then she got him for child support even though she wanted nothing to do with him. She planned the whole thing.

Another was a women who seduced her husband in the middle of the night and "oops, I forgot to take the pill lately honey!"

This type of horse**** goes on all the time. Women get pregnant to keep a man, to have a baby from a man they don't want, to save a marraige, because her biological clock is ticking... you have seriously never heard of anything like this? Wow.

Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say this stuff does occur. But I still think it's up to the man to defend himself. No one gets you drunk unless they force drinks down your throat; that's the point. If you are taken advantage of later, that's your own fault you should know your limit and stop.


You equate a devious and intentional plan of getting a guy drunk for a night and getting pregnant with an unintentional non-plan of getting in a car and getting in an accident? How can a car be deceptive and manipulative? You give far too much credit to the car, IMO.

No, I'm saying when you drink (and in cases where you were not drugged or had alcohol forcefully poured down your throat) you are responsible for all that may happen as a result of you being drunk. Are you saying that it's not at all the man's fault for not knowing his own alcohol limitations and drinking to the point where he can't make a rational decision?




Don't consider it then... it is only a fair and equitable plan.

Again, a guy throws a bomb into a convenient store. You think that because he has no control of the bomb after he's thrown it, that this is somehow some sort of an unfair situation?

If a man doesn't want to have a baby, he shouldn't be giving his semen to a lady.
 
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...

I mentioned this in a similar thread.

Right now, we have it so that individual children must be financially supported by their biological mother and their biological father, which is what this question is really about, rather than abortion.

However, this premise of financial support for children excludes those children whose biological mother and/or biological father has died, and so cannot financially support their children. The only way those children can make up for the financial support of a deceased parent is if their remaining parent marries some other spouse who will financially support that child. For children who have lost both parents, there's the foster care system and adoption but, again, these have their problems.

That's why rather than have the support of children be based on their parents I would rather we have more socialized systems to take care of all children, regardless of their parentage. I'd like a socialized system of health care, dental care, and mental wellness for all children, as well as other institutions. That way every generation is responsible for taking care of the next generation.
 
Originally Posted by RiverdadThere's a difference because there is a viable culpable party, the father, who should have his pocket picked before the innocent taxpayers are held up.
That could be an option, though the whole point is that she is choosing to have the child against his wishes. Perhaps if she could prove in court that she is having financial difficulties beyond a reasonable doubt, he could be forced to pay then, but not simply because she chose to have the child and he is the father.
Originally Posted by CatawbaThere is a difference between being forced to have sex and being a slut. .
Am I the slut here? I have no idea what you are talking about. I was joking. I thought that this was pretty obvious. Being forced to have sex? Are you serious?I have had only a few partners and was married for over ten years. I am in my 30’s.
Ah, back to biology again. Perhaps this will help explain to you how not using birth control and having babies are connected:Where do babies come from? - Telling Children about Pregnancy and Birth and About Answer: Where do babies come from? .
I can’t tell if this is supposed to be humor or not. Since you apparently didn’t get the humor I was using, I would suggest that you actually think that I am ignorant about this. That is kinda pathetic of you, in all honesty. …and no. It is not about biology if it is a law that we are discussing. Why you can’t get this EXTREMELY SIMPLE FACT is beyond me.
Origianlly Posted by David D.Well, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say this stuff does occur. But I still think it's up to the man to defend himself. No one gets you drunk unless they force drinks down your throat; that's the point. If you are taken advantage of later, that's your own fault you should know your limit and stop. .
I agree in principle, but that type of logic absolves criminals of their deed. If a person manipulates you and takes your money, like a fraud, we prosecute them. What we don’t do is say, “hey buddy, you should have protected yourself. They got your pin number, well, they can just keep taking money from your account since you should have defended yourself better”. Right?
No, I'm saying when you drink (and in cases where you were not drugged or had alcohol forcefully poured down your throat) you are responsible for all that may happen as a result of you being drunk. Are you saying that it's not at all the man's fault for not knowing his own alcohol limitations and drinking to the point where he can't make a rational decision? .
Good point. But… what I am saying is that it doesn’t matter if the guy used a condom or not. It is the woman’s choice to not use birth control. She is choosing to not have an abortion. It is literally all about her choice and has nothing to do with his role. That is what I am saying…
Again, a guy throws a bomb into a convenient store. You think that because he has no control of the bomb after he's thrown it, that this is somehow some sort of an unfair situation. If a man doesn't want to have a baby, he shouldn't be giving his semen to a lady. .
I understand that you are making an analogy about consequence. What I am saying is that it doesn’t matter since this issue is entirely about choice.
 
I was joking. I thought that this was pretty obvious. Being forced to have sex? Are you serious?I have had only a few partners and was married for over ten years. I am in my 30’s.

Previously, you said
He has no choice in the matter.

So if he is not forced, why does he not have a choice in whether to make a baby or not?
 
Previously, you said

So if he is not forced, why does he not have a choice in whether to make a baby or not?

He has no choice in whether they make a baby or not. Don't you get it yet?

He has no choice in the matter with regards to her having a baby or not. She is the only one with the choice.
He is forced to pay child support for her choice. That is the force. Her choice dictates his involvement level.

If she chooses to use birth control and NOT have a baby, he has no choice in the matter.
If she chooses to NOT use birth control and have a baby, he has no choice in the matter.

Either way it is her choice that forces his response that is backed by the Courts.

He has no choice since she has the only has a choice. This is pretty obvious.
Look at RvW as well as all the court cases that back this decision.

That is why I keep telling you that it is about LAW and not about Biology...

He can contribute 50% to biology, but since the law negates any biological contribution of his,
biology consequently becomes MEANINGLESS and thus IRRELEVANT
 
Last edited:
She forced the guy to stick his penis in her????? You are completely ignoring that he made the choice to do that himself, and then you seek to absolve him of the responsibility of that choice.
And if she gets pregnant, she made the choice to have him stick his penis in her. So now she should live with the consequences.
 
He has no choice in whether they make a baby or not. Don't you get it yet?


It is physically impossible for her to have his baby if he doesn't contribute sperm. If he doesn't want a baby, all he has to do is wear a condom or not have sex.

Problem solved!
 
It is physically impossible for her to have his baby if he doesn't contribute sperm. If he doesn't want a baby, all he has to do is wear a condom or not have sex.

Problem solved!

In your world women bear zero responsibility.
 
It is physically impossible for her to have his baby if he doesn't contribute sperm. If he doesn't want a baby, all he has to do is wear a condom or not have sex.

Problem solved!

this is simply dishonesty and or unrealistic, pick one

the problem is NOT solve

people lie, birth control fails, accidents happen
 
And if she gets pregnant, she made the choice to have him stick his penis in her. So now she should live with the consequences.

Sure, she should live with the consequences but when she can't, then my position is that the man has to step up before the State (meaning me and other innocent taxpayers) have to foot the bill for the care of the child.

She takes first responsibility. If she can't meet the conditions of care, then,
He takes next responsibility. If she and he can't meet the conditions of care, then,
The taxpayers have to step in.
 
It is physically impossible for her to have his baby if he doesn't contribute sperm. If he doesn't want a baby, all he has to do is wear a condom or not have sex.

Problem solved!

And if she doesn't want to get stuck with all the responsibility for a child then she too shouldn't have sex. Problem solved.
 
It is physically impossible for her to have his baby if he doesn't contribute sperm. If he doesn't want a baby, all he has to do is wear a condom or not have sex.

Problem solved!

It is very apparent that you are not interested in honestly discussing this issue. Thanks for stopping by though...
 
Please quote where I said that. Thanks!
Read your own freaking post, man. Don't play game with me. You're pro-woman all the way, men have no rights. They need to pay women no matter what choice they make. Don't you read your own ****?


It's not even metrosexual.
 
this is simply dishonesty and or unrealistic, pick one

the problem is NOT solve

people lie, birth control fails, accidents happen

How so? If used properly, condoms are about 98% effective, even more so if used in conjunction with other forms of contraception such as spermacide. How does lying come into play with condom use?

Who has unprotected sex today anyway with STD's out there, including aids?
 
Last edited:
Read your own freaking post, man. Don't play game with me. You're pro-woman all the way, men have no rights. They need to pay women no matter what choice they make. Don't you read your own ****?


It's not even metrosexual.

I see you were unable to provide a quote to back up your claim.
 
And if she doesn't want to get stuck with all the responsibility for a child then she too shouldn't have sex. Problem solved.

You omitted the contraception option.
 
How so? If used properly, condoms are about 98% effective, even more so if used in conjunction with other forms of contraception such as spermacide. How does lying come into play with condom use?

Who has unprotected sex today anyway with STD's out there, including aids?

reality is how so, where do you live in fantasy land?

condoms break all the time, other methods also fail including spermicide which some people are also allergic too or cant use.

Lots of couples have unprotected sex with just the girl using a form of birthcontrol

Like I said REALITY

I dont know where you live but thinking protection works so well and that people dont have unprotected sex is nonsense.
also the 98% rate is bogus because thats stated with "perfect use" and then its always stated like 85% with "typical use" and then you start to see the real picture really fast. Roughly that translates into what, 15 out of 100 times theres a chance of pregnancy! whats the work out to a year with a normal active young couple? about 45+ times in a year they could have got pregnant? if the couples lives together 90+ times in a year?

Sorry not buying it to much reality to trump your vacuum example
 
Back
Top Bottom