ZombieWife Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 A friendly debate?Watching a talk show re-run on this topic and thought it would make a good debate.The guest on the show is a man who has twice attempted to have his case go to trial concerning his child support obligations. The man made his feelings concerning NOT wanting children at that point very clear to his now ex-girlfriend. He claims she told him she was on the pill. Eventually she becomes pregnant. The man is ordered to pay child support monthly once the child is born. The man and his attorney feel that he should be afforded similar reproductive rights that women have, and that men should be given a small window of opportunity to sign an affidavit refusing any and all paternal responsibility.Is this realistic? Do you feel that men should be given some sort of "opt out" from parenting since women have the choice to terminate the pregnancy or choose adoption? Are reproductive rights unequal in that women seem to hold all the power by choosing for themselves AND the man concerning when they become parents? Should the fact that the woman is the one who carries the child trump any paternal right of the father? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tears of Lys Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 My cheap two-second opinion is that, yes, they should have the right to opt out - ideally by ensuring no progeny by getting a vasectomy (or nuking from orbit. It IS the only way to be sure.) He's rather stupid to let his future fatherhood depend on his girlfriend's honesty or lack thereof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The WaterDancer Knight Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Interesting to see that men are stupid to believe in their girlfriend's honesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 The man and his attorney feel that he should be afforded similar reproductive rights that women have, and that men should be given a small window of opportunity to sign an affidavit refusing any and all paternal responsibility.Fuck him right in the ear. Sorry, men. We get the ability to not be pregnant (among other things). Knocking someone up is a potential risk that you freely agree to take as long as you have sex (and even a vasectomy isn't a surefire thing) Don't chicken shit out on it, and don't chicken shit out on at least stating you're the father. If the guy is that worried, make sure to always use condoms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponine Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 While I agree that he's stupid to let his future fatherhood depend on his girlfriend's honesty, I have to disagree with the vasectomy - just because he doesn't want children with this girlfriend doesn't mean that he should have surgery that will have to be reversed if he ever wants children in the future. I think that in place of a vasectomy, he should have been insistent upon using double birth control methods including one that didn't depend on anyone else's honesty or consistency (condoms FTW). I think that a man should be able to create a legally binding contract BEFORE starting a sexual relationship, stating that he doesn't want children, is actively preventing conception (see the aforementioned double birth control methods), and will be released from future paternal responsibility. It would end up limiting his dating pool, but if he feels that strongly about not having children, then he should only be dating women who are equally committed to preventing pregnancy and know that they would either be willing to raise a child without support or would have an abortion. I know that's a pretty cold thing to present someone with, but as someone who is 100% childfree myself, if I were a man, I'd have a hard time knowing that an accidental pregnancy could ruin my life. Even though as the woman, I'm not legally obliged to disclosure, anyone I date knows that I won't be having their child, regardless of accidental pregnancy, because I wouldn't feel right having an abortion while knowing that the father would have been opposed to it, and it's a situation that can be avoided by not sleeping with men I know to be anti-abortion. If there were some law (which I would absolutely oppose) dictating that men could prevent their female partner from aborting, I would also want a legally binding contract in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Actually, I agree with them.All the rules are skewed towards woman, and usually that is rightfully so. They can choose to have the child or not, and they make that choice knowing that the law will require the father to provide. Generally they have a far higher chance of being granted custody, and if in a relationship they can leave and usually win custody. For example, if a father was better qualified, had better support, and wanted to be the main custodian, what chance would he have unless the mother was alcoholic or a druggie? About a snowball's chance in hell.So I think it is fair to have the choice to make a waiver. The mother can choose to have the child, but in the knowledge she will have to support it. Of course, that also means the father loses all rights to the child forever, and the same for his kin.But then, I also believe in a more socialist system than the USA has, so the mother if she chooses to go alone would actually get some support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eponine Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Knocking someone up is a potential risk that you freely agree to take as long as you have sex (and even a vasectomy isn't a surefire thing) Isn't that a pretty common anti-choice argument against women having sex? You knew you could get pregnant, yet you choose to have sex instead of being abstinent, so now you should have to live with the result? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smashing Young Man Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Until men have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, men should not be forced to make child support payments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If there were already an "opt-out" law on the books, then I'd say he has the right to refuse responsibility as the girl in question will have known there was a real risk of lack of financial support from an unwilling fertilizer. But, seeing as how there appears to not be any such law in effect at the time, he knowingly exposed himself to the risk when he had unprotected sex with her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Isn't that a pretty common anti-choice argument against women having sex? You knew you could get pregnant, yet you choose to have sex instead of being abstinent, so now you should have to live with the result? Yes, as a woman you have to understand that you risk getting pregnant. What they do afterwards is up to them, but it is most decidedly a risk.The risk for men is that they will not be able to 100% control the outcome of that pregnancy. The risk to the woman is actually having another human being inside their body for a while. The two risks are not reasonably close or equitable; the woman has significantly greater responsibilities involved. Until men have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion, men should not be forced to make child support payments. Similarly, until men get a say in whether or not women have an abortion heterosexual sex should be illegal unless the man is willing to pay child support. It's clearly dangerous to the man, and since we're talking about legally defining control of one's body it's clear that sex without responsibility is a dangerous act for that man. It is in the man's best interests to not have sex, and legally we should ensure they do not participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 If there were already an "opt-out" law on the books, then I'd say he has the right to refuse responsibility as the girl in question will have known there was a real risk of lack of financial support from an unwilling fertilizer. But, seeing as how there appears to not be any such law in effect at the time, he knowingly exposed himself to the risk when he had unprotected sex with her.Agreed.But isn't the thing to discuss here whether or not there should be an opt out law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 But isn't the thing to discuss here whether or not there should be an opt out law? Sure.And there shouldn't. You're talking about the financial welfare of a child. The mother's selfish and idiotic decisions should not be punishment on the child. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timbits Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I wish there was a law that forced parents to spend time with their little jon snow's (bastards) instead of making them pay.:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balefont Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Agreed.But isn't the thing to discuss here whether or not there should be an opt out law?I was thinking the trade off to their being one would be a social benefits program. I know the fiscal conservatives (myself included) would cringe over such a thing but it would be the only way I can see a fair (for the child) trade off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I was thinking the trade off to their being one would be a social benefits program. I know the fiscal conservatives (myself included) would cringe over such a thing but it would be the only way I can see a fair (for the child) trade off.Or you could give the father more rights. Such as first dibs on custody, with support from the mother ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ants Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 And there shouldn't. You're talking about the financial welfare of a child. The mother's selfish and idiotic decisions should not be punishment on the child.No I'm not, since I'm a nice little socialist and think that single mothers should get support. And that some mothers may make different decisions (whether that be adoption, abortion, or better preventive measures) if this was the case, making more happy families/people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 No I'm not, since I'm a nice little socialist and think that single mothers should get support. And that some mothers may make different decisions (whether that be adoption, abortion, or better preventive measures) if this was the case, making more happy families/people. Okay...but in that case you're saying that instead of the father - ya know, the guy who was an idiot and had strong views on not having a child yet continued to have sex without protection with a woman not willing to have an abortion - paying child support, you'd rather that the entire country pay child support.That sounds a bit foolish.Single parents of all stripes need a lot more support than they get. But the simplest thing to do is actually hold the culpable responsible party...err...responsible. I don't see the advantage of doing something else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrownedCrow Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 I suspect that in a very large percentage of cases where the father didn't have to help support the child, the taxpayer would be doing it through welfare. So while it may be somewhat unfair that a man has to support a child he doesn't want, it's a hell of a lot more unfair to make everyone else pay for his stupid mistake. So fuck fathers' rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gear Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 There was a case in Indiana where the biological father had the biological mother sign a contract before consenting to sex stating she would not hold him financially responsible for the resulting child (she wanted a kid, he didn't). Ct held the contract void on public policy grounds and forced the father to pay child support. The ct emphasized that the duty of child support was owed to the child and could not be contracted away by the parents. Phrased that way, child support isn't a fathers right, but a child's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Next time wear a condom. /thread Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.