PDA

View Full Version : Should Fathers Be Responsible?



Faeawyn
January 20th, 2005, 05:51 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.

Tzhebee
January 20th, 2005, 05:53 PM
I also don't think it's fair. If all the proper percautions were taken, then he shouldn't be held liable. BUT, he also can't change his mind 10 years down the road.

But turn the tables...what if she used protection (the pill for instance) got pregnant, HE wants it, but she doesn't. Should she be forced to carry and deliver the baby and then turn it over to him?

LacyRoze
January 20th, 2005, 05:56 PM
My personal opinion is... if you're going to play, be ready to pay...It takes 2 to tango, she certainly didn't make that baby alone. If they're adult enough to have sex then they should be adult enough to know accidents do happen. As I said, this is just my opinion..

DragonsChest
January 20th, 2005, 05:59 PM
I agree with LacyRoze. If you can't accept the possible consequences of having sex (a baby), then don't have sex. Even if protection is used, it's not 100%. You play, you pay.

(edit: this does not refer to any situation of rape, incest, or health reasons.)

MoonDragn
January 20th, 2005, 06:03 PM
This isn't about accepting consequences, this is about choice and responsibility. When you make a baby, both people should have a choice going into it. The father was using protection yet chance happened and the woman CHOSE to have it. The father should have the choice of not being responsible. Think of it as buying a car, you both go to purchase a car so you can each share in driving it. However one person decides on a car that only she likes. Is the man now responsible to pay for half of it? Especially if only she will drive it.

I agree that when he choses to not be responsible for it, he also chose to not have visitation rights to the baby. I personally would have been responsible for it regardless of using protection or not.

In fact I was put into that position once. She told me her tubes were tied. Then told me that she was pregnant because somehow the tubes ended up untied etc. I said I would be responsible for it, and still would have been if she did not have a miscarriage.

*Rain*
January 20th, 2005, 06:06 PM
It not quite as easy for a pregnant woman to walk away from it as it is for a man.

People know accidents happen and it's a risk you take.

Tarbh Nathroch
January 20th, 2005, 06:12 PM
I would have to say you’re responsible for your own actions, so yes the farther should be responsible, the law thinks so too. Although there is a point in Tzhebee’s post that makes for a nasty double standard, but it is what it is.

There are places that let you legally give up parental rights that also include parental responsibility, but for those in places without such laws you are a dad and so is your wallet.

DragonsChest
January 20th, 2005, 06:18 PM
This isn't about accepting consequences, this is about choice and responsibility.

But your choices are dictated by the consequences of your actions.

Wolf O Volos
January 20th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Gods... Keep me sane, and make me speak rationally.

Actually, Yes. A man who is willing to be intimate with a woman, whether there is protection or not, is responsible for the life that he helped to create. No morality questions, no BS about "intent"... If you are responsible enough to make the decision to sleep with someone, then you are also accepting that you are taking responsibilites for the consequences thereof.

But in this situation... there is not just some hapless guy who says "But I used a condom!"... there is also a girl who is now faced with her own set of new responsibilities. For the sake of the Goddess, if she did not want to have a child with the man she has become pregnant by... WHY THE HELL would she be sleeping with him? A double edged sword, for sure.

And to go on further... I am SO SICK of the whole *FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY* thing that women seem to get into their heads over this subject... dammit, it is a CHILD, not a PAYCHECK. I know that MOST of you do not get that mentality. I am sure that the massive majority of the women, and probably guys as well, are responsible enough to realize that just because you have a child, it does not mean someone is automatically indebted to YOU. I have heard conversations where some people were sitting around, talking about the whole issue of Ex husbands/wives... and when the discussion of child support came up, it was something the parent who is LUCKY enough to actually RAISE the child, made sound like "I am gonna make sure they make that lazy son of a something or other pay out his arse for what he did to me". Child support as revenge... Gods... HOW low.

Try putting yourself in a parents shoes, who, mostly because HE is a HE, has had a child torn away from him... or a mother decides that she no longer wants dad, so she takes the child away from him as well... How do you suppose you would feel if 54% of your paycheck was taken away from you, after taxes, of course, in the name of the childs welfare... only to find that mom was buying Ciggarettes and a case of beer with the money she just got from the child support agency? Get real if you really think ALL of these mothers would use the child support specifically for the child... How do you suppose you would feel if, because FINANCES seem to be the most important thing, you had more than half of your pay taken from you, and you NEVER get to see this child because you and the mother never really had a relationship, and she feels it is her RIGHT to keep HER child away from you....? Hmmmm.

I may be an exception to this little rule. Maybe it really IS different for others. And maybe my own personal tragedy where having a child taken completely away from me and still having 54% of my check taken from me every pay period is somewhat of a glitch in the system... But I really doubt that.
Do you honestly think that mom is handing the money over to our daughter, and telling her "This money is courtesy of someone who really loves you and is responsible enough to send money for your well being"....???? Yeah... okay... I think it is more like this: "Your dad died when you were very young" and pockets the money for herself.

Until someone REALLY gets into the system, and makes sure that a father's rights, and needs, are protected... the system is screwed. Nobody cares, as long as mom has money in her wallet. That is just how I have experienced it, and been threatened with jail time over it, and been hit with a contempt charge for arguing against....

Anyways.... the actual topic. Yes. Dad is responsible, whether he intended for her to become pregnant, or not, a baby is on the way. And if he was ANY kind of man at all, he would take the responsibility to make sure HIS own flesh and blood was taken care of.

Elistariel
January 20th, 2005, 06:26 PM
YES!!
If you have sex, even with protection then you accept the fact that you could have kids.
Quite simply, if you're not ready to care for a child then don't have sex.

DragonsChest
January 20th, 2005, 06:33 PM
Wolf, you make some very very good points. Some mothers do use/save the money for their children, some do not. Those who don't should not be getting support. Father's rights do need to be considered, when the father cares enough to do the right thing.

I'm sorry you have been hurt like you have.

Elistariel
January 20th, 2005, 06:37 PM
as far as child support goes, the dad should have to send money for the CHILD. I don't know like, maybe have the mother save her grocery receipts and receipts from rent checks if she lives in an apartment, or whatever you have when you live in a house. And should be required to pay half of what went to the child, and a portion of the home payments. Food and Shelter. That sort of thing. He should have to pay for the child's needs ONLY.
Same goes for dad's who keep the kids while mom walks out.

edited to add:
When my parents were still married, my grandparents would send money for medicine when I had a cold or flu, or any other illness. My parents would spend the bulk of the money on cigarettes, and buy me cheapie meds. It's not that they got me the generic brand, it's that they bought the cheapest they could so they could have cigarettes. If you have change for something you bought for the child with money intended for the child - that change is NOT for you.

Silver_FireStar
January 20th, 2005, 06:38 PM
Well I agree with you who say no. Hell If I turned around and screwed my fella and got up the duff and he didn't want to be a dad ok it hurts and yeah it's partly his fault, but I know for a fact I'ld keep my baby even if he ordered me to terminate. And if I whent against that it's my choice not his. And if he told me from the start that he wanted no part in it then fine. He made his choice. I'ld hate him for it, but in the end, unless they change the law to allow him to force a termination they shouldn't force him to pay up if he let's the woman know from the start. I know I wouldn't force alamony from my guy. Unless he changed his mind, in which case I'ld backdate him and collect it for however long I haven't.

rottencandy7
January 20th, 2005, 06:41 PM
My personal opinion is... if you're going to play, be ready to pay...It takes 2 to tango, she certainly didn't make that baby alone. If they're adult enough to have sex then they should be adult enough to know accidents do happen. As I said, this is just my opinion..

hear hear

Tzhebee
January 20th, 2005, 06:43 PM
Wolf-first off, BRAVO.

Now, about this one particular spot:


And to go on further... I am SO SICK of the whole *FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY* thing that women seem to get into their heads over this subject... dammit, it is a CHILD, not a PAYCHECK.

Please explain that to my daughters' father who has verbally called his child "an 18 year car payment". :dis:

Elistariel
January 20th, 2005, 06:48 PM
Wolf-first off, BRAVO.

Now, about this one particular spot:


Please explain that to my daughters' father who has verbally called his child "an 18 year car payment". :dis:


Tzhebee, you have my permission to kick your daughter's father where the sun don't shine.

Zoritsa_Nepenthe
January 20th, 2005, 06:59 PM
My personal opinion is... if you're going to play, be ready to pay...It takes 2 to tango, she certainly didn't make that baby alone. If they're adult enough to have sex then they should be adult enough to know accidents do happen. As I said, this is just my opinion..Wonderful opinion...mine as well :lilangel:

Ceres
January 20th, 2005, 07:02 PM
ah...these things always get so complicated.

for some women is ISNT a choice....should a guy who knows his women feels this way, still has sex with her and then tells her to just get an abortion be off the hook?

there are as many exceptions as there are rules so i think it has to be a case by case decision.

Rhianna813
January 20th, 2005, 07:04 PM
I am definitely of the "you play, you pay" camp too. Birth control does not advertise being 100% effective, therefore just because a condom was used doesn't mean you signed some contract that you decline any responsibility for the outcome.

Also, if someone uses a condom and had no intent on getting an STD but they got one anyway, doesn't mean they can pretend they don't have it. My point is "intent" is one thing and your "actions" are another.

Rhianna

Wolf O Volos
January 20th, 2005, 07:20 PM
Now, about this one particular spot:


Please explain that to my daughters' father who has verbally called his child "an 18 year car payment". :dis:


Then I say He is just as much a punk as anybody else who sees dollar signs when looking into the eyes of their children.
Kids, as far as I can tell, do not ASK to be born. WE bring them forth into this world. It is our responsibilty as people, as members of the sacred nature all around us, as PARENTS for crying out loud, to see to it that the children we have been gifted with are growing up happy, healthy, and loved. Point blank.

SSanf
January 20th, 2005, 07:22 PM
Good grief, when I was growing up, condoms were still illegal in Virginia! In the generation before me and for most of my generation , even back to the beggining of time almost every single person born was an accident. When did it suddenly become OK for ANYONE not to be held responsible for their own offspring? That is plain crazy. Accident or not, they are your children and you parents are both responsible.

If you don't want kids, don't go dinky dipping. It's as simple as that. It worked for my grandparents, it worked for me and it will work for you, too.

And, it isn't as if you have to have sex. For the most part, we didn't until we were at the altar. And, guess what. We were normal, healthy and fully functional, sexual human beings. If we could do it why can't you?

Have some standards. Don't do things that can result in babies when you don't want babies. I know you know where they come from.

I want to be clear this post is for any reader who it pertains to not just the original poster.

Faeawyn
January 20th, 2005, 08:18 PM
If you don't want kids, don't go dinky dipping.
My god...that was Brilliant!!! :rotfl: I'm going to have to use that phrase the first opportunity I get :lol:

Now...back on topic. Everyone made some wonderfully valid points.....but does it not seem at all unfair that the choice of whether the couple become parents or not is primarily the womans?? What if the father wants the women to have the child....but the women chooses an abortion?? She does have that right.....but is it fair??

Elistariel
January 20th, 2005, 08:37 PM
My god...that was Brilliant!!! :rotfl: I'm going to have to use that phrase the first opportunity I get :lol:

Now...back on topic. Everyone made some wonderfully valid points.....but does it not seem at all unfair that the choice of whether the couple become parents or not is primarily the womans?? What if the father wants the women to have the child....but the women chooses an abortion?? She does have that right.....but is it fair??

No it's not fair. That's kinda what happened to my dad with my youngest (half) sister and brother. She didn't want either one of them, so she gave them to him. :whatmewor
I wasn't there for the situation. The oldest was 5 before I knew anything about either one of them. So, I can't give details.

Xander67
January 20th, 2005, 09:06 PM
I think that the father at the very least SHOULD pay Child support.

The law says he should too!

Old Witch
January 20th, 2005, 09:57 PM
A boy would deny responsibility.......a man would step up to the plate and be a father....

Wolf O Volos
January 20th, 2005, 10:50 PM
What if the father wants the women to have the child....but the women chooses an abortion?? She does have that right.....but is it fair??


Actually, Faeawyn, that was half the point of my rant. Fathers deserve some of the recognition as well. Lets look at this in terms of whether one of them wants to abort, or terminate the prgnancy. Lets say that the dad finds out there was a hole in the condom ( for example ) and decides, "You know, this was not supposed to happen, but what a Blessing! I am going to be a father!".... but the mother to be decides she cannot go through having a child... Is it proper or fair for her to go ahead and terminate the pregnancy? I do not think it is. To deny a person their child, whether the circumstances are satisfactory or not, is still denying the person a chance at parenthood. Especially if the person really wants to go through with being a parent. The psychological pain of losing a child... whether he carries it in his body for 9 months or not, can be just as devastating and heartbreaking for a father. Interesting how it hardly ever gets brought up though....

ravenmyst
January 20th, 2005, 11:02 PM
This is my experience and how I dealt with my kids dads. My daughters father and I had a casual thing going, no plans for a long lasting thing. My doctor neglected to mention antibiotics being bad for the pill, so I got preggers. He had already gone by the time I found out, I made the decision to keep her. I notified him she existed. He asked what I wanted, I said dont drop dead of a heart attack if she shows up with questions, thats all I want, guess that worked for him as we have not heard from him since. Now my son was a bit different, his dad swore he would be there and then abandoned us when our son was 10 months old, he said he would give $250 a month to help pay for food, housing, clothes, etc...he didnt for 10 yrs, now he owes alot in back support, but once he decided to care I made sure to make visiting as easy as possible, not guilt tripping him or any of that. My point is, both parents have a responsibility to their child, however it does USUALLY default to mom. Mom has the right to request help, kids arent cheap, you require a bigger house, need babysitting to help with keeping a job, they eat, require clothes, diapers, eventually school stuff, etc....I couldnt say ok, this $250 was used for this specific thing to support that kid only, however if you add uo a 1/3 of my costs to live with me and the 2 kids you can be assured it is more than $250, and if you add up 1/3 of the cost for the 10 years he didnt help it would add up to more than the 45,000 in back pay he owes me. If I get it later and use it for something not for the boy am I less deserving of it? I paid for my son all those years without question, my son is not a cash cow. I dont know the answer, but I can tell you this, my kids are taken care of and loved for the wonders they are whether those who donated biologically care or help or not, help is appreciated, not required. I would more prefer that the dads come see the kids, spend time getting to know them, appreciate them for who they are,etc... My sons dad is doing that now, it is much more important than the fact child support is now being sent.

wolf
January 20th, 2005, 11:35 PM
I believe that Montel put it best ...

If you don't want to make the bank withdrawals, don't make the sperm deposit.

Wanted by him or not, intended by him or the man is 50% responsible for the pregnancy, and should provide financial support.

Wolf O Volos
January 21st, 2005, 01:57 AM
See what I mean about *Financial* issues. He OWES me? No, he owes the children.

I do not want to make anyone angry... but seeing as I am already angry about a lot of things, and some of the pitifully short sighted responses I have seen in this and many other posts... I will chance it.

You see, I do not get how someone, who actually gets to RAISE the child... be with the child... watch the child grow EVERY DAY, and not just on the weekends that she deems worthy... someone who gets to read a book at their liesure with their child... or someone who gets to hug away the nightmares their child may have in the middle of the night gets off BITCHING about how hard it is to afford. If you took emotional damage, stress, and heartache, and put a dollar value on it, and compared that dollar value to any ammount of "BACK OWED Child Support"... I wonder what the scales would turn out to say.... as I said in an earlier post... my situation is probably NOT the norm. But My situation exists. And if it exists for me, then I KNOW it exists for others. And I for one, am sick and tired of hearing someone who is SOOOO Blessed to have the abilities to be THAT much a part of the child's life complaining about MONEY. I would NEVER look at my daughters and think "Cha-Ching!" and piss and moan about what was OWED to me if only I could have the quality time that their mothers have on an every day basis for just a while....

When are you people going to realize... it takes a HELL of a lot more than MONEY to raise a child. I am so broke right now, that I have to roll pennies to make sure I have enough money to pay my rent. Does that mean I stop paying child support for my children? Not on your life. And what about the daughter I actually get to keep? Think it is fair to her that I have to feed her Cheerios for dinner some days when I am waiting to be paid from work? But you know... I do not complain, unless in a forum like this, and ONLY to make the point... as Broke as I am, and as frustrated as it gets me to have to recycle pop cans and bottles to get us dinner some nights... I thank the goddess EVERY single day that I get to spend that day with my Lexie. And I thank the Goddess for all the things Lexie and I can share. And more often than not, you will not hear me complain about a thing financially as far as raising her, because I don't feel you can put a cost on what it is to have that special little someone in your life to share those parent/child experiences with.

I think I am done with this thread... I am gonna end up as frustrated with this one as some of the others I have ranted in about the whole "Dollar signs in their eyes" aspect of child upbringing and support orders....

May the Goddess bless each and every one of us with compassion and understanding.

SSanf
January 21st, 2005, 01:57 AM
Well, I have a couple of not yet quite formed thoughts. I think men should have more say in the termination of a pregnancy. But, of course how does he prove he has parental rights before DNA testing can be done? That is a sticky wicket.

Also, I think men should have more opportunity to be the custodial parent if they want to. Why does it always default to the woman, now anyway. I believe before the 20th century the man generally did keep custody if the parents separated because he was presumed more able to provide financially for the children. In fact, I think that was a big reason women stayed in marriages, so they wouldn't lose their children. If a woman ran around, she ALWAYS lost her children to the man.

Just because something is done a certain way, now, does not mean it has always been that way or always thought the right way to do it. Nor, does it mean it will continue that way.

Also, while I admit every pregnancy is different and some women do suffer, I think way too much is made of it. I have had two, one natural (well as much as it was natural back then) and one c-section. But, come on, gals. For the normal healthy woman other than tossing your cookies in the AM and tender titties, you don't even begin to show much until the 5th or 6th month. You are pretty far along before the foot swelling, big belly and such happens. So, we are talking about 3 or 4 months of really being inconvenienced by pregnancy. Now, you know, that isn't a real long time to be a bit uncomfortable in order that someone else can live.

So, when someone talks about carrying a child nine months, it isn't as if you are blown up like a ballon the whole time. Heck, many don't even know or are not sure they even are pregnant the first couple of months.

Note: Yes I had seven. His, mine, ours and other peoples!

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 02:56 AM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.Me and hubby were JUST talking about this the other night. I think its bull**** that a guy has to pay for a kid he didnt want to have. He wore a condom. She could have an abortion or adopt out if she didnt want the baby herself. Its her choice to have that kid, she shoud pay for it herself. Right at pregnancy the guy should have an option to sign his rights away, not paying child support.....as should the girl actually. If the guy wants that baby the girl should HAVE to have it and give it to him and sign her rights away, not paying any child support....it would probably never work, but I like the idea.

just to clarify, Im talking about accident babies, not planned ones.

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 03:11 AM
Me and hubby were JUST talking about this the other night. I think its bull**** that a guy has to pay for a kid he didnt want to have. He wore a condom. She could have an abortion or adopt out if she didnt want the baby herself. Its her choice to have that kid, she shoud pay for it herself. Right at pregnancy the guy should have an option to sign his rights away, not paying child support.....as should the girl actually. If the guy wants that baby the girl should HAVE to have it and give it to him and sign her rights away, not paying any child support....it would probably never work, but I like the idea.

just to clarify, Im talking about accident babies, not planned ones.

Condom or no, if you can't take care of a baby keep your britches on. No it's not always HER choice. Women don't CHOOSE to become pregant. They choose to do the act that could potentially make them pregnant. As someone said earlier, it takes TWO to tango. No one ever became pregant by sheer whim. If a man doesn't want to pay support, and the mother agrees, OR visversa, then that should be allowed. It IS allowed. My father never gave me a single penny. If a guy or girl doesn't want kids, but is willing to have sex, there is a thing called masturbation. It will save everyone a lot of trouble and heartache.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 03:47 AM
Condom or no, if you can't take care of a baby keep your britches on. No it's not always HER choice. Women don't CHOOSE to become pregant. They choose to do the act that could potentially make them pregnant. As someone said earlier, it takes TWO to tango. No one ever became pregant by sheer whim. If a man doesn't want to pay support, and the mother agrees, OR visversa, then that should be allowed. It IS allowed. My father never gave me a single penny. If a guy or girl doesn't want kids, but is willing to have sex, there is a thing called masturbation. It will save everyone a lot of trouble and heartache.
This is true, it does take two, so shouldnt it take two to decide to keep the baby or not? I think it should, but it doesnt. So why should the guy pay for a kid he would decide not to keep if given the choice? He should be given the choice. IMHO

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 03:50 AM
This is true, it does take two, so shouldnt it take two to decide to keep the baby or not? I think it should, but it doesnt. So why should the guy pay for a kid he would decide not to keep if given the choice? He should be given the choice. IMHO

I do think each should have a say. That's what court dates are for, when the two cannot agree.

Temptation
January 21st, 2005, 03:54 AM
I agree with those who said that if you're not ready to face the potential consequences, you should just refrain from having sex. There is no guarantee that birth control will work 100% of the time. A child's life is too important to gamble with.

Now if the deed is done and the woman wants to keep the baby against the father's wishes, I don't think he should be forced to support a child he doesn't want or love.
Like Wolf o Volos said, being a parent involves a LOT more than just financial aspects. The most important ingredient is love, if that is missing everything else becomes meaningless.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 04:00 AM
I do think each should have a say. That's what court dates are for, when the two cannot agree.
There are no court dates to decide on abortion, a guy has no say what so ever in that. There are no court dates for signing over your rights in exchange for not paying child support. I think there should be though.

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 04:09 AM
There are no court dates to decide on abortion, a guy has no say what so ever in that. There are no court dates for signing over your rights in exchange for not paying child support. I think there should be though.
first part - I agree with you there. There should be a law or something stating that if the mother is physically and mentally capable of bearing a child she should, and if the man is fit to be a father he should be allowed to.
second part - yes there are. I'm proof. My dad told the courts that if he didnt' have to pay, he wouldn't ask for visitation. He signed over his rights as a father in order not to pay.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 04:12 AM
first part - I agree with you there. There should be a law or something stating that if the mother is physically and mentally capable of bearing a child she should, and if the man is fit to be a father he should be allowed to.
second part - yes there are. I'm proof. My dad told the courts that if he didnt' have to pay, he wouldn't ask for visitation. He signed over his rights as a father in order not to pay.
Unless that order was made in supreme court, wich isn't likely, but possible, its changeable. An order is always changeable and your mom could have taken him back to court at any time and won. If a judge says pay, you pay and it doesn't matter what past agreements you have.

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 04:28 AM
Unless that order was made in supreme court, wich isn't likely, but possible, its changeable. An order is always changeable and your mom could have taken him back to court at any time and won. If a judge says pay, you pay and it doesn't matter what past agreements you have.

Actually my mom preferred that arangement. It was by far the best one.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 12:53 PM
Actually my mom preferred that arangement. It was by far the best one.your not getting the point, your mom COULD have taken him back to court, if she wanted. Most women would have. I dont think they should be allowed to. Your not proving any kind of argument so I still think the way I said it would be whats fair. Enough of these double standards, women want to be equals so give them what they want. Quite frankly seeing the same girl have 9 abortions is crap, especially when 6 out of the 9 had fathers who wanted them. Thats 6 children who had loving fathers, dead. Iv posted my opinions and Im done now.

soilsigh aingeal
January 21st, 2005, 01:07 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.No birth control isn't 100% effective. They should take that into consideration. I don't think it's fair to force a girl to have an abortion or give her baby up for adoption regardless. It takes two to tango.

djmixon
January 21st, 2005, 01:10 PM
My personal opinion is... if you're going to play, be ready to pay...It takes 2 to tango, she certainly didn't make that baby alone. If they're adult enough to have sex then they should be adult enough to know accidents do happen. As I said, this is just my opinion..
That is my opinion, too. . .

Donna

djmixon
January 21st, 2005, 01:13 PM
There are no court dates for signing over your rights in exchange for not paying child support.
I don't think this is correct. . .once you give up your parental rights, part of the order is to sever your financial responsiblity, too. So, once a guy terminates his rights, he no longer has to pay child support.

Donna

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 01:18 PM
I don't think this is correct. . .once you give up your parental rights, part of the order is to sever your financial responsiblity, too. So, once a guy terminates his rights, he no longer has to pay child support.

DonnaIm a legal assistant, its true, in canada at least. The only way to comletely be free of any chance of child support is to adopt out your kid. Even then, if its the new hubby of the mother, that you sign your rights over to, they can still take you to court and win. An Order is always changeable unless made in Supreme Court.

Signing over your rights in exchange for no child support is a VERY common misconseption.

djmixon
January 21st, 2005, 01:25 PM
Im a legal assistant, its true, in canada at least. The only way to comletely be free of any chance of child support is to adopt out your kid. Even then, if its the new hubby of the mother, that you sign your rights over to, they can still take you to court and win. An Order is always changeable unless made in Supreme Court.

Signing over your rights in exchange for no child support is a VERY common misconseption.
I am in the US, and I believe a parent can terminate their rights and responsibilities in one fell swoop.

Donna

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 01:31 PM
your not getting the point, your mom COULD have taken him back to court, if she wanted. Most women would have. I dont think they should be allowed to. Your not proving any kind of argument so I still think the way I said it would be whats fair. Enough of these double standards, women want to be equals so give them what they want. Quite frankly seeing the same girl have 9 abortions is crap, especially when 6 out of the 9 had fathers who wanted them. Thats 6 children who had loving fathers, dead. Iv posted my opinions and Im done now.

I do get the point. I was merely telling what happened in that particular situation. I think that once you make a decision, you should stick to that decision though. I said earlier that I think the mothers should have the deceny to let the fathers have the children - if they are mentally and physically capable of it.

Elistariel
January 21st, 2005, 01:36 PM
I am in the US, and I believe a parent can terminate their rights and responsibilities in one fell swoop.

Donna

They can. My dad did. My parents divorced when I was 7. Each was in a different state, so it was a long distance divorce. My dad said if he didn't have to pay child support, then he would not ask for visitation. My mother agreed to it. Thus, my dad never sent me a penny.
that was just me though

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 01:41 PM
I am in the US, and I believe a parent can terminate their rights and responsibilities in one fell swoop.

Donna
ahhhh, that explains it then. You cant do that here.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 01:46 PM
They can. My dad did. My parents divorced when I was 7. Each was in a different state, so it was a long distance divorce. My dad said if he didn't have to pay child support, then he would not ask for visitation. My mother agreed to it. Thus, my dad never sent me a penny.
that was just me thoughthat just means your mom is a good person. It doesnt mean she couldnt have taken him to court and won. The desion was really HERS, if she didnt agree to it, it would never have happened.

But I guess being in the states, if he had have said it infront of a judge or lawyer it would have been legally binding on both parts...and thats good, I wish it were the same in Canada.


edited to add: as Im thinking about it, it doesnt seem right, in the Us alls you have to do is say I dont want to see the kid and bam, no child support? That doesnt seem right, every dead beat dad would be signing their rights away...I dont think its that easy, even in the US....so do we have any USA lawyers here? lol

soilsigh aingeal
January 21st, 2005, 01:54 PM
edited to add: as Im thinking about it, it doesnt seem right, in the Us alls you have to do is say I dont want to see the kid and bam, no child support? That doesnt seem right, every dead beat dad would be signing their rights away...I dont think its that easy, even in the US.I was unaware that that was possible.

ETA: In fact, I know someone, her stepdaughter's mother was stripped of her parental rights, they could, if they felt like dealing with courts anymore, take her to court and get financial support for her.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 01:56 PM
I was unaware that that was possible.

The more I think about it, Im sure its not.

misschief
January 21st, 2005, 01:59 PM
I was unaware that that was possible.

ETA: In fact, I know someone, her stepdaughter's mother was stripped of her parental rights, they could, if they felt like dealing with courts anymore, take her to court and get financial support for her.it's not possible unless another man adopts the child. trust me, i've been to court for four years trying to achieve just that. it's impossible.

misschief
January 21st, 2005, 02:01 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.well.. since i have yet to meet a person old enough to have sex that was unaware that the act can create a child, yes, both of them should be held accountable and both should be forced to be responsible. bottom line. period. when you know what can happen and don't like the outcome, then don't do it.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 02:07 PM
it's not possible unless another man adopts the child. trust me, i've been to court for four years trying to achieve just that. it's impossible.
it sounds pretty much the same as here. But here, even if another man adopts the child, you can still go to court and take them for support...because an order is always changable. Its very rare that it happens, but with the laws as they are, its totally possible.

djmixon
January 21st, 2005, 02:15 PM
I was unaware that that was possible.

ETA: In fact, I know someone, her stepdaughter's mother was stripped of her parental rights, they could, if they felt like dealing with courts anymore, take her to court and get financial support for her.
With my youngest child, the father decided he did not want to be a part of things and started making noises that he wasn't the father. Whatever. . .

I never took a penny from him. All I wanted was for him to sign a document (court document drawn up by my attorney who was also a judge) that acknowledged he was the father and strip him of his paternal rights and responsibilities. I wanted it only for my daughter's peace of mind. . .nothing more, nothing less. I also wanted a medical history of his family, so we would know if there was anything we should be aware of for her future. He balked - which I never understood why. . .

Now, 14 years later, he calls me up to take care of his 12-stepping responsibilities to gain forgiveness of what he did in the past. . .no biggie, but he never wanted to talk to our daughter. . .and to think I was engaged to this guy. . .:noway:. . .ah well, he missed out. . .she is a heck of kid and he will never know that - his loss. BTW, I don't diss him to her, either. I just tell her he made some bad choices and he never really loved himself and that made it hard for him to show love to anyone else. That it has nothing to do with her or me. . .it is all inside him.

So, YES, it can be done. . .it may take both parties to do it, though, depending on the state. And it isn't cheap.

djmixon
January 21st, 2005, 02:18 PM
it doesnt seem right, in the Us alls you have to do is say I dont want to see the kid and bam, no child support? That doesnt seem right, every dead beat dad would be signing their rights away...I dont think its that easy, even in the US....so do we have any USA lawyers here? lol
Child support and visitation are TWO separate issues. . .just because a parent (mother or father) does not pay child support, does not give the other parent the right to withhold visitation. And yes, you can sign away your rights. . .it is not easy or cheap. . .and you need a lawyer who knows how to word the document property (aka an adoption attorney)

soilsigh aingeal
January 21st, 2005, 02:34 PM
With my youngest child, the father decided he did not want to be a part of things and started making noises that he wasn't the father. Whatever. . .

I never took a penny from him. All I wanted was for him to sign a document (court document drawn up by my attorney who was also a judge) that acknowledged he was the father and strip him of his paternal rights and responsibilities. I wanted it only for my daughter's peace of mind. . .nothing more, nothing less. I also wanted a medical history of his family, so we would know if there was anything we should be aware of for her future. He balked - which I never understood why. . .

Now, 14 years later, he calls me up to take care of his 12-stepping responsibilities to gain forgiveness of what he did in the past. . .no biggie, but he never wanted to talk to our daughter. . .and to think I was engaged to this guy. . .:noway:. . .ah well, he missed out. . .she is a heck of kid and he will never know that - his loss. BTW, I don't diss him to her, either. I just tell her he made some bad choices and he never really loved himself and that made it hard for him to show love to anyone else. That it has nothing to do with her or me. . .it is all inside him.

So, YES, it can be done. . .it may take both parties to do it, though, depending on the state. And it isn't cheap.Exactly, both parties would have to agree to no child support in order to get that outcome. My ex tried telling me he'd give up his parental rights in the past, that way he wouldn't have to pay support but I was later told that it didn't work that way.

ravenmyst
January 21st, 2005, 02:38 PM
See what I mean about *Financial* issues. He OWES me? No, he owes the children.

I do not want to make anyone angry... but seeing as I am already angry about a lot of things, and some of the pitifully short sighted responses I have seen in this and many other posts... I will chance it.

You see, I do not get how someone, who actually gets to RAISE the child... be with the child... watch the child grow EVERY DAY, and not just on the weekends that she deems worthy... someone who gets to read a book at their liesure with their child... or someone who gets to hug away the nightmares their child may have in the middle of the night gets off BITCHING about how hard it is to afford. If you took emotional damage, stress, and heartache, and put a dollar value on it, and compared that dollar value to any ammount of "BACK OWED Child Support"... I wonder what the scales would turn out to say.... as I said in an earlier post... my situation is probably NOT the norm. But My situation exists. And if it exists for me, then I KNOW it exists for others. And I for one, am sick and tired of hearing someone who is SOOOO Blessed to have the abilities to be THAT much a part of the child's life complaining about MONEY. I would NEVER look at my daughters and think "Cha-Ching!" and piss and moan about what was OWED to me if only I could have the quality time that their mothers have on an every day basis for just a while....

When are you people going to realize... it takes a HELL of a lot more than MONEY to raise a child.
Please dont judge us all by your experience, if I did that all men would be lumped into the heartless make baby and run from loving or caring or being responsible for that child catagory. Some women use support as revenge, that is a shame. Some men make babies all over the place and dont bother to care for them, love them, acknowledge their existance, or yes help support them. My ex DOES owe me the back child support as I have made sure my son never wanted for a home, clothes food meds school supplies etc....I filled that void, along with the void left by where is dad. A mother should not say stuff like, he didnt care or he hates you or any of that nonsense, she should be an adult and say, things happen, people arent perfect, and if the guy shows up when your child is a teen as my ex did, dont hold the child hostage for past monies, dig up all the school pics, tell him about the child you made together, smooth the rough spots so they can catch up. That is more important to me than the back support although it is still there. Our child is not and never has been a dollar sign. that said it still costs money to give that child a decent life, and that is both parents responsibility, unless only one made the decision to bring the child in the world as with my daughter. Neither have wanted for affection. I can only hope your ex gets over her issues enough to allow you to give your other child the affection and time you so desperately want to give. You are a rare and wonderful dad

audi
January 21st, 2005, 02:50 PM
my thought.
if i guy chooses to have sex then he takes that risk of an unplanned pregnancy. so yes. he played a part in the baby making- he has to be responsible for his choices, and the girl obviously has to be.
however it would be a good idea for the girl to talk this over with her partner before hand to know what his thoughts are.

ravenmyst
January 21st, 2005, 02:51 PM
My daughters father never had to pay, I think the mother has to push the issue to get child support started then it is the courts hands, regardless if he gives up rights. As he was never put in the system the courts never pursued him. However if the mother goes on public assistance the courts may indeed try to collect support. I must say some of the support requirements like %54 is severe overkill though, the father needs to live too

Rowenna
January 21st, 2005, 02:51 PM
The psychological pain of losing a child... whether he carries it in his body for 9 months or not, can be just as devastating and heartbreaking for a father. Interesting how it hardly ever gets brought up though....

My hubby is dealing with something like this. Years before we met each other, the girl that he was dating was cheating on him, treating him like crap, etc. etc....Anyways, he finally ditched her. A few months later, this girl's best friend went to Travis (my hubby) and told him that the ex had had an abortion and it was HIS child. He was distraught and to this day, nearly 12 years later, he still gets upset and depressed about it. He was 16 at the time and more than willing to take on a child and care for it, on his own if need be. Personally, I feel that there were a lot of holes in the friend's story, and my personal inclination is to believe that they made the whole thing up just to mess with him. Which of course has no bearing on this topic, but Trav still believes their story to be true, no matter how many holes I point out, and suffers over it.

~~Cypher~~
January 21st, 2005, 03:35 PM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.


The man should not have pulled his penis out... we all know protection is only 99% effective... i think the man should be held financially responisble... just because he pays for the child does not make him a father... raising that child does...

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 04:08 PM
Okay, lots of points this late in the thread:

First, I do think the system (at least the local one I have any familiarity with) is severly screwed. On one hand, I know a great guy who hasn't been able to interact with his daughter (the mother had a better attorney) beyond a brief chance meeting in a grocery store when she was an infant but has been paying out up to half his income at a time her entire life. He wants to be a father to her, it kills him not to, especially now that he has gotten to experience her baby half-brother... but she's old enough it is questionable if fighting for things like visitation would be worse for her than not. Her mother is the very vindictive sort who made it clear that it was being done to punish him. And he is responsible enough to agree that he has a responsibility to the child, despite not being able to know her.

On the other hand I look at my aunt. She has fought hard to raise her kids well, to keep a roof over their heads and food in their stomachs. And most of the time without a scrap of help from dad... despite court orders. She never withheld visitation, but he usually couldn't be bothered. And he left when the oldest was about 9-10. These were his kids that he knew... not just sprouting sperm. And he had no problem just dropping them. Back child support is hers, not the kids. She covered for him. He owes her for covering his share of all of the responsibilities, for the savings she couldn't afford and the junk car she couldn't replace and the days off work to tend to the flu. And she will never get it. He will never pony up to the responsibility of having helped create children and raise them because he couldn't care less if they had ceased to exist the moment after he walked out the door.

So, on one hand we do need to look more closely at how a lot of fathers get shafted by the system. But sometimes laws are there to force people to do things they aren't willing to do on their own. Just because a child is unlucky enough to have a sperm donor type father who couldn't care less about the responsibilities of fatherhood, who is a complete and utter louse, doesn't mean that the child should be punished for it. Of the two (child/father) the father has the greater responsibility. Ideally he should put in more than his money, but the very least he can really be held accountable for is a share of the physical support of the child.

On the matter of a fling where he doesn't want it, uses"protection" and it fails, should he be responsible? I say yes, as things are now. Whatever the feelings of the woman (wanting it or not) he is still responsible. A metephore: let's imagine a driver. It is slick outside. His car is well maintained, tires are good, every possible precaution. But somehow he hits a patch of ice just right, skids out and hits another car. It doesn't matter what condition the other car is in... he/his insurance company have to pay. At most the other car will recieve a percentage of the fault. He will still have a share.

The woman isn't "choosing" to get pregnant anymore than he is (unless she deliberately sabatagues the condom...and that is a different issue.) Once conception happens it is different rules. It is her body. He doesn't get to make her go through invasive or traumatic experiences just so he doesn't have to shoulder the responsibility of having been part of an accident. It isn't a question of "fault"... it is a matter of having been involved and not being able to simply deny involvement because you don't want to have been part of it anymore. Even if abortion isn't traumatic, and she just wants the child, he still doesn't get to just bow out. He was involved... they were both playing the odds and she got a better roll of the dice than he did, but just because she "won" doesn't mean he doesn't have to pay his losses. If they both agree to an abortion, fine. If just he wants it, too bad.

And for the slightly double standard side: If she wants one and he doesn't, at this point I still say too bad for him. She is carrying the child and is more affected by the pregnancy. A fifty-fifty responsibility for the pregnancy, right? Well, he can't do his half of carrying the child to term. The only way I would consider "forcing" her to carry to term is if some sort of "rent" was figured for her womb, and fees for the energy expended in carrying the child and regaining her body after, and he pay her (in a relationship usually done both by maintaing the shelter and money and by 2 am cravings runs) for preforming his half of it. It is more than most can afford, but (just like the guy) she is only half responsible for it... she shouldn't get hit with the whole thing. Since that can't be changed, he does have a debt TO HER for covering a responsibility that is his. I'd even support child support requirements with her paying him. But he has to take custody. And no changing his mind halfway through. No changing his mind even early enough for an abortion without some serious consequences.

I know guys who would "punish" women with the pregnancy just like there are women who would "punish" men with child support.

DragonsChest
January 21st, 2005, 04:16 PM
Wonderful!!! Marvelous!!! I am so impressed with your ability to convey your thoughts in a coherent manner. Ember, as far as I am concerned, you have covered this topic the best I have ever seen it. You are to be commended, and I agree with every sentence in your post. Thank you for putting it so thoughtfully and in such clear terms. You are amazing. _handclapp

Athena-Nadine
January 21st, 2005, 04:20 PM
But what about the instances where both the man and the woman agree they will not have children, the woman chooses to take birth control, yet stops on purpose, without telling the man, tricking him, and getting pregnant against his wishes and against her own word?

DragonsChest
January 21st, 2005, 04:22 PM
Yes, this happens. Can the man tells her he has had a vascectomy, but really hasn't. Both sides can play that game: deception. But that's another thread.

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 04:47 PM
But what about the instances where both the man and the woman agree they will not have children, the woman chooses to take birth control, yet stops on purpose, without telling the man, tricking him, and getting pregnant against his wishes and against her own word?

I'd say he took his chances. There is always a degree of gambling in a relationship. He chose to sleep with someone willing to lie to him over this. Did he not know her well enough to know? Too bad. That is part of the chance in a relationship. Just like it is too bad for the girl who thinks he is telling the truth when he says "I'll always love you" but really will run the first time she's "late".


Can the man tells her he has had a vascectomy, but really hasn't.

I even know people who got pregnant with that AND birth control. Things happen. There is a matter of fate or chance at play... take you pick. I know people who are "perfectly fine" and trying who just haven't concieved after years... even decades, even with medical assistance. Either way, that is the risk you run. I say deal with it.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 04:53 PM
Okay, lots of points this late in the thread:



The woman isn't "choosing" to get pregnant anymore than he is (unless she deliberately sabatagues the condom...and that is a different issue.) Once conception happens it is different rules. It is her body. He doesn't get to make her go through invasive or traumatic experiences just so he doesn't have to shoulder the responsibility of having been part of an accident. It isn't a question of "fault"... it is a matter of having been involved and not being able to simply deny involvement because you don't want to have been part of it anymore. Even if abortion isn't traumatic, and she just wants the child, he still doesn't get to just bow out. He was involved... they were both playing the odds and she got a better roll of the dice than he did, but just because she "won" doesn't mean he doesn't have to pay his losses. If they both agree to an abortion, fine. If just he wants it, too bad.

And for the slightly double standard side: If she wants one and he doesn't, at this point I still say too bad for him. She is carrying the child and is more affected by the pregnancy. A fifty-fifty responsibility for the pregnancy, right? Well, he can't do his half of carrying the child to term. The only way I would consider "forcing" her to carry to term is if some sort of "rent" was figured for her womb, and fees for the energy expended in carrying the child and regaining her body after, and he pay her (in a relationship usually done both by maintaing the shelter and money and by 2 am cravings runs) for preforming his half of it. It is more than most can afford, but (just like the guy) she is only half responsible for it... she shouldn't get hit with the whole thing. Since that can't be changed, he does have a debt TO HER for covering a responsibility that is his. I'd even support child support requirements with her paying him. But he has to take custody. And no changing his mind halfway through. No changing his mind even early enough for an abortion without some serious consequences.

I know guys who would "punish" women with the pregnancy just like there are women who would "punish" men with child support.too bad for him....that sounds fair.

Its true, she is carrying the child and more physically affected, but, she knew that could happen when she had sex. So why does a guy have to stand up and take responsibility for having sex, but a girl doesn't, she can back out with abortion or adoption...there is no backing out for a guy. Just because its her body?? She should have thought of that before having sex. Its not a slightly double standard, it just is a double standard. She knows just as well as him what happens when you have sex.

I think they (the law) do it the way they do because people would just lie and take advantage of a good thing. We'd have planned pregnancies but the guys lie and say it was an accident, or the girl lies and says it was planned...and vice a versa..But I think a women should be forced to have the baby if the dad wants it.

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 04:57 PM
Wonderful!!! Marvelous!!! I am so impressed with your ability to convey your thoughts in a coherent manner. Ember, as far as I am concerned, you have covered this topic the best I have ever seen it. You are to be commended, and I agree with every sentence in your post. Thank you for putting it so thoughtfully and in such clear terms. You are amazing. _handclapp

Thanks.

I had an ethics class a few years back where I got tangled in this debate. So I tried to figure out the math of just assuming they both had 50/50 responsibilities. A LOT of scrap paper later I had this and a few other things worked out in a way I could agree with. Still is the basis for a lot of my general ethical theory: Are you doing your share? If not, who is doing it for you?

I don't think either gets to abort and call it good, they still have a debt hanging, but then it isn't to each other. It is to the one who no longer is. How to pay that off is a different matter/question. As long as someone is covering what you owe another, however, I think you owe the one picking up your tab. And they have a right to try to collect in kind or in trade.

They can do it out of love... and seriously, I don't think anyone ever comes out of life having squared all their "debts"... but if they aren't choosing freely to do it on your behalf, you owe them. If it is done out of love... well, that is why life is worth it, right? To owe and be owed because you want that "debt"/connection to exist?

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 05:07 PM
Its true, she is carrying the child and more physically affected, but, she knew that could happen when she had sex. So why does a guy have to stand up and take responsibility for having sex, but a girl doesn't, she can back out with abortion or adoption...there is no backing out for a guy. Just because its her body?? She should have thought of that before having sex. Its not a slightly double standard, it just is a double standard. She knows just as well as him what happens when you have sex.

Oh, I think she doesn't get to not "stand up and take responsibility" any more than he does. The difference is there is more of that for her initially. It is kinda an all or nothing sort of thing. So while she might be responsible for half (as is he), he shouldn't be able to make her responsible for all of that. If there was a way to make her only half carry the child.... but that isn't an option (even 4.5 months doesn't work here.) Like I said, if he is willing to cover his half of that, she shouldn't be able to back out. But how would you figure that cost? As things are, I think it is her choice because he can't pay for it. It isn't his choice because he can't pay for it. It is her choice because he cannot do "half". Either way, his responsibility maxes out at half, but he starts off with her having done enough more than that that he is waaaaay behind.

If there is a way to work out the "half" deal, like I said, I'm even for him with custody and her paying for support.

And they both knew it was a risk. Like you said. But he owes for half of it. To the kid. But she is the only one who who can pay the start up costs... and she only owes for half of them.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 05:11 PM
Oh, I think she doesn't get to not "stand up and take responsibility" any more than he does. The difference is there is more of that for her initially. It is kinda an all or nothing sort of thing. So while she might be responsible for half (as is he), he shouldn't be able to make her responsible for all of that. If there was a way to make her only half carry the child.... but that isn't an option (even 4.5 months doesn't work here.) Like I said, if he is willing to cover his half of that, she shouldn't be able to back out. But how would you figure that cost? As things are, I think it is her choice because he can't pay for it. It isn't his choice because he can't pay for it. It is her choice because he cannot do "half". Either way, his responsibility maxes out at half, but he starts off with her having done enough more than that that he is waaaaay behind.

If there is a way to work out the "half" deal, like I said, I'm even for him with custody and her paying for support.
How would you figure that cost? Thats a hard one, but it could be done. Personally, I dont think it should matter, she knew the chance she was taking. Maybe if it wernt so easy to terminate the pregnacy less young women would be having sex.

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 05:18 PM
Personally, I dont think it should matter, she knew the chance she was taking.

So did he. It happened. So after that it comes down to what is most fair. And I think only those covering their half of the responsibilities get a vote. Biology cheated him. He cannot do it the same way she does. So unless he finds a way to make up for that, he doesn't get a say. If he is going to house and support her through the pregnancy while her only responsibility is the pregnancy... well it is at the very least an opening bid. If he wants to decide when the only responsibility he is facing is the possibility of child support, tough.

Wolf O Volos
January 21st, 2005, 05:20 PM
*sigh* after reading more responses in this thread I said I was not going to come look at any more... I realize I should have kept my word and stayed out. I am so thouroughly disgusted, I doubt I will ever post in the family and parenting forum anymore. Just stick to the general Talk, and the Artsy stuff.

How sad that people look at their children like commodities, and property. How seriously saddenning it is to know that there are SO many who seem to think that a man has nor right to make a woman give birth to a child, but the same woman who says she would not bear the child for 9 months, is the same one who in the next sentance demands that a man has to be responsible enough to give up half of his check... AND then says it is not about the money... LOL in a pitiful, and sarcastic kind of way...

Thanks for allowing me to see the dark underbelly of people's thoughts on this subject, though... Now I can understand a little better why I get so screwed over every time I walk in to Friend of the Court. If everyone that works for that department has similar views... Goddess save any man who ever has to deal with the BS I have been subjected to.

May I see some of you in other threads, in other forums, and be able to forget how hurt I am about the oppinions you carry, so that we can meet on grounds of friendship.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 05:24 PM
So did he. It happened. So after that it comes down to what is most fair. And I think only those covering their half of the responsibilities get a vote. Biology cheated him. He cannot do it the same way she does. So unless he finds a way to make up for that, he doesn't get a say. If he is going to house and support her through the pregnancy while her only responsibility is the pregnancy... well it is at the very least an opening bid. If he wants to decide when the only responsibility he is facing is the possibility of child support, tough.
Thats already being done. If you have a woman willing to adopt her child out to you, I think you pay her for stuff during her pregnacy...I don't know the amount, but it could work similar for this? I think that could work you know?

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 05:32 PM
*sigh* after reading more responses in this thread I said I was not going to come look at any more... I realize I should have kept my word and stayed out. I am so thouroughly disgusted, I doubt I will ever post in the family and parenting forum anymore. Just stick to the general Talk, and the Artsy stuff.

How sad that people look at their children like commodities, and property. How seriously saddenning it is to know that there are SO many who seem to think that a man has nor right to make a woman give birth to a child, but the same woman who says she would not bear the child for 9 months, is the same one who in the next sentance demands that a man has to be responsible enough to give up half of his check... AND then says it is not about the money... LOL in a pitiful, and sarcastic kind of way...

Thanks for allowing me to see the dark underbelly of people's thoughts on this subject, though... Now I can understand a little better why I get so screwed over every time I walk in to Friend of the Court. If everyone that works for that department has similar views... Goddess save any man who ever has to deal with the BS I have been subjected to.

May I see some of you in other threads, in other forums, and be able to forget how hurt I am about the oppinions you carry, so that we can meet on grounds of friendship.

I dont see kids as commodities at all. Im just looking at it from a legal point of veiw. I have a 6 year old daughter, Iv been separated from my hubby, we didnt fight over our daughter at all, we shared her, shared costs, no court involved. It is sad that this happens, thats why I think something needs to change.

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 05:36 PM
How sad that people look at their children like commodities, and property. How seriously saddenning it is to know that there are SO many who seem to think that a man has nor right to make a woman give birth to a child, but the same woman who says she would not bear the child for 9 months, is the same one who in the next sentance demands that a man has to be responsible enough to give up half of his check... AND then says it is not about the money... LOL in a pitiful, and sarcastic kind of way...

Problem is, if either half is working from that POV (commodities), what can you do? You can't require love. The most you could get if you tried is something even worse for the kid: mandated, bitterness filled "quality time." I would much rather see both parents put in the time and paycheck. And I don't care which is custodial. But whichever one is trying to avoid responsibility can at least be held responsible for the money.

Unfortunately that is usually the man in our society. More often the child gets left with the woman to raise. Sometimes the issue is forced (he can take custody or the child will be adopted out) but even then adoption is more frequent than when she just decides to be custodial. Part of it is that our system is biast in favor of that, part of it is that not enough guys fight for it to change it.

Other than biological issues related to bearing the child, I don't think to could flip the man/woman halves of things and have me object. Whoever is taking care of the kid is owed by the one who isn't. Both owe the child. And if one is covering for the other, the otherone owes them. I know guys who put in a lot of time and a fair share of money who don't owe anything. I know guys who put in just the time who I would say are square. And I know guys who are owed (at least morally) by the woman for covering for her lack.

My only sticking point is with the abortion. Unless he can find someway to try to make up for not being able to help with the pregnacy (like substituting money) I don't think he gets a say there. I'm willing to settle for she bears it and no child support. I'm willing to settle for any arguement that isn't just sticking her with the pregnancy. But until then, I think it remains her choice.

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 05:41 PM
Thats already being done. If you have a woman willing to adopt her child out to you, I think you pay her...I don't know the amount, but it could work similar for this? I think that could work you know?

Something like that. Just without that in place, I don't think he gets a say. If something like that could be worked out equitably, I'd agree that he gets to deny her the abortion. But it is then his child. If done very equitably I'll support her paying child support too. Less equitably and I'd settle for he has sole responsibility after the birth. But not he just gets to choose because it is half his.

DragonsChest
January 21st, 2005, 05:45 PM
But I think a women should be forced to have the baby if the dad wants it.

In that case, that guy better be with me 24/7, waiting on me hand and foot, and I better not have to go to work outside the home, because if he is going to MAKE me have this child because HE wants it, then he's going to have to acknowledge that it's MY body that's going through changes that I don't want it to, and how in the world is he going to share in the physical risk that childbirth brings (maybe if I die in childbirth then he has to die, too? Share and share alike!), and then when it's born, he'd better sprout mammary glands so he can take care of the little mite himself.

Yes, this is over the top, but come on!!!! I should be FORCED to have the baby? :goodgrief

-Ember
January 21st, 2005, 05:52 PM
In that case, that guy better be with me 24/7, waiting on me hand and foot, and I better not have to go to work outside the home, because if he is going to MAKE me have this child because HE wants it, then he's going to have to acknowledge that it's MY body that's going through changes that I don't want it to, and how in the world is he going to share in the physical risk that childbirth brings (maybe if I die in childbirth then he has to die, too? Share and share alike!), and then when it's born, he'd better sprout mammary glands so he can take care of the little mite himself.

Yes, this is over the top, but come on!!!! I should be FORCED to have the baby? :goodgrief


In a lot of ways, this is what I'm saying: he can't share the actual pregnancy. Unless he can find some substitute, no. If he can find a substitute for it I would support him being able to "force" the woman to carry the child to term.

Think about a normal, loving couple who has a child together. He is there for her. He picks up the slack for many of her other responsibilities. He goes to greater extremes to make her comfortable. He agonises with her over discomforts and problems. She still is usually considered to be doing more than half, to be bearing "his" child out of love for him, but this guy does get some say. He is at least making a token effort to share the pregnancy.

Gwenhwyfar
January 21st, 2005, 05:54 PM
Something like that. Just without that in place, I don't think he gets a say. If something like that could be worked out equitably, I'd agree that he gets to deny her the abortion. But it is then his child. If done very equitably I'll support her paying child support too. Less equitably and I'd settle for he has sole responsibility after the birth. But not he just gets to choose because it is half his.
And that would be fair enough, as long as there was a system in place to help the dads who cant afford to pay that kind of money right at that time.

Lady Jade
January 21st, 2005, 07:34 PM
Doesn't anyone think the man should have equal right to choose not to be a parent? If a mom wants not to be a mommy, she can get an abortion, but he's stuck? Somehow that's unfair, as it is equally unfair that the mother can terminate a pregnancy without his rights being considered (maybe he wants the baby). If a couple gets pregnant and she chooses on her won to have/keep the baby, I think he should not have to be held responsible. Unpopular, but my opinion.

Dio
January 21st, 2005, 10:39 PM
All in all, I don't think there is any cut and dry way of thinking here. Someone is going to disagree with whether or not something is fair. Everyone's situation is different.

In the case of two parents wanting different things....it is pretty much going to be the women's decision regardless of what the man wants. You can try and come up with any way to balance out the decision but in reality, it will always be on the woman to decide. Yeah, they both equally decided to have sex, but once that act is over...where do the choices lie? Especially when the mother wants the child, wants nothing to do with the father, but still wants monetary support for her child. The legal system is actually set up in such a way as to perpetuate this very thing. Father pays...father doesn't get to be a father...

And when she is getting 50% of the father's paycheck, but refusing to let him have any part of his childs life...is this okay???

And when she gets married to another man....but is still getting 50% of the father's paycheck because she can...and still won't let the father be a part of the child's life..is this okay?

I dunno...being as my husband is going through this very situation. And even now that we have a child of our own, they still want 50% of his paycheck...which (we would hope at least some of that 50%) could be going to our own child...But that 50% goes to another family that he gets nothing to do with.....sigh

His only hope of ever getting to know his child is if one day she decides for herself that she wants to know who her real father is...(granted the mother hasn't told her he's dead)

Bronach Druid
January 22nd, 2005, 12:25 AM
I posed a very similar question awhile back. It ended up a very heated debate and ended up locked. :)
My opinion is her choice, her responsibility. It is unfair to hold him responsible when all the proper precautions were taken.

~~Cypher~~
January 22nd, 2005, 01:58 AM
Doesn't anyone think the man should have equal right to choose not to be a parent? If a mom wants not to be a mommy, she can get an abortion, but he's stuck? Somehow that's unfair, as it is equally unfair that the mother can terminate a pregnancy without his rights being considered (maybe he wants the baby). If a couple gets pregnant and she chooses on her won to have/keep the baby, I think he should not have to be held responsible. Unpopular, but my opinion.


The man had made the choice to become the parent.. when he stuck his penis in her vagina... period end of story... unless he had a vasectomy or she had her tubes tied... we all know the risk of doing the horizontal limbo...

soilsigh aingeal
January 22nd, 2005, 10:53 AM
I posed a very similar question awhile back. It ended up a very heated debate and ended up locked. :)
My opinion is her choice, her responsibility. It is unfair to hold him responsible when all the proper precautions were taken.Precautions or not, the only 100% sure fire way is to NOT have sex. Why does almost no one see it that way?

celestrialdragon
January 22nd, 2005, 11:39 AM
I think that every situation is different to every different person. This question has so many conflicting sides to it for me. I think if the situation is really as simple as the condom broke then yes he should be responsible. Everyone knows that the only fail proof way is to not have sex at all. But like I said, not every situation is as clear as that.

My brother had gotten a girl pregnant while he and she were doing drugs. She said she was going to keep it. Well he was fine with that and started to help her out financially, and made sure she went to the dr and all that. Well one day she wanted to do her dugs again, and he would not have it. Said it was bad for the baby and there was no way he would let her. So the next week she told him that she had an abortion. He had no reason to not believe her. So they went their sperate ways. Come to find out a year later that she didn't have an abortion and that she wanted money from him. I do not think this is fair of the mother. Not just because he is my brother, but dam what a selfish woman to do that. I personally do not think he should have to pay for a child he has no rights to. I also think that she should have the baby removed from her custody as well, with all the drugs and stuff.

Oh and on the subject of getting tubes tied and all, it can grow back. So can a male serilization. The way I look at that is, if you went out of your way to protect yourself from not getting pregnant and woops it happens, its for a reason. The Gods gave you a gift so to speak. But thats just my opinion.

Celtic Solstice
January 22nd, 2005, 02:06 PM
My two cents (Probably already said but I don't have time to read everything right now):

Yes - he is financially accountable.
No - he cannot force her to carry it because he wants it.

If he did not want it, and he expected her to use abortion as a contraceptive in the event of the failure of the contraception used, then he should have ascertained her position PRIOR to having sex with her. You have sex (particularly outside of wedlock) and you run the risk. Contraceptive failure is not any different from the absence of it when neither wanted to be pregnant. Why should SHE alone bear the responsibility of the contraception failure? I'm sorry but she did not cause it to fail any more than he did. Just because he made reasonable attempts to prevent it does not mean that his responsibility ends.

If he does want it, then AGAIN he should make certain that she is going to want to keep it ahead of time, but frankly - if she is willing she is probably not going to spend 9mos prego and then just give it up completely.

Abortion is the woman's choice NOT because of contraceptive reasons. It is her choice because she is the one who will bear the RISK and the PERMANENT physical changes that come with pregnancy. When the man can do that, he is more than welcome to keep the baby AND hold the mom financially accountable to the degree that we compensate men and women for their employment equally.

Celtic Solstice

Gwenhwyfar
January 22nd, 2005, 02:11 PM
My two cents (Probably already said but I don't have time to read everything right now):


It is her choice because she is the one who will bear the RISK and the PERMANENT physical changes that come with pregnancy.
Celtic Solstice
and she knew those risks just as well as him, if SHE doesnt want a baby She shouldnt have had sex...just like if a guy doesnt want to pay support he shouldnt have had sex, right?...The double standard is discusting.

soilsigh aingeal
January 22nd, 2005, 03:18 PM
and she knew those risks just as well as him, if SHE doesnt want a baby She shouldnt have had sex...just like if a guy doesnt want to pay support he shouldnt have had sex, right?...The double standard is discusting.So the only way it would be 'OK' to 'make' a father be responsible is if abortion was impossible?

Pure Ahimsa
January 22nd, 2005, 03:44 PM
If he had sex then he should have to pay money. If you do not want to deal with kids do not have sex, pure and simple.

-Ember
January 22nd, 2005, 04:09 PM
And that would be fair enough, as long as there was a system in place to help the dads who cant afford to pay that kind of money right at that time.


Would depend on how that is set up as to if I'd agree or not: I mean it isn't fair to be broke, but it isn't fair to make her do a pregnancy she doesn't want to have for nothing other than he wants it just because he is broke. Money isn't the only option, just the easiest/most obvious.

Gwenhwyfar
January 22nd, 2005, 04:23 PM
So the only way it would be 'OK' to 'make' a father be responsible is if abortion was impossible?
oh no, I dont think its as black and white as that at all...theres lots of cases where the father should be made responsible, and alot of cases where the mother should be made to be responsibe. but I said all that in my earlier posts. Im right there just saying everyone keeps going on about how "he knew what could happen", well so did she...but she doesnt have to just except whatever he decides to do....he has to except whatever SHE decides to do, and I dont think its fair just because its her body...because she knew the consequences.

BrigidMoon
January 22nd, 2005, 04:33 PM
It depends. Regardless of wanting or not, he is the father and maybe 20 years down the road or sooner he would want to be part of the child's life. That may or may not be okay to the mom or the child. The child to suddenly have 2 fathers or a father she/he never knew before? Very emotionally traumatic to go through at any age. I would want legal advise as a pregnant mother in regards to the father's legal responsibilities or what I could do to ease him permanently of those responsibilties.

Dio
January 22nd, 2005, 04:36 PM
..he has to except whatever SHE decides to do, and I dont think its fair just because its her body...because she knew the consequences.


Exactly! He has NO choice once conception occurs. The only equal choice they had was having sex...once that is over, it is no longer up to him.

She gets to choose whether or not to keep the baby.

She gets to choose whether or not she wants monetary support.

She gets to choose whether or not she wants the father to be a part of the child's life.


And no...it is NOT fair.

-Ember
January 22nd, 2005, 04:43 PM
The final thing it comes down to:

On the forced to carry/abort:

When one wants the child/chooses to keep it and the other doesn't, there is no 100% fair way to do it. Both are responsible for the conception, both took their chances. I've posted what to me seems to be as fair as possible. And to me that makes it the woman's choice. Not because he should be left out of the chouice, but because there is simply no way for him to really follow through with half of the responsibility for the pregnancy. After the birth he can, but until the child he born he simply can't do half. And so until then, as it is her body being affected, her health at risk, and her job that is often put in peril or at the least sidetracked (even if she doesn't keep the child: just the pregnancy can have huge detrimental effects in our culture's workplace)... as she is the one carrying the bulk of the risks and the bulk of the responsibilities (eating right, healthcare, etc) and the bulk of the negative effects (being too tired to do anything for months, hormonal changes, etc)... unless there is something that makes his half of the pregnancy equivalent... it has got to be her choice.

What does it cost him to decide to keep the child if she doesn't want it? Half the expenses. She gets that and all of the rest? Real fair.

You get an equal vote if you are putting in equal risks and effort, imo.

On the support:
There is absolutely no doubt that our system is screwed up in how it is run. The details are definately messed up. But the basic concept that both parents are responsible for at a minimum to provide physically/economically for the child I think is correct. We do need to fix the way it is run. But if you have sex, you took your chance. You don't get to cop out and say that if something else had been done it wouldn't have happened, therefore you have no responsibility. Just because you don't want the kid doesn't mean you don't have a responsability. As wrong as it it for it to be set up that way, even not being able to know the child relieves someone of having a responsibility.

We could argue details as to what amount of support is fair (50% of someone's income is rarely fair) under what circumstances, but I don't think it changes that (whatever the circumstances) if you willingly had sex, a child was concieved from it and born, you have SOME responsibility to that child that starts with a minimum of helping provide the financial/physical stability that any child ought to have.... something that usually is a matter of child support.

There are other options, but few fight for them (and they aren't always best for the kid.) Half time custody... no child support if you are raising the child 6 months out of twelve. But the original question was where the guy didn't want the child. If he is walking away from actually caring for the child, the least he can do is pay something. So she might have had an abortion... just because someone else could do something that would have let you off the hook and didn't doesn't relieve you of your own responsibilities. Someone else could cover a shift at work for me.... if they don't agree and I don't show up, I'll get fired even though someone else could work it.

pawnman
January 23rd, 2005, 10:44 AM
Another issue that could be raised here:

What about fathers who want to keep their children, but the woman wants to put it up for adoption? What rights does an unmarried father have in that case? What if she doesn't say anything and drops it at a "safe haven" (in those states that have them)? What if he wants the kid and she wants an abortion?

And if the father gets custody, does the woman then have to pay child support?

LightDancer
January 23rd, 2005, 11:24 AM
It's probably been said a million times, I haven't read the entire thread. If a guy impregnates a woman, no matter what precautions they took, that doesn't negate any responsibility on his part if she decides to keep it. That would be a copout. Just my opinion. I also think if a woman decides not to take care of a child, and the father ends up raising him/her, she should have to pay child support. So I'm not just pickin' on the guys;)

Jamie

Edited to add: and if whatever parent decides he/she doesn't want to be a parent OR pay support, they should sign away their rights. I have a friend who had a baby with this guy, and not only does he not pay child support most months(owes ALOT of back support), he never sees his child. Her current husband wants to adopt her child but the 'sperm doner' won't sign away his rights for some totally irrational reason. Something like 'I don't want another guy raising my kid' riiiiight :geez:

Celtic Solstice
January 23rd, 2005, 07:07 PM
and she knew those risks just as well as him, if SHE doesnt want a baby She shouldnt have had sex...just like if a guy doesnt want to pay support he shouldnt have had sex, right?...The double standard is discusting.

Double standard? How so? Since when were men capable of getting pregnant? I'm pro-choice, but I am very much against the idea of abortion as a contraceptive. There are medical & psychological consequences of continuing OR terminating a pregnancy that relate ONLY to the mother. This is why it must be her choice with the advice of her doctor as to whether or not to continue or terminate the pregnancy. When you start getting into the game of requiring a woman to terminate or continue a pregnancy, you start getting into the game of violating a person's civil rights, and treating a woman's PHYSICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL health as inferior to the man's.

Assuming that if the contraception fails that she will or will not get an abortion is plain idiocy and presumption on his part. This is not a double standard. Both "parents" share the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Both are financially responsible for the medical and supportive results of that pregnancy. Both should fund the abortion if this is chosen, the medical care if required if abortion is not. The question of financial support is NOT relevant to the choice of abortion.

This is my opinion: I think that the question of abortion as an option clouds the issue, here. Get rid of it as the issue. Make the issue parental rights and responsibility. Personally, I do not think that the issue is that the guy does not get to make the terribly painful decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy within his own body. I think the issue is what happens after the birth.

This is where the REAL double standard arrives. At birth, a mother can give up her child for adoption. At that point, all of her rights are severed AND she bears no further financial responsibility for that child. If the father claims the child, and the law does not require HER to provide financial support to him, BUT it requires it of HIM in the reversed situation THIS is a double standard...

Both parents should be permitted the same freedom or neither should be permitted the freedom to terminate rights (and financial responsibility).

I add one qualifier: the income of women in this country is only 70% of men's. The largest group of people in poverty is children and women with children. Until this is equalized, I do think that if a woman is to be offered equal choice of a man to keep keep the child, he will have the responsibility of making up that difference. I'm sure that I will be accused of making a double standard here, but the fact is that our society is not yet balanced in regard to genders, and until women have all the privileges of men there is going to be an imbalance of responsibility. It is a societal responsibility.

(Naturally in the case of a woman who is earning $100,000 salary and a man who is earning $30,000 this will be irrelevant, but where there is an imbalance such that the man could choose financiall to keep the child but she cannot there will probably continue to be a requirement that the man help out financially support the child. What I would propose as fair is that if he severs all rights to the child permanently as you would with an adoption, that his financial responsibility be less. In cases where there was a common law marriage or legal marriage or continued relationship after the birth, I think that the man should bear the responsibility just like her though. I don't like the idea of a man getting a woman with child after child "accidentally" and not respecting the fates of these children. He has to cut off all ties - never know the fate of his child(ren) until at 18 if they choose to seek him out. (I also think that there should be something to ensure that a man is not going around getting women pregnant and abandoning the children and mothers and leaving the burden to society & the mothers).

I know this probably will not be popular - generally speaking there is a lot of societal pressures to get guys to be more responsible, but I don't see how you can do this fairly otherwise.

Celtic Solstice

Gwenhwyfar
January 23rd, 2005, 08:05 PM
Double standard? How so? Since when were men capable of getting pregnant? I'm pro-choice, but I am very much against the idea of abortion as a contraceptive. There are medical & psychological consequences of continuing OR terminating a pregnancy that relate ONLY to the mother. This is why it must be her choice with the advice of her doctor as to whether or not to continue or terminate the pregnancy. When you start getting into the game of requiring a woman to terminate or continue a pregnancy, you start getting into the game of violating a person's civil rights, and treating a woman's PHYSICAL & PSYCHOLOGICAL health as inferior to the man's.

Assuming that if the contraception fails that she will or will not get an abortion is plain idiocy and presumption on his part. This is not a double standard. Both "parents" share the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. Both are financially responsible for the medical and supportive results of that pregnancy. Both should fund the abortion if this is chosen, the medical care if required if abortion is not. The question of financial support is NOT relevant to the choice of abortion.

This is my opinion: I think that the question of abortion as an option clouds the issue, here. Get rid of it as the issue. Make the issue parental rights and responsibility. Personally, I do not think that the issue is that poor oh poor mister does not get to make the terribly painful decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy within his own body (boo-hoo). I think the issue is what happens after the birth.

This is where the REAL double standard arrives. At birth, a mother can give up her child for adoption. At that point, all of her rights are severed AND she bears no further financial responsibility for that child. If the father claims the child, and the law does not require HER to provide financial support to him, BUT it requires it of HIM in the reversed situation THIS is a double standard...

Both parents should be permitted the same freedom or neither should be permitted the freedom to terminate rights (and financial responsibility).

I add one qualifier: the income of women in this country is only 70% of men's. The largest group of people in poverty is children and women with children. Until this is equalized, I do think that if a woman is to be offered equal choice of a man to keep keep the child, he will have the responsibility of making up that difference. I'm sure that I will be accused of making a double standard here, but the fact is that our society is not yet balanced in regard to genders, and until women have all the privileges of men there is going to be an imbalance of responsibility. It is a societal responsibility.

(Naturally in the case of a woman who is earning $100,000 salary and a man who is earning $30,000 this will be irrelevant, but where there is an imbalance such that the man could choose financiall to keep the child but she cannot there will probably continue to be a requirement that the man help out financially support the child. What I would propose as fair is that if he severs all rights to the child permanently as you would with an adoption, that his financial responsibility be less. In cases where there was a common law marriage or legal marriage or continued relationship after the birth, I think that the man should bear the responsibility just like her though. I don't like the idea of a man getting a woman with child after child "accidentally" and not respecting the fates of these children. He has to cut off all ties - never know the fate of his child(ren) until at 18 if they choose to seek him out. (I also think that there should be something to ensure that a man is not going around getting women pregnant and abandoning the children and mothers and leaving the burden to society & the mothers).

I know this probably will not be popular - generally speaking there is a lot of societal pressures to get guys to be more responsible, but I don't see how you can do this fairly otherwise.

Celtic Solstice
And the mother knew the risks when she got pregnant, just as well as he did...did you read the whole thread? Im not retyping that all out for you. My opinion is all through this thread and Im quite done here, your right, we've gotton off topic.....well I will say one last time, if the dad wants the baby the woman should not be aloud an abortion...kinda lilke how you said "poor oh poor mister does not get to make the terribly painful decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy within his own body (boo-hoo)"....I say, " oh poor little girl shouldnt have opened her legs so easily, now she has to give birth (waaaaaaaaa)"...anyways, its your opinion and your entitled to it.

Jade Moon
January 23rd, 2005, 08:13 PM
I don't think the man should be held responsible.......but If he is a REAL man he would want to be. If he doesn't take the responsibility, then you and your child are probably better off without him anyway! (I'm quoting my fiance here!)

Celtic Solstice
January 24th, 2005, 12:50 AM
And the mother knew the risks when she got pregnant, just as well as he did...did you read the whole thread? Im not retyping that all out for you. My opinion is all through this thread and Im quite done here, your right, we've gotton off topic.....well I will say one last time, if the dad wants the baby the woman should not be aloud an abortion...kinda lilke how you said "poor oh poor mister does not get to make the terribly painful decision of whether or not to terminate a pregnancy within his own body (boo-hoo)"....I say, " oh poor little girl shouldnt have opened her legs so easily, now she has to give birth (waaaaaaaaa)"...anyways, its your opinion and your entitled to it.

Sorry about the "boo-hoo" comment - as my husband said, I should have put a smiley next to it to attempt to take away the sting (and I will go back and do this now), but yes, I have, and your condensed statement is exactly what I object to: the idea that a man has a right to force a woman to have a baby against her will (or conversely to force a woman to have an abortion against her will).

Maybe it does not seem fair that a man does not get to make the ultimate choice and that a woman can entirely exclude him from it. (In practicality, if there is a relationship between them, his wishes will probably have a lot of sway, so I think we all have to admit that unless he was going around having one-night stands, he does have some influence on the decision and therefore some "say").

The thing is that the man does not take the physical risk. Someone said that it is only 50-50 at the point of choosing to have sex. Then, she gets all the choices, and they felt that was not fair. What they neglect is that aside of financial responsibility (and any emotional support to the child that he *wishes* to give), he does not face pregnancy. He does not face loss of wages or advancement in his job because he got pregnant and had to take leave, or simply over the stigma of being pregnant outside of wedlock. (While the latter is not as common as it used to be, it still happens, and I have never heard of a man getting fired or refused a promotion because his girlfriend got pregnant). He does not face permanent changes to his body. He does not face the morning sickness, the hormone swings, he does not face any of it. He does not face the choice of the biological effects of abortion, or the biological effects of putting up a child for adoption when her breasts are full and yearning for that baby in her arms. (PS: I do agree with the comments that it is hard to give up a child either by abortion or adoption for men too, but the biological component is not there. A man physically feels exactly the same after having sex as before regardless of conception - if she does not tell him, he will never physically know. Still, I think that there is a psychological cost to the guy too).

The biological balance is not even. The burden is not even. So why on earth should the decision in regard to abortion be even? It is her price to choose or not choose to pay, not his - because he will never have to pay it. It is fair that she makes the choice, because it is her burden not his. This is not a double standard. It is simple biological fact.

(I wish to point out that the physical costs of pregnancy are real. It is not like a hundred years ago when maternal mortality as one of the more common types of death if you were female, but even in this day and age, I personally know two women dying due to pregnancy (one died in childbirth, the other because of delays in treatment due to the pregnancy); I know two who nearly died (both because of excessive bloodloss, and one of them came a hairsbreadth from becoming the third in the first category); and two whose health has been permanently compromised by their pregnancies... I cannot imagine living in a time period when every person knew someone who died in childbirth. That it still happens is trully tragic. I cannot imagine forcing someone to risk themselves against their will because another person wishes to continue the pregnancy, but what I - in fairness - recognize is that for most people, the risks/costs of pregnancy are not real to us anymore. We think modern medicine can do anything. It cannot).

Getting back to the topic at hand - whether or not he should provide financial support, I will say again that I think the question of financial support from the father OR mother is a separate question from the one of abortion. I think the question of abortion clouds the matter. If I were the father, upon its birth, I would feel financially and emotionally responsible for the child. I would want to make certain that he or she was provided for and loved. Therefore, I think he should provide the financial support. I think he does have this responsibility, but I think forcing him is not balanced under the law. (In a nutshell, he can be morally reprehensible without being legally prosecutable - that's his choice).

Legally, I think that if we allow a woman to sever financial responsibility and other rights completely, a man should be allowed the same. It would then follow that it is the man's responsibility to balance the financial burden and sign away his rights if he chooses not to do more. If he chooses not to sign away his rights, then he should shoulder the burden; and if he won't, and another is willing to adopt the child and shoulder the burden, the bio-father should lose his rights. Ditto for bio-mom.

Celtic Solstice

pawnman
January 24th, 2005, 07:08 AM
I'm still curious...should the woman be held financially responsible if the father has custody rather than the mother?

soilsigh aingeal
January 24th, 2005, 09:36 AM
I'm still curious...should the woman be held financially responsible if the father has custody rather than the mother?Yes

Haerfest Leah
January 24th, 2005, 09:58 AM
It doesn't matter if he didn't want the baby or wore protection he is still just as responsible as the woman. If he wasn't ready and didn't want a baby then he doesn't need to have sex till he is. Why don't people understand that, sex is not a game and you don't control the rules or the outcome. Either be ready or abstain.

wolf
January 24th, 2005, 12:44 PM
I'm still curious...should the woman be held financially responsible if the father has custody rather than the mother?

Absolutely.

The noncustodial parent, regardless of sex, is still responsible for the child, unless the state has terminated rights.

Kalika
January 24th, 2005, 03:41 PM
I think that whether you want to be or not... you're responsible. It takes 2 to tango, and whether he wants the baby or not, he took the risk of having sex in the first place - and going in, you know the odds.

*shrug* Harsh, probably... but maybe if more people refrained from having sex when they weren't ready for all the possible consequences (ie becoming a parent)... there wouldn't be such a strain on things that are associated with aid in childcare, etc.

Lady Khaibit
January 25th, 2005, 03:31 PM
I agree with LacyRoze. If you can't accept the possible consequences of having sex (a baby), then don't have sex. Even if protection is used, it's not 100%. You play, you pay.

(edit: this does not refer to any situation of rape, incest, or health reasons.)


Here! Here! I drink Juicy Juice to that!!!

evie_mun
January 25th, 2005, 07:33 PM
I also don't think it's fair. If all the proper percautions were taken, then he shouldn't be held liable. BUT, he also can't change his mind 10 years down the road.

But turn the tables...what if she used protection (the pill for instance) got pregnant, HE wants it, but she doesn't. Should she be forced to carry and deliver the baby and then turn it over to him?

My thoughts exactly.

Goobalon
April 23rd, 2005, 06:27 AM
well, once they figure out how to transplant a fetus, which I truly believe they will, it will probably be as far as risk of physical damage be in par with abortion or pregnancy. So, he wants it, she dosent, another women can have it for him and the mother has to pay child support and it's up to the father if she can see it or not. The future is getting closer every day, LOL.

AthenaStrength
October 10th, 2005, 02:04 PM
if you dont want a baby, take the proper precautions to be safe--- easy as pie.

RubyRose
October 11th, 2005, 03:43 AM
I wasn't sure where to post this...Mods, please move if it's in the wrong place :)

If a guy uses protection, but the girl still becomes pregnant and she decides she wants to keep the baby.....Dad doesn't want her to because he's not ready to be a father....Should the father be held financially responsible for that child even tho he didn't want the girl to have it, and she did??

This is a very touchy subject around my circle of friends and I was just curious to find out what you guys thought.

I don't feel it's right to "force" a man to become a father if he doesn't want to be. If a girl decides to have the baby against the guys will, then it's her choice, and her financial responsibility. Too many girls are out there getting pregnant and trying to tie the man to them financially in some way. I just don't think it's fair.

Personally, I'd have to say, both induviduals are responsible. As for the money issue, I suppose it would depend on the situation, the reasoning behind wanting child support and so on.

Also, it wouldn't hurt for the two induviduals to come to a decision together, about the future of the unborn child. I know that is not always as easy as that, but at least you'd know where eachother stands. If that's at all possible.

Astara Seague
October 11th, 2005, 12:32 PM
WOW!! that one is a rough one and the situation of women trying to trap a man by getting pregnat goes back to the beginning of times.. number one that is so wrong, before you have sex you should talk about protection! I know not spotanous but come on Boy + Girl sex = baby sometimes wether or not you use protection it is a risk you take everytime you do it.. nothing is 100 percent
I dont care if you want a baby so bad your teeth ache you have no right to do it without your intended fathers knowledge if you choose to do it.. it is your fault and you are responsible

That said I also have knowledge of a married couple who chose to wait for awhile to have children and the time was never right for the Father, but the Mother was getting older and was frightened she would never be able to give birth they talked about it all the time and got no where so she arranged an accident.. I dont know how to feel about that but at least she wasnt trying to trap him into marrying her by the way it worked out for her he was happy to have a son when he was born..but who is to say?

Gypsy flower
October 11th, 2005, 01:29 PM
Precautions or not, the only 100% sure fire way is to NOT have sex. Why does almost no one see it that way?

Yep thats right!!

dragoncrone
October 11th, 2005, 01:50 PM
My take on this applies equally to one-nighters, committed boyfriends, and ex-husbands:

If you have to force the father of your child to participate in the child's life - whether it's financially or socially - do you really think he is going to have a positive effect on your son/daughter??

I would rather shoulder the entire responsibility myself (and did, btw) than deal with some @sshole over missed support payments and cancelled visits, not to mention a hurt, disappointed child.

wolf
October 11th, 2005, 05:18 PM
I really think that Montel said it best ... "If you make the deposit, you better be prepared to make the withdrawals."

Haerfest Leah
October 11th, 2005, 05:31 PM
Yes, if your not ready don't be having sex!

WokeUpDead
October 11th, 2005, 11:46 PM
It takes two (or more if you're kinky enough) to :hugz:

irelandslostdaughter
February 4th, 2007, 04:57 PM
It appears that I am in the majority of opinion, that if you play you pay. However it is not all about a financial obligation...When two people come together sexually and a child is the result (whether or not you used protection is irrevelant as you are both consenting adults at the time)...the child should not be made to suffer because daddy dearest doesn't want to play house anymore...I say From experiance step and take responsablity for your actions.....be a father to your child....don't just send a check....

demonique
February 13th, 2007, 10:06 AM
What a complicated situation. I don't think that there is really a one size fits all solution to any of it, to be honest. There are too many variables in the equation to always come out with the same "if you play, you pay" game, if you ask me. If I got pregnant by accident by someone I was not in a committed relationship with (and I only /would/ be in a committed relationship with someone who shared my desires on having children to begin with), I would not EXPECT them to want to play daddy. And if they were such jacks that they would refuse when I asked them about it, then I would not spend my time and effort trying to seek financial support from them. Mistakes happen. If I chose to keep a baby in these circumstances, it would be MY doing, obviously, not his, and therefore, I would consider myself the only responsible party. A child with a father who clearly wants nothing to do with him/her, who struggles and resists paying child support at the order of the law is not any better than a father who simply was never there to begin with, and can often just cause more grief for the parties involved. In my opinion.

But every case is different. If a father has to pay child support to a divorced wife or something, I would expect that except in cases of abuse or something similar, that the father should damn well have the best child-visitation package he can get. Sadly, this does not always happen.

You know what I think? I think everyone should have legal papers agreeing to potential child-support-fathering terms signed before they ever have sex. If the person you want to have sex with disagrees with what you think appropriate for an "accident", then maybe you should veer off and find someone else, eh?