She is not forced to bring the baby to term. Now if abortion was illegal, you might have a legitimate point, but as it stands no woman is forced to carry a child to term. If abortion was illegal, the first part of your statement would apply equally to women as well - if you don't want to get pregnant and have to carry it to term, don't have sex with a man. Pregnancy and carrying a child to term are natural consequences of that. There is no reason for abortion to be legal, but since women do have that option to abdicate all responsibility for their actions, perhaps the men should have an equal option.
Which is why I propose they be free to relinquish their parental rights as if in an adoption setting. If however they make promises to the woman that they want the baby, they'll be there for her and the child then he needs to pay. He shouldn't be able to back out after making such promises up and down and then the time for abortion has long since passed and then he tries to back out. Basically each case should be judged individually.
Men should avoid involvement with feminists except for casual anonymous sex. Generally, feminists make poor wives and mothers. It's best to shun them. In fact women who have an origin in non-western cultures are much safer bets. East Asian, South Asian, Sub-Saharan African, Latin American women from Latin America, and Muslim women.
your always gonna be the parents mother or father when you have a child but.. I do think it is odd that if both parents want to give up the child it's a good thing, if only one wants to they are a dead beat how about once a child is born, you have to give up a percentage of your net worth with the baby, if it's your only child, a 3rd of your net worth would transfer with the child you give up
Abortion is not an easy thing. It has physical and emotional consequences. For that reason, the woman has the option to keep the baby and force fatherhood. If you don't want to be a father, get a vasectomy or don't have sex.
She still has the discomfort for 9 months. For that reason, she has the most choices in the situation. It's the consequence of simple biology.
If a man pays for a child, then finds out through a paternity test that the child isn't his, he shouldn't have to pay further. If a woman lets a man pay for a child, then finds out through a paternity test that the child isn't his, she shouldn't expect him to pay further. That's a "forced fatherhood" that I disagree with. No good can come from the breeding of animosity.
Only practical way. Also, the mother is forking out money as well. Child support is a big burden for men paying it, but it's nowhere near the increased cost of a household with a child.
But she is choosing to pay that. She has other options - adoption or abortion. Why should she have the right to choose the third option - keeping the baby - and force the father to pay for it?
The laws the OP is refering to were put in place to prevent irresponsible men to make kids with women and then disapear. They can sometimes have side effects but in general it does more good than bad to the society as women don't get stuck to take care of the kids alone like before. But no matter what we all say on this matter, it all comes down to this: whether you like it or not, men do have a choice NOT to have sexual relationships with women or use contraception. If a man feels he's been forced to have sex with a woman, there's a word for that. It's called rape.
And it affects a mans body to, because she can enslave him into indentured servitude for 18 years against his will.
I would have to agree with the basic concept, that if you don't want to be a father, don't touch a woman. It's that simple. If you want to touch a woman, there are responsibilities involved. Too bad. Stop being so selfish and whiny about it. And you women that screw around, stop complaining about the guys. You idiots jump in bed with some idiot, and then complain he's an idiot? Really? You can't figure this out you unpaid hookers? If the guy wanted a deep committed long term relationship, he would have married you. The whole reason he wants to screw you without a ring on your finger, is specifically so he can do so without commitment. Stop being such cheap bimbos, grow a brain, and figure it out.
I've been skimming through most of the responses here, and for the most point, people have made some fair points. I'll agree that some of the laws and expectations we have of men are unfair, especially if the man is not the child's biological father. And yes, "forced fatherhood" does breed animosity in some cases. At the same time, pregnancies are a very real risk for people who have sex, whether birth control or protection of any kind is used or not. It doesn't matter if you're sleeping with someone just because you want to, and not because you want to reproduce- the risk of it happening doesn't just disappear. It's always going to be a bit of a gamble- the woman might forget a birth control pill, the condom might break, whatever. Frankly, if you're going to sleep around and then act surprised when something like this happens by mistake, you should probably go and ask your parents to give you "the talk" again just to refresh your memory. Responsibility seems to be as dead as chivalry is these days. As one poster said it, "you wanna play, you gotta pay." If I may include one side note in response to some of the posts I've read: Saying a woman should just get an abortion or put it up for adoption is a hell of a heavy statement. Abortion, for one thing, is a very serious matter. Whether you are in favor of a woman's right to choose is besides the point, but it is a major decision that many women find extremely difficult to make. I consider myself very much pro-choice, but even I admit that I wouldn't be able to go through with one myself. Adoption, too, is no light matter, and can even be harder than an abortion. It's so easy to consider before the baby is born, but once it is and the mother has actually seen her child, giving it up can become exponentially harder. Both are tremendously difficult decisions to have to make. One choice might be better (more responsible) than another, but that does not make it easy. I think, however, we're forgetting the real victims here: the children. Imagine all the issues this can create, and how it impacts the children. Honestly, if there's anyone at all that I feel sorry for, it's the kids themselves for having gotten caught up in such situations. Some people in this world never should have become parents, and it's unfortunate that innocent children are suffering the consequences of their biological parents' decisions. My bottom line is this: both parents need to deal with what they created, regardless of whatever path they choose, because both are equally accountable for the baby that was conceived. Guys, grow a pair. Ladies, don't hop into bed with morons. There. A simple solution to the problem.
There were some who posted that these "decisions" have helped prevent the widespread of single family households. A blatant lie if there ever was one. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-number-of-children-living-in-single-parent-homes-has-nearly-doubled-in/ Forced Fatherhood is indeed an issue, but more to the issue is that Men simply don't have a choice, as identified by the "Grow a pair" statement that rings all too loudly and hollow. Sure, we could have a vasectomy but that's irreversible. Sure, we could go without intercourse but that defeats the purpose in of itself to eventually one day have children. Some women mention how "difficult" it is to make these decisions and that because of how "difficult" it is, that gives them the right to effectively rule over men in domestic affairs. If that's the approach women have, then they shouldn't be surprised when men lately have decided that the idea of dating, that the idea of even being remotely involved in relational affairs is a waste of time, effort and frankly: It's foolish on our part. There's only one reason an honest man enters in a relationship: To form a family bond. Deny that, and what purpose is there for us? There is none. There can be no other purpose. "Pro-Choice" isn't so much to be pro-choice, but to be anti-life. What about the fetus, what about it's choice? Well, according to one woman this is what the choice is: http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/woman-gave-birth-in-bar-bathroom-stashed-baby-in-toilet-returned-to-watch-f Never mind those who are forced to pay child alimony by the state, who unfortunately are counted as "dead-beat" fathers. Or how about fathers who never knew or never will know about their children? Frankly, we're screwed by how the system is set up, so don't tell males to "grow a pair". And don't clamor for equality, when in fact you always were and have been the superior gender in the Human Race. The situation's just gotten so miserable, that even males are no longer willing to put up with it.
a potential father should have a say so in an abortion. If a woman doesn't want to take the chance that a potential father might object to an abortion, she can keep her legs together. Simple as that.
It isn't. It is dumb however to suggest that men should have no say if a woman decides to just get rid of a baby, at the same time as you are saying that men should have no choice but to support a child should the woman decide to keep it. There should NEVER be an instance where a woman got pregnant and then terminated that pregnancy when the father wanted to keep the child (barring the obvious exceptions so no need to argue about that) Yet, that can and DOES happen all the time.
Again.... if you don't want to support a kid... don't sleep with a woman. It's that simple. As for the woman killing her child... I agree. Murder is wrong... but you can't change our murder loving culture.
Likewise, a woman could be told the same, If you don't want a child, don't sleep with a man. I'm only suggesting that giving the women ALL the power is not a good policy.
There is never a time where a woman has all the power. The moment you say "no", she has zero power. Are you seriously suggesting that if a woman simply "wills" that you pay her child support, that she can force you to, with no action on your part? Of course not. You have to do the deed. You have to jump in with the girl for any of this to ever happen. And yes, women should do what is right too. But you can't control anyone but yourself. You do what is right first.
Actually, yes that in fact does occur. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/29/child-support_n_3672474.html The way I see society these days, is that there are a lot of landmines. These landmines are planted on the "earth" called Society. And I don't care if I'm called a shut-in, there's only 2 ways to deal with: 1)Bypass all of the Landmines and find the gold. 2)Remove all emotional attachments to any and all people.(IE: When you go to work, you're merely working for yourself. Who cares about your fellow co workers?) If I live life like this, the social laws, the dating complications created by Feminism, etc, etc will all disappear.
Well that's crazy. But I think it's ultra safe to assume that the vast vast number of child support payments are due to bad choice, not a crazy law that somehow forces you to pay for someone else's child. Nevertheless, you are otherwise correct in your assumption. If you engage at all in life, you have the risk of getting hit by a 'land mine'. Now if you are good with shutting yourself into a tiny box, and being a hermit, then so be it. Indeed you will avoid many problems. You will also live a meager life. That's not good or bad, just a fact. It's a trade off. I'll never get into a car accident, if I refuse to ever drive a car. But I happen to enjoy driving, and I enjoy the freedom to get to places that driving a car gives.... but I have had some accidents. It's a trade off. If you never have a wife, you can't possibly be divorced or cheated on. If I don't date, I can never be dumped. But I will never enjoy having a wife either, and I'll never enjoy having a date. It's a trade off. This is how life works. If you are ok with being a hermit, then go for it.
