But you said you were okay with abortion...

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You seem to all be ignoring the point that abortion is the other option. There is no kid yet. If she decides to go through with it, it's her decision, but she needs to realize that, since she's breaking the agreement they had, he's absolved of the responsibility.

Well, no. Child support is only relevant if the child is actually born. In that case, there is a kid.

This whole question takes as given that a child exists. We're all trying to answer a particular question: if all this stuff happens and a child ends up being born anyhow, what should happen?

Would it be nice if he stuck around anyway, or helped out at least? Sure. Should he be forced to? No.

Think of it this way: She decides she wants kids, but can't biologically have them, so she chooses to adopt. They had already agreed never to have kids because neither wanted them. Should he now be forced to help pay for or care for the adopted kid, or should he be able to walk away?

In the case of an adoption, the woman would have to demonstrate that she has the resources to raise the child on her own. If she doesn't, then the adoption wouldn't happen.

In that case, the needs of the child are considered. Why don't you want the needs of the child to be considered in the other case?

 

[Magic Man]

Well, no. Child support is only relevant if the child is actually born. In that case, there is a kid.

This whole question takes as given that a child exists. We're all trying to answer a particular question: if all this stuff happens and a child ends up being born anyhow, what should happen?

Let's say we're at the point where the kid is born. We still go back to her having had the option to not have the kid. She chose to of her own free will. That should not force the father to be part of it.

Ana: Honey, I know we decided that if I ever got pregnant, we'd have an abortion. But now I'm pregnant, and I want to have the kid.

Harry: OK, well, it's your body, so it's your decision. But if you decide to go through with it, I am not going to be a part of it.

He should not be penalized because a woman he was in a relationship with broke an agreement with him. If it's just for the sake of the child, why not make someone with the means help pay for any child born to a woman who can't support it on her own?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

He should not be penalized because a woman he was in a relationship with broke an agreement with him. If it's just for the sake of the child, why not make someone with the means help pay for any child born to a woman who can't support it on her own?

Because the man still shares responsibility for the outcome. Even if you argue that the responsibility in this case is 1% the man and 99% the woman (which I think is unreasonable, but regardless), if apply the idea of joint and several liability here like it would be in any other case, here's what would happen:

- initially, the cost to meet the responsibility (i.e. to the child) would be shared along the lines of responsibility: 99% to the woman and 1% to the man.

- if either the woman or the man can't meet their share of the cost, then the other one has to make up the shortfall. It's considered more important that the party who was (or would be) wronged - i.e. the child - have its rights upheld than that the costs be distributed between the man and the woman equitably.

Now... that's all in the extreme case that the responsibility is 99%/1%. I should reiterate that I think this is unreasonable. I don't see any reason to make the responsibility anything other than 50/50.

 

[Magic Man]

Because the man still shares responsibility for the outcome. Even if you argue that the responsibility in this case is 1% the man and 99% the woman (which I think is unreasonable, but regardless), if apply the idea of joint and several liability here like it would be in any other case, here's what would happen:

- initially, the cost to meet the responsibility (i.e. to the child) would be shared along the lines of responsibility: 99% to the woman and 1% to the man.

- if either the woman or the man can't meet their share of the cost, then the other one has to make up the shortfall. It's considered more important that the party who was (or would be) wronged - i.e. the child - have its rights upheld than that the costs be distributed between the man and the woman equitably.

Now... that's all in the extreme case that the responsibility is 99%/1%. I should reiterate that I think this is unreasonable. I don't see any reason to make the responsibility anything other than 50/50.

OK, well, I'd rather not make the father pay in such a situation. If the woman can't handle it, she should have gotten an abortion. If she chose not to anyway, then the options are for her to do whatever she has to to provide for the kid or give him up for adoption. The father shouldn't be trapped because a woman he had a relationships with broke her promise to him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

OK, well, I'd rather not make the father pay in such a situation. If the woman can't handle it, she should have gotten an abortion. If she chose not to anyway, then the options are for her to do whatever she has to to provide for the kid or give him up for adoption.

That's pretty damned cold, IMO.

The father shouldn't be trapped because a woman he had a relationships with broke her promise to him.

And the child shouldn't be denied normal necessities just because his mother doesn't have the resources when his father does.

Whatever. You choose the father over the child. The father, who - even if you argue that his responsibility has been mitigated somewhat - shares responsibility with the mother, over the child, who isn't responsible for anything that's gone on at all. Interesting.

I would think that in this case, if you valued the child and the father equally, you'd side with the child. However, you don't. Apparently, you value the father more than you value the child. Why?

 

[Magic Man]

That's pretty damned cold, IMO.


And the child shouldn't be denied normal necessities just because his mother doesn't have the resources when his father does.

Whatever. You choose the father over the child. The father, who - even if you argue that his responsibility has been mitigated somewhat - shares responsibility with the mother, over the child, who isn't responsible for anything that's gone on at all. Interesting.

I would think that in this case, if you valued the child and the father equally, you'd side with the child. However, you don't. Apparently, you value the father more than you value the child. Why?

Well, you can continue with your emotional appeals. I'll just restate that, if she couldn't take care of the kid, the mother should either have had an abortion or should give the kid up for adoption. I should not be responsible for the bad choices of women I've gone out with, nor should they be responsible for mine. Again, if the child is the most important thing, why not just make random people who are capable help support kids who are born to mothers who can't take care of them?

 

[Me Myself]

That's pretty damned cold, IMO.


And the child shouldn't be denied normal necessities just because his mother doesn't have the resources when his father does.

Whatever. You choose the father over the child. The father, who - even if you argue that his responsibility has been mitigated somewhat - shares responsibility with the mother, over the child, who isn't responsible for anything that's gone on at all. Interesting.

I would think that in this case, if you valued the child and the father equally, you'd side with the child. However, you don't. Apparently, you value the father more than you value the child. Why?

Why not? women are more valued than the child. They can just kill it before birth instead of taking responsibilities.

The woman is given the right to kill and the man doesn't even have the right to disown the kid from his side. That is ridiculous.

 

[Willamena]

Why not? women are more valued than the child. They can just kill it before birth instead of taking responsibilities.

The woman is given the right to kill and the man doesn't even have the right to disown the kid from his side. That is ridiculous.

Heck, some people even hold the idea of a child more important than the woman.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, you can continue with your emotional appeals.

Where's the emotional appeal?

I can't speak to what emotions my argument has elicite in you, but the mere fact that you're feeling them doesn't make my argument invalid.

I'll just restate that, if she couldn't take care of the kid, the mother should either have had an abortion or should give the kid up for adoption. I should not be responsible for the bad choices of women I've gone out with, nor should they be responsible for mine.

Baloney. If she's in the position where she has to decide between abortion and caring for an unplanned child, then she most certainly is in a position where she's made to be responsible for a joint decision (i.e. one that you bear half the responsibility for) that turned out to be bad.

Again, if the child is the most important thing, why not just make random people who are capable help support kids who are born to mothers who can't take care of them?

Because a person who is even 1% responsible for the situation is more responsible for it than someone who had nothing to do with it at all. Why would you want to make someone else responsible for your bad choices? I thought you just said that this is what you're against... and trusting a woman you're sleeping with to get an abortion if she gets pregnant is a bad choice. Why would you want to pin that responsibility on anyone else?

 

[Me Myself]

Heck, some people even hold the idea of a child more important than the woman.

Irrelevant?

I hold the conceived child more important than the (high) discomfort of the woman.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Heck, some people even hold the idea of a child more important than the woman.

I'm seeing in this thread the priorities rated in this order from the OP's supporters:

1) Man's rights
2) Fetus' rights
3) Woman's rights
4) Child's rights

That's demented.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Irrelevant?

I hold the conceived child more important than the (high) discomfort of the woman.

Would you also compel the mother (or the father) to donate, say, a kidney or bone marrow to sustain the child's life if needed?

I'm 35, very much alive, intelligent (kinda), conscious, able to feel pain, and able to express my will to live. If the day came that I needed a kidney to live and only my mother was a match, would you have the law force her to give it up?

 

[Me Myself]

Would you also compel the mother (or the father) to donate, say, a kidney or bone marrow to sustain the child's life if needed?

I'm 35, very much alive, intelligent (kinda), conscious, able to feel pain, and able to express my will to live. If the day came that I needed a kidney to live and only my mother was a match, would you have the law force her to give it up?

Did your mother make something that made you require her organs to survive?

If she did and she doesn't provide you then she killed you. If she didn't, then it is not the same case, as a woman knows that having sex may cause a baby who will be 100% dependent on her.

Man and women put the child on that situation, yet the woman is allowed to kill it downright with no responsibility.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Did your mother make something that made you require her organs to survive?

Yes: me. She and my father deliberately chose to have me. They had sex (ew), knowing that pregnancy could result, and that pregnancy comes from children, and that some children, at some point in their lives, have kidney failure. They knew all this was a risk, but they did it anyhow.

If she did and she doesn't provide you then she killed you. If she didn't, then it is not the same case, as a woman knows that having sex may cause a baby who will be 100% dependent on her.

So? In this scenario, I'm still 100% dependent on her. There is nobody else who can give me a kidney, and without one of hers, I'll die.

Did she kill me?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Did your mother make something that made you require her organs to survive?

If she did and she doesn't provide you then she killed you. If she didn't, then it is not the same case, as a woman knows that having sex may cause a baby who will be 100% dependent on her.

Man and women put the child on that situation, yet the woman is allowed to kill it downright with no responsibility.

Are you wanting to change abortion laws so that women are fined/jailed/punished/executed for your murder charges if they have an abortion?

Whether they have a medical abortion? Induce a miscarriage? Put a coathanger inside of them? Have their boyfriends punch them in the stomach? Jump down a flight of stairs?

Your accusations of calling it murder need to be legally defined as to what you would have happen to women. Seems much more involved than having a father pay child support, is it not?

 

[Magic Man]

Where's the emotional appeal?

I can't speak to what emotions my argument has elicite in you, but the mere fact that you're feeling them doesn't make my argument invalid.

"That's cold." "What about the little child? Won't you think of the child?"

Baloney. If she's in the position where she has to decide between abortion and caring for an unplanned child, then she most certainly is in a position where she's made to be responsible for a joint decision (i.e. one that you bear half the responsibility for) that turned out to be bad.


Because a person who is even 1% responsible for the situation is more responsible for it than someone who had nothing to do with it at all. Why would you want to make someone else responsible for your bad choices? I thought you just said that this is what you're against... and trusting a woman you're sleeping with to get an abortion if she gets pregnant is a bad choice. Why would you want to pin that responsibility on anyone else?

Look, it's very simple. She made a decision. That decision has consequences. No one else should be responsible for her poor decision-making. It sucks for the child, but we can't start forcing things on people to make sure kids have the best possible upbringing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"That's cold." "What about the little child? Won't you think of the child?"

"That's cold" was just commentary; I wasn't basing my argument on it. As for the rest of it, I didn't actually say it.

Look, it's very simple. She made a decision. That decision has consequences. No one else should be responsible for her poor decision-making. It sucks for the child, but we can't start forcing things on people to make sure kids have the best possible upbringing.

The "nobody else should be responsible" argument is a load of hooey. This is a situation where someone else is going to be made responsible, so who do you want to suffer the consequences: the father, or the child? There are no other choices.

Your "nobody else should be responsible" line gets contradicted the moment you argue that the child should bear the responsibility. Once this happens, it's no longer available for you to use. Not validly, anyhow.

Your whole argument comes down to special pleading.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

"That's cold." "What about the little child? Won't you think of the child?"



Look, it's very simple. She made a decision. That decision has consequences. No one else should be responsible for her poor decision-making. It sucks for the child, but we can't start forcing things on people to make sure kids have the best possible upbringing.

She made a decision to follow through with the pregnancy.

That pregnancy may or may not be successful by itself. She might suffer a miscarriage.

A successful birth of a child need not be the direct result of a decision to not have an abortion. The birth of a child is the direct result of 3 factors: The sperm of a male and the egg of a female, the decision of the women to refrain from terminating the pregnancy, and the pregnancy itself being successful with the help of prenatal care by a qualified OBGYN.

What you and other supporters of the OP are suggesting, first, is that unintended fatherhood is a "penalty" (as if unplanned parenthood is a crime committed against somebody), and second that the only person responsible throughout any development of a fetus' gestation and a child's life is the mother....and that father's really don't factor much into the responsibility of the born child unless he specifically said he wanted the baby.

If a parent is THAT much against supporting a child after he or she is born, go through the measures of taking yourself off the birth certificate, go through the courts to change the custody and support arrangments, never visit the child - even if 3 years down the line YOU change your mind (since you think a woman changing her mind is a bad thing).....and deny parental rights when the mom begins raising your flesh and blood in a religion you don't like, or she homeschools him with fundamentalist Christian creationism nonsense.....

You broke it off. You don't get any say of what your child - er, sorry, your biological offspring - is being raised into.

You know, people change their minds all the time. It's called re-negotiating for a reason. You can lobby during these negotiations for the purpose of self-preservation while taking care of the responsibilities you maintain.

But the rhetoric of "Hey, since she changed her mind about the abortion that she promised right before we had sex I shouldn't be held responsible at all for this child" is ridiculous. Until the father goes through the motions to absolve himself of parental obligations, he IS the father and is responsible for supporting his born child.

 

[Willamena]

It takes two to Tango.


...And if little Tango needs child support payments, there's two responsibilities.

 

[Magic Man]

Bob gives his sister Janet money to buy food, knowing that she'll probably use it for drugs instead. She does use it for drugs, gets high and gets pregnant. She has no idea who the father is. Well, we don't want the kid to suffer, so let's make Bob help pay for the kid because he helped her get high, which led to the kid.

Yup, makes perfect sense. I mean, now that we've decided that the kid is the most important thing to the point of disregarding all other logic and reason.