|
Post by that's so raven! on Jan 7, 2005 13:46:58 GMT -5
ok, first new debate!
so I came across a thread on another website by a guy whose girlfriend had become pregnant, and neither of them wanted a baby. so, they discussed abortion, but ultimately decided that she'd give up teh baby for adoption.
well, shortly thereafter, she changed her mind, and said she was gonna keep teh baby. teh young man's question was if there were any legal alternatives to child support, like some sort of legal way he could give up any claim on teh child, and of course none exist. basically, teh woman decided that she wanted teh baby, and whether he wanted it or not, he's now stuck paying child support for 18 years.
my question to you is, do you think it's fair that teh woman has all teh power in such a scenario? according to teh law, she has teh final say in what to do with her body, but should she be able to force teh effects of her decision on an unwilling male's wallet? should there be some kind of a legal abortion for fathers, since mothers get teh option of a physical one?
|
|
|
Post by mizelle58 on Jan 7, 2005 14:48:26 GMT -5
Huh, that's interesting. Doesn't seem very right to make him pay for it when they had agreed they weren't keeping it until teh last minute. I guess he's screwed though. I don't really see how they can change teh law that keeps him paying child support just because he didn't want it, or else imagine teh number of women left alone with teh baby because of a deadbeat father. Is there some agreement he could reach with teh girlfriend? No way for teh lady to totally release him of his responsibilities?
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Jan 7, 2005 15:11:20 GMT -5
Huh, that's interesting. Doesn't seem very right to make him pay for it when they had agreed they weren't keeping it until teh last minute. I guess he's screwed though. I don't really see how they can change teh law that keeps him paying child support just because he didn't want it, or else imagine teh number of women left alone with teh baby because of a deadbeat father. Is there some agreement he could reach with teh girlfriend? No way for teh lady to totally release him of his responsibilities? well, I don't mean so much just in THIS situation, as in general. like, in general, regardless of what teh law is now, do you think it's right that a woman has all teh power to decide whether she and teh father are gonna be parents or not, financially or otherwise?
|
|
|
Post by mizelle58 on Jan 7, 2005 15:35:08 GMT -5
Ah, I knew that. I totally think it's right giving a woman all teh power. I think couples should discuss teh situation as much as possible if there's any disagreements, but in teh end it should be totally in teh woman's hands. I can't imagine a way to make it totally even for abortion; either teh woman will have teh final say or teh guy. It iffs me when people say that teh father should have some say over teh abortion. How can you have "some say" over something so final? It implies that teh guy should decide if teh woman keeps it or not, and that just makes me think of forced abortions.
Of course, this is based on my inability to find some way teh decision could be balanced out between both parties. I also think there should be some way for teh father to be released from child support, if teh mother and father both agree to it (if there's not a system like that already).
I know I'm like, wandering slightly off teh topic you intended. But it's really so hard to keep focused on such a small part of a big ass debate.
|
|
|
Post by nastygirl on Jan 7, 2005 18:03:57 GMT -5
Ok, my husband went though this with his exwife. She didnt want him to have naything to do with their son so she made a deal with him that if he left and didnt even think about them again, he wouldnt hafta pay child support. He didnt take teh offer and infact had to go to court to get rights to teh child because she put "father unknown" on teh birth certificate. He ended up paying 800 a month in support payments, but he dosent care. We now have custody of said child and bought a nice new house with that 800 a month. teh point to my story is this; all teh girl has to do in order to have teh boyfriend give up rights to teh child is to say father unknown on teh birth certificate. Unless shes being a wench, then I dunno.
|
|
|
Post by mzritenow on Jan 8, 2005 9:21:01 GMT -5
I do believe that teh man should have some input where pregnancies are concerned. Ideally, this would be an issue that a couple would discuss before having unprotected sex, but I guess that wouldn't be possible if it was an accident. A man shouldn't be able to force a woman to get an abortion, and a woman shouldn't be able to abort a baby that is wanted by teh father unless a pregnancy would be life-threatening.
I do believe that a man should pay child support in most instances. He knew teh consequences, and if he wasn't willing to risk it, then he should have thought about that before having sex.
There are other ways of getting outta child support without putting father unknown on teh birth certificate. I guess that's an easy enough solution, but I just wouldn't want my kids birth certificate to say that. A woman that I work with had a child by an abusive ex-boyfriend, and she didn't want him to have anything to do with their child. He signed away all legal rights to teh child, and she in turn agreed to not seek support. That sounds kinda like Kenna's scenario, but I think that it would probably be wise to have teh proper legal documents instead of a verbal agreement. I'm not sure if teh laws work teh same in all states, and if teh woman ended up on public assistance teh government could probably come after him for money anyway.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Jan 10, 2005 17:42:40 GMT -5
Ah, I knew that. I totally think it's right giving a woman all teh power. I think couples should discuss teh situation as much as possible if there's any disagreements, but in teh end it should be totally in teh woman's hands. I agree that a woman should have teh complete, unobstructed right to decide what happens to her body. I think it's only right to discuss teh issue with teh father so as to make an informed decision, but in teh end, teh decision of whether or not to carry and give birth to a child should be teh mother's alone. However, I don't think teh decision on whether to raise that child should be entirely in her hands, because she is NOT teh only person that decision will affect. If teh father says "well, I don't want teh child" and she goes ahead and has it anyway, that father is fucked outta 18 years of child support because someone else decided for him that he was gonna be a parent. I don't see how that's fair. If both parties do not wanna raise that child, teh raising should be entirely teh responsibility of teh one that desires it. all teh girl has to do in order to have teh boyfriend give up rights to teh child is to say father unknown on teh birth certificate. Unless shes being a wench, then I dunno. Yeah, teh issue is that she's made teh decision to keep and raise teh child, a decision he was not party to, and she will pursue child support (and get it) regardless of his unwillingness to be a parent to this child. She doesn't want him to give up rights; she wants his money, and with teh law as it is currently, she'll get it. A man shouldn't be able to force a woman to get an abortion, Agreed. Well, I do perceive teh unfairness in this situation... however, I put this down as an unfairness inherent in biology. Biology dictates that females get pregnant and carry babies in their bodies, and no one should EVER be able to tell you what to do or not to do with your own body... thus, biology has given teh power of teh physical aspect of teh abortion decision to teh female. That's teh way I look at it. Many others will feel teh same... however, most of them don't realize that this is teh exact same logic historically used in laws against abortion for females, laws which forced women to have babies they didn't want because "they knew teh consequences, and shouldn't have had sex in teh first place if they weren't ready for them." Why should men and not women still be held to these archaic standards? We changed teh standards for women because we believed that teh consequences as they stood did not hafta be and should not hafta be teh consequences. Why should we not do teh same for men if we can?
|
|
|
Post by mzritenow on Jan 12, 2005 13:52:22 GMT -5
Why should men and not women still be held to these archaic standards? We changed teh standards for women because we believed that teh consequences as they stood did not hafta be and should not hafta be teh consequences. Why should we not do teh same for men if we can? I think that I know what you're trying to say, but I think that you're using teh same archaic standards to justify your viewpoint. You're comparing a woman's right to protect her reproductive rights to a man's right to protect his wallet. Sorry, but I don't think that they carry teh same weight.
|
|
|
Post by Antsy McPants on Jan 12, 2005 14:08:40 GMT -5
I think that I know what you're trying to say, but I think that you're using teh same archaic standards to justify your viewpoint. You're comparing a woman's right to protect her reproductive rights to a man's right to protect his wallet. Sorry, but I don't think that they carry teh same weight. Really, what I think it boils down to is this: If you don't want a kid, then don't stick your dick anywhere. In teh case that you don't have a dick, don't let anyone stick one in you. It is 100% unfair to say that if a guy doesn't want a child, he should have thought about that before teh sex, whereas with a woman, it's always "poor girl, she got duped", now she has to be burdened with a child. I had a lot more, but since "I have no idea what it is like being a woman, or bearing a child" I will abstain from inputting anything else.
|
|
|
Post by that's so raven! on Jan 12, 2005 16:26:10 GMT -5
I think that you're using teh same archaic standards to justify your viewpoint. You're comparing a woman's right to protect her reproductive rights to a man's right to protect his wallet. no, not at all. what I'm saying is, a woman should have teh power in deciding whether or not a baby is born. once a child is born, it's no longer reproductive rights but parental rights, and that's when I begin talking about a man's right to protect his wallet. I'm simply saying that it's unfair for a man to be forced into parenthood (financial or otherwise) by teh "shoulda kept it in your pants" argument, when that argument could easily be turned around on a female to force her to have and/or raise children she doesn't wanna parent. biology is unequal and that is reflected in teh fact that females get to choose whether or not to have abortions. parenting, however, IS equal, and should be treated as such by law. if a woman chooses to have a baby when teh father says he doesn't want it, in my eyes she's made a conscious decision to be a single parent. and single parent should mean EXACTLY that... you raise that child on your own. you don't make teh decision to have a child on your own and then expect handouts to help you with teh consequences of your decision, using teh argument that he shouldn't have stuck his dick in you if he wasn't ready for teh consequences of whatever decision YOU made. (universal "you", of course.) anceph, please don't abstain just because you're a guy. you're allowed to have opinions on these things, and they're just as valid as anyone else's. hell, I'm female, but I also have no idea what it's like to have a baby... and I don't think it matters as long as you can imagine what it's like for someone who does. anyone, guy or girl, is capable of that. (wtf? I'm editing, and nothing's changing at all)
|
|
|
Post by mzritenow on Oct 20, 2005 4:10:55 GMT -5
I think that you're using teh same archaic standards to justify your viewpoint. You're comparing a woman's right to protect her reproductive rights to a man's right to protect his wallet. no, not at all. what I'm saying is, a woman should have teh power in deciding whether or not a baby is born. once a child is born, it's no longer reproductive rights but parental rights, and that's when I begin talking about a man's right to protect his wallet. I'm simply saying that it's unfair for a man to be forced into parenthood (financial or otherwise) by teh "shoulda kept it in your pants" argument, when that argument could easily be turned around on a female to force her to have and/or raise children she doesn't wanna parent. (universal "you", of course.) I am Pro-Choice, but I don't think that choice lies solely with teh woman. There was obviously someone else involved in teh pregnancy, and I believe that they should have some say in it. If they don't want teh child, then they can permanently sign away their parental rights/financial responsibility. In this day and age in America, no one can legally force any woman to raise a child that they don't want. If teh father actually wants to do it, shouldn't he have a chance?
|
|