|
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2002 : 19:11:52
|
|
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
 Posted - 08/07/2002 : 19:56:10 [Permalink]
|
Well, what would be the alternative? Forcing a woman to bear children against her will? What about the other way round? If the father gets the right to prohibit an abortion can he demand one, too?
I think that in such situations anything other then giving the mother the final word would just be absurd or bizarre. You really can't compromise on this sort of things. And when you get two mutually exclusive stances, any decision is automatically unfair. Since it is the woman who has to do the whole pregnancy thing ruling in her favour is always the lesser injustice.
|
 |
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 19:59:51 [Permalink]
|
It depends on what a fathers rights are.
If a women unilaterally decides NOT to abort the baby the man is held responsible to pay child support.
If the father has responsibility then he should also have authority.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860 |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 20:10:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It depends on what a fathers rights are.
If a women unilaterally decides NOT to abort the baby the man is held responsible to pay child support.
If the father has responsibility then he should also have authority.
Authority to do what? How do you, as a judge, adjudicate if the law allows each interested party a base 50% stake in the decision? Does the father's financial responsibility automatically tip the scales in his favor?
Lars is right. The only alternative to female-only choice is legislative reproduction. No thanks.
Generally speaking, the errors in religion are dangerous; those in philosophy only ridiculous.
-D. Hume |
|
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 20:58:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It depends on what a fathers rights are.
If a women unilaterally decides NOT to abort the baby the man is held responsible to pay child support.
If the father has responsibility then he should also have authority.
This bothers me as well but I still don't think you can force a woman either way and that is a great advantage women have.
 @tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 21:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
It depends on what a fathers rights are.
If a women unilaterally decides NOT to abort the baby the man is held responsible to pay child support.
If the father has responsibility then he should also have authority.
-------
My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. ---Thomas Henry Huxley, 1860
Are you forgetting that the woman wouldn't have unilaterally chosen to carry the baby. For the man to be forced to pay child support, he has to be the father and therefore has already committed to paying support by impregnating her. It would eliminate the responsibility the father has to care for the child if he could just impregnate a woman and then force an abortion on her.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
Lars_H
SFN Regular
Germany
630 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 21:37:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Are you forgetting that the woman wouldn't have unilaterally chosen to carry the baby. For the man to be forced to pay child support, he has to be the father and therefore has already committed to paying support by impregnating her. It would eliminate the responsibility the father has to care for the child if he could just impregnate a woman and then force an abortion on her.
I totaly agree.
I also think that such a regulation would basically amount to a get out of child-support card for men. All they have to do is, to announce at some point early in the pregnancy that they don't intend to pay and they won't have to. Similarly if the mother did not inform the father in time to make up his mind about an abortion, he should also be able to get out of child-support.
Stupid, isn't it. The way it is now, that you when you have unprotected sex with a woman, run the risk of being held liable for child-support, is the best possible solution for the problem.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 21:52:01 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
Are you forgetting that the woman wouldn't have unilaterally chosen to carry the baby. For the man to be forced to pay child support, he has to be the father and therefore has already committed to paying support by impregnating her. It would eliminate the responsibility the father has to care for the child if he could just impregnate a woman and then force an abortion on her.
I totaly agree.
I also think that such a regulation would basically amount to a get out of child-support card for men. All they have to do is, to announce at some point early in the pregnancy that they don't intend to pay and they won't have to. Similarly if the mother did not inform the father in time to make up his mind about an abortion, he should also be able to get out of child-support.
Stupid, isn't it. The way it is now, that you when you have unprotected sex with a woman, run the risk of being held liable for child-support, is the best possible solution for the problem.
Women are devious and can use a man to get a baby but if a guy is (and should be) worried about things like that, he has a choice too. To not get in that possition in the 1st place. No pun intended.
As an after thought, isn't that what prostitutes are for? No fuss, no messy relationships, no worries (about pregnancies-anyway).
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 22:02:27 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Here's a new one. Is it unfair to the father if a woman unilaterally decides to abort a pregnancy?
Oh, I got carried away with that previous answer.
I also wanted to say:
Men can have children almost anytime (in their life).
What should it matter if a women wants to end a pregnancy, it should be her choice.
A guy can find someone else to have a baby with or go to a surrogate to make a baby, be a single father, whatever. Why should it matter about that one little bit of cells at that one time with that one woman?
He's being a jerk.
----------------
*Carabao forever
*SAN FERNANDO VALLEY SECESSION - YES
*All lives are movie settings, it's what channel you're on that counts. Zatikia
*Just because I don't care, doesn't mean I don't understand.
Homer Jaye S. |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/07/2002 : 23:16:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Since it is the woman who has to do the whole pregnancy thing ruling in her favour is always the lesser injustice.
Getting back to the original question, I couldn't agree more, Lars. Also, I see a huge potential for abuse if a father is allowed to prevent an abortion. For instance, it would let men force children on women. This could lead to far too many unwanted, impoverished children than our society can handle. I stand by my position that these children would be in impoverished (or at least less wealthy than otherwise) households because: (a)child support is typically much less than needed (at least around here) and (b)fathers short-changing or completely avoiding child support are unfortunately not rare enough (though they are the exception to the rule).
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
welshdean
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
172 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2002 : 05:28:14 [Permalink]
|
".....Are you forgetting that the woman wouldn't have unilaterally chosen to carry the baby....."
Oh, how wrong can you be?!!
I was in a 5year relationship which (in my opinion) was rapidly heading towards the rocks. We had discussed babies, she was for, I against. 5-6 months later she announced that she was pregnant and after much heated questioning it transpired that she, unilaterally, decided that a little one would be the making of us!!!!!
Needless to say i'm paying child support (£500 - $775) each month, I love my little girl, she's 5 now, but despise my ex unreservedly for what she did (she decided not to take the pill until she was pregnant, but didn't tell me).
I don't agree with using abortion as a contraceptive, but i do feel that under certain circumstances a man should have an input (wether abortion or no maintenance) on the final decision, even (to my chagrin) if it has to be a judges decision.
I believe in nothing; only my scepticism kept me from being an atheist.
|
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 08/08/2002 : 07:59:28 [Permalink]
|
I became a father under similar circumstances, but I completely disagree with you Welsh. I chose to put my penis in my girlfriend with the full knowledge that offspring may result. I was not in any way forced, coerced or tricked into doing so. Therefore, being in control of my actions and fully cognizant of the potential consequences I have nothing to bitch about. Yes she lied about her pills, and yes it was a horrible betrayal of trust, and no, that does not give me the right to force her into any decision one way or the other.
I do think that both parents should have a say in these matters, as the mother is also fully culpable for her actions. That does not translate to a legal right to force a woman's decision. It is a, in my opinion, a woman's moral obligation to consider the fathers wishes. That's it. If a woman decides not to consider the opinion of the father, or considers but decides against his opinion, too damned bad.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002 |
|
|
|
Cosmic string
New Member
USA
37 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2002 : 02:21:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
".....Are you forgetting that the woman wouldn't have unilaterally chosen to carry the baby....."
Oh, how wrong can you be?!!
I was in a 5year relationship which (in my opinion) was rapidly heading towards the rocks. We had discussed babies, she was for, I against. 5-6 months later she announced that she was pregnant and after much heated questioning it transpired that she, unilaterally, decided that a little one would be the making of us!!!!!
Needless to say i'm paying child support (£500 - $775) each month, I love my little girl, she's 5 now, but despise my ex unreservedly for what she did (she decided not to take the pill until she was pregnant, but didn't tell me).
I don't agree with using abortion as a contraceptive, but i do feel that under certain circumstances a man should have an input (wether abortion or no maintenance) on the final decision, even (to my chagrin) if it has to be a judges decision.
 I'd have never thought that would happen. Bummer, man.
In cases like this, I would not only consider child support to be wrong; I think that a woman who would do such a thing to 'save' a relationship needs her head examined. In all likelihood she is unfit to be a parent, IMHO, and she should be given the choice in that situation of abortion or adoption. The burden to prove she is fit to parent would be on her. But that would probably never need to be decided. This is because the burden would be on you to prove in court that she defrauded you, something I'd think would be next to impossible.
“The truths of religion are never so well understood as by those who have lost the power of reasoning.” --Voltaire |
|
|
|
DVF
Skeptic Friend
USA
96 Posts |
Posted - 08/13/2002 : 09:17:46 [Permalink]
|
quote:
In cases like this, I would not only consider child support to be wrong; I think that a woman who would do such a thing to 'save' a relationship needs her head examined.
Despite the obvious problems and abuse in the child support system, support is meant to benefit the child, not the mother. Would you penalize the child because of the mother's lack of morality/maturity/sound judgement? I agree that a woman who would do this is a fool.
quote:
In all likelihood she is unfit to be a parent, IMHO, and she should be given the choice in that situation of abortion or adoption.
So should we arrest her, drag her kicking and screaming to an operating room, strap her to a table, anesthetise her and perform surgery against her will?
quote:
The burden to prove she is fit to parent would be on her.
Sure. For that matter lets take all children away from their parents at birth unless they meet a universal standard of what constitutes a good parent. We'll need somewhere big enough to keep the kids while we're evaluating though. You write the standard, I'll start the campaign to conquer Australia.
quote:
the burden would be on you to prove in court that she defrauded you, something I'd think would be next to impossible.
The problem is that fraud is irrelevent in this kind of situation. The role of the court in any custody or support issue is to do what benefits the child. The only case in which you might be excused from parental responsibility is if you were raped. The bottom line is that your progeny are your responsibility. They result from your actions. If you have sex, and I strongly encourage everyone to have as much sex as possible, you must be accountable for the result.
There is another option besides paying child support to a woman you feel is unfit to be a mother. You can do what I did; fight for custody. If you have a concern that the woman shouldn't be responsible for a child then it's up to you to do something about it. The state and the taxpayers don't need the burden of caring for your kid.
If you aren't willing to accept the reponsibility of being a parent then keep your dick in your pants.
"Know what, if you were in a building, and it was on fire, I'd rescue you."
- My Son 3/5/2002 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
