Deadbeat Dads

[Draka]

I don't think anyone said anything about not using contraceptives at all, but it is foolish to think that failure of contraceptives doesn't happen or that sometimes mistakes don't happen in the heat of the moment. Quite frankly, if you aren't going to take responsibility for all the possible outcomes of sex, and that includes having a child, then just don't have sex. It really is just that simple.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why is it assumed that the male failed or even complicity rejected use of a contraceptive? Most unintentional pregnancies occur because contraceptive's inherent statistical failure rate or the woman was negligent with her pill/patch schedule.

In the case of the woman forgetting her pill, then the failure on the part of the man would be failing to exercise due diligence.

In the case of other contraceptive failure, the man (and the woman) have accepted the risk of pregnancy.

Until the male birth control becomes widely available it's really hard for a man to be negligent without the woman's implicit consent.

Not really:

- "I swear, honey - I've had a vasectomy."
- "I'll pull out in time. I promise."

Condoms are visible to both partners. And why is it accepted fact that a man must accept whatever decision a woman decides regardless of the repercussions to his financial and emotional well-being?

Come off it. If you were really worried about financial and emotional well-being of people, you wouldn't be advocating a situation where the woman can be forced to choose between a medical procedure she doesn't want and raising a child she can't afford.

As you pointed out, contraception has a certain risk of failure. I also think it would be unreasonable for a man to expect that if conception did occur, that the woman would certainly choose abortion. You go into sex knowing that there's a risk that you may end up as a father as a result, and you accept that risk.

... or you do if you're behaving responsibly and ethically.

Again I reiterate: this line of reasoning is dissociated from reality and can be reversed in statements such as women shouldn't be having sex willy-nilly if she wants a reliable father figure.

If it applies both ways, then this just underscores the idea that it's a matter of joint responsibility for both the man and the woman... which is precisely what you've been arguing against.

As I said before: a whole chain of decisions have to happen before a baby is born. Some are made by the man, some are made by the woman. Both parents had many points where they could have chosen differently and a child would not have resulted.

 

[Mathematician]

I disagree. The woman has more rights/choices during pregnancy and thus more responsibilities. The only victim-blaming I see in this thread is towards men who dare to say no to going along with a decision they never made. I don't think this discussion will really progress further. Just outlining my beliefs.

There's also a heavy implication in this thread that men need to "man up" by a lot of the local feminists, which is interesting in that it promotes a traditional, sexist image, too.

In the case of other contraceptive failure, the man (and the woman) have accepted the risk of pregnancy.

Pregnancy is not the same thing as parenthood. There's a huge distinction. It's irrelevant if the woman wants a child and feels pressured into another scenario because the man is thinking about a separate future. She had three choices, one of which requires no excess or difference in medical intervention (adoption). She made the most expensive choice. It's hers to abide by for 18 years.

What everyone is essentially arguing is that the woman's preferences take priority before the man's. This is not about the child from either ends. That's an emotional appeal. This is about trying to alleviate all pressure on the woman by using a man's wallet which reduces the quality of decisions, especially for teenage mothers. We end up with glamorous examples of women/girl who really should NOT be single mothers but can reliably using the dude's employment to remain sufficient. Further aggravating the situation is the use of child support to ruin that second person (male or female) out of vengeance.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Pregnancy is not the same thing as parenthood. There's a huge distinction. It's irrelevant if the woman wants a child and feels pressured into another because the man is thinking about his future. She had three choices, one of which requires no excess of medical procedures (adoption). She made the most expensive choice. It's hers to abide by for 18 years.

It's the father's responsibility as well, but the choice made isn't necessarily the most expensive one available. The mother still has a duty to constrain costs: for instance, it would be legitimate for the mother to expect the father to pay for half of the costs of a new crib for the baby that meets relevant safety standards. It would not be reasonable for the mother to expect the father to pay for half of the cost of a custom designer crib.

In this situation, like every other one, the "reasonable person" test is the appropriate one to judge the person's actions by. Is continuing the pregnancy and raising the child included within what is "reasonable"? Yes. Therefore, the father's responsibility and liability should not end.

What everyone is essentially arguing is that the woman's preferences take priority before the man's.

In respect to medical procedures performed on the woman, damn straight they do.

 

[Mathematician]

In this situation, like every other one, the "reasonable person" test is the appropriate one to judge the person's actions by. Is continuing the pregnancy and raising the child included within what is "reasonable"? Yes. Therefore, the father's responsibility and liability should not end.

Only because society has unwittingly adopted that perspective. From an evolutionary perspective, it appears men didn't know which kids they fathered until money and private estates replaced tribal relations. Children weren't raised by two parents but by all of society with the mother's emphasis. Like it or not, a lot of our predominant concepts about family, parenthood, and coupling result from money, not any intrinsic structures.

I don't see parenthood as reasonable for someone not ready for kids. In fact, I view it is irresponsible.

In respect to medical procedures performed on the woman, damn straight they do.

Okay. So you think men need to compensate because they don't suffer from physical inconveniences. I disagree.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Only because society has unwittingly adopted that perspective. From an evolutionary perspective, it appears men didn't know which kids they fathered until money and private estates replaced tribal relations. Children weren't raised by two parents but by all of society with the mother's emphasis. Like it or not, a lot of our predominant concepts about family, parenthood, and coupling result from money, not any intrinsic structures.

I don't see parenthood as reasonable for someone not ready for kids. In fact, I view it is irresponsible.

So... just so we're clear: you really are arguing that it's unreasonable for a woman not to have an abortion when the father doesn't want the child?

Okay. So you think men need to compensate because they don't suffer from physical inconveniences. I disagree.

Come again?

This is another issue that goes both ways: just as I don't think you should be able to wash your hands of parental responsibilities because the woman chose not to subject herself to abortion, I also think that the mother shouldn't be able to do the same because you chose not to get a vasectomy. IMO, both the man and the woman should have the right to bodily security.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Again I reiterate: this line of reasoning is dissociated from reality and can be reversed in statements such as women shouldn't be having sex willy-nilly if she wants a reliable father figure.

And no one has been stating otherwise, just that it is absurd that man has an option to get out of his responsibilities just because he doesn't have to carry the child.

Until the male birth control becomes widely available it's really hard for a man to be negligent without the woman's implicit consent. Condoms are visible to both partners. And why is it accepted fact that a man must accept whatever decision a woman decides regardless of the repercussions to his financial and emotional well-being?

Because he had sex. If he got drunk and went driving and got pulled over, there are no excuses but the reality he must accept the consequences. Sex and pregnancy are no different. If you have sex, you should be ready to accept the responsibility of pregnancy should it happen.

Users are insisting that the man is rejecting his responsibility. I reject that notion entirely. It's not even an example of natural distinction.

How is it anything BUT a man rejecting his responsibility for the baby that he helped make?

 

[Falvlun]

The only victim-blaming I see in this thread is towards men who dare to say no to going along with a decision they never made.

The problem, Eugene, is that men, like women, made the decision to have sex in the first place. If you decide to have sex, that means you are accepting the possibility that a child will result. You cannot divorce the one from the other, nor can you place the responsibility of that joint decision only upon one of the parties.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Looks like you added some stuff in your edit while I was putting together my post, so I'll address it now.

What everyone is essentially arguing is that the woman's preferences take priority before the man's. This is not about the child from either ends. That's an emotional appeal.

The child is a very important consideration in all this. Without the father contributing, the mother will have less money available to see to the child's needs. This most definitely has the potential to affect the well-being of the child.

This is about trying to alleviate all pressure on the woman by using a man's wallet which reduces the quality of decisions, especially for teenage mothers. We end up with glamorous examples of women/girl who really should NOT be single mothers but can reliably using the dude's employment to remain sufficient. Further aggravating the situation is the use of child support to ruin that second person (male or female) out of vengeance.

Wait one minute: so you think that paying half of the cost to raise a child could "ruin" a person, and therefore the other person should be expected to pay the whole cost... i.e. twice as much as what you're worried could lead to "ruin"? This makes no sense, especially when child support judgements take into account each parent's ability to pay.

 

[monarchdianne]

To solve this problem Tom Lyekis says: "Women if you dont want a deadbeat dad stop f****** deadbeats!"

If you dont want to be labeled a deadbeat dad, keep your part in your pants, If you choose to be a player, don't whine when you get you get played!

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Looks like you added some stuff in your edit while I was putting together my post, so I'll address it now.


The child is a very important consideration in all this. Without the father contributing, the mother will have less money available to see to the child's needs. This most definitely has the potential to affect the well-being of the child.


Wait one minute: so you think that paying half of the cost to raise a child could "ruin" a person, and therefore the other person should be expected to pay the whole cost... i.e. twice as much as what you're worried could lead to "ruin"? This makes no sense, especially when child support judgements take into account each parent's ability to pay.

Jeff, you're handling this beautifully. :yes:

 

[MoonWater]

Okay. So you think men need to compensate because they don't suffer from physical inconveniences. I disagree.

Are you seriously trying to write pregnancy off as a mere physical inconvenience? As one who will never be able to experience such a thing, who are you to make such a judgment?

It's not about the man compensating for not going through pregnancy it's about him taking responsibility for the fact that he helped to create the child.

Correct me if I'm wrong but You seem to be under the impression that a man should not have to provide for the child simply because he, legally and medically speaking, has no say in whether or not the child is born. The thing is the only reason he doesn't have any legal or medical say in that regard is precisely because he is not the one carrying the child. If he were then he would be the one with all the legal and medical say in the matter. However he DOES have a say in whether or not the child is conceived. Condoms, vasectomies, spermicides, abstinence, talking to the woman to make sure she's up to date on her birth control, acting as a check on eachother, etc. Men have numerous avenues available to them through which they can avoid completely or at least minimize the chances of a child being conceived.

What you seem to be suggesting here is that all a man has to do is say "well I never wanted a child to begin with" and with that he should be able to fully wash his hands clean of any responsibility whatsoever aside from paying for an abortion. What you don't seem to consider is that, if widely adopted, this thinking would leave numerous women in the position of having to choose between having an abortion they don't want, a child they can't afford, or giving the child up to a foster system that has a rather poor track record of taking care of the children entrusted to it. How is forcing women into that kind of position more "morally ethical" than asking the man who helped create the child to pay into that child's upkeep(this assumes that the money asked for is within his means to pay)?

Yes I agree the system of child support and all that other stuff needs to be revamped and I don't doubt that there is a bias against men present in the system when it comes to child care and yes I agree this needs to be fixed. But allowing the father to wash his hands clean of responsibility just because he "didn't want a child" is not the answer and in my mind is morally reprehensible. Would say the man should only be responsible for helping pay for an abortion in the case of rape? or what if the guy claimed he did want children or would support her in case of pregnancy in order to sleep with her only to "change his mind" when the pregnancy actually occurs? This whole situation is not as black and white or simple or "inconvenient" as you are trying to make it out to be.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

But MW, everyone sides with women when everybody is vastly unaware of how much more vindictive, manipulative, and conniving women are toward those poor men victims who rarely do anything wrong.

Poor men. They're always being wronged by those horrible horrible women everywhere by getting pregnant and getting men into situations they never wanted to be in. Don't you know that men by and large are angels and women are devils?

[/sarcasm]

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Here is one for you Eugene, what if the woman does not find out she is pregnant until it is legally too late for an abortion, or if she doesn't even know until she is delivering the baby? Then how do the man's responsibilities get shifted?

 

[Revoltingest]

But MW, everyone sides with women when everybody is vastly unaware of how much more vindictive, manipulative, and conniving women are toward those poor men victims who rarely do anything wrong.
Poor men. They're always being wronged by those horrible horrible women everywhere by getting pregnant and getting men into situations they never wanted to be in. Don't you know that men by and large are angels and women are devils?
[/sarcasm]

Clearly, both men & women are terrible people.
Who do you propose to replace them?
Bots don't look much better.

 

[Rakhel]

Here's the thing. my daughter's father was not a dead beat because he didn't pay for those 13 years I didn't ask him to. He was a dead beat for those 13 plus the next 5. he was not there emotionally. oh yeah he paid, but it was grudgingly. Much like a chore your average 13 year old doesn't want to do.

He had other kids, so it wasn't like I trapped him. He was proud he had "knocked me up." Even stayed in the relationship for 6 months into the pregnancy. But when he realized that this kid was going to interfere with him being more important in my life, that was when he decided being a daddy was too hard and literally jumped out the window. Denied the child was his and everything.

I even let him off the hook for 13 years. But he always knew where she was. Did he ever bother calling to see how she was doing? Whether she needed anything? To ask what kind of daughter did he help bring into this world?

Nope. just called her on her 18th birthday and said Happy Birthday and good luck.

In my eyes, money was nothing. It still is in the eyes of the child. The money doesn't make the dead beat. The lack of emotional and psychological support is what does.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Here's the thing. my daughter's father was not a dead beat because he didn't pay for those 13 years I didn't ask him to. He was a dead beat for those 13 plus the next 5. he was not there emotionally. oh yeah he paid, but it was grudgingly. Much like a chore your average 13 year old doesn't want to do.

He had other kids, so it wasn't like I trapped him. He was proud he had "knocked me up." Even stayed in the relationship for 6 months into the pregnancy. But when he realized that this kid was going to interfere with him being more important in my life, that was when he decided being a daddy was too hard and literally jumped out the window. Denied the child was his and everything.

I even let him off the hook for 13 years. But he always knew where she was. Did he ever bother calling to see how she was doing? Whether she needed anything? To ask what kind of daughter did he help bring into this world?

Nope. just called her on her 18th birthday and said Happy Birthday and good luck.

In my eyes, money was nothing. It still is in the eyes of the child. The money doesn't make the dead beat. The lack of emotional and psychological support is what does.

I get you, Rakhel. The other moms who have been through this get you too.

Doesn't matter what a couple of young guys say about their version of reality where men are always the "real victims" when it comes to unplanned pregnancies.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Clearly, both men & women are terrible people.
Who do you propose to replace them?
Bots don't look much better.

LOL

I think men and women as human beings are equally capable of delusion and enlightenment. Bender only has his booze and cigars.

 

[Rakhel]

I get you, Rakhel. The other moms who have been through this get you too.

Doesn't matter what a couple of young guys say about their version of reality where men are always the "real victims" when it comes to unplanned pregnancies.

I know. it's irritating to hear "it's all about the money" "you trapped him into it by getting pregnant"

Well who's to say he didn't trap her. Get her pregnant so she can't leave?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well who's to say he didn't trap her. Get her pregnant so she can't leave?

My best friend just broke up with a guy that tried to that to her.