Double standard on abortion and child support

Men can't have abortions.

The problem with your solution is that it won't prevent a man's child being born, which will make him a father.

 

Men can't be given the right to end a pregnancy. No law can do it.

They don't have a pregnancy and can't be given the right to have one.

They don't. It's just that men don't have a birth control choice after they've had sex.

Well, she doesn't think so.

Yes they do. It's up to the individual man to decide whether he wants to take the risk beforehand.

Fairness doesn't come into it.

Human reproduction isn't about fairness.

You could try to argue that it isn't fair women have to risk their health and even their lives to become a parent and get the law changed, so men have to endure the same discomforts.

That would be stupid.

 

So both of you start bombarding your Senators and Representatives to pass a law allowing men to have the right to sign away their parental rights.

Go through the trouble women did to get their rights. THEY didn't just whine, THEY did something.

Of course there should be a SEVERE penalty if a man who signed away his rights EVER made an attempt to contact, or have anything to do with, the signed away child.....let's keep it fair.

 

And I am not arguing against their right to choose an abortion or to choose to give birth. What I am arguing against is their right to FORCE someone else to become a parent involuntarily and extort money from them through use of the courts and the government. That is tyranny, that is authoritarianism, that is everything I fight against as someone who is pro-choice.

And how we have reached fairness and equality is by allowing women to make their own choices about their autonomy, about their own self-determination! Yet we would take away a man's right to his self-determination all because he chose to have sex?

There is absolutely something we can do about it. We can assure that men who are not financially prepared to be fathers or who simply do not want to be fathers are not compelled or forced to become such by the courts. We can give them the right to sign away all parental rights much in the same way a woman can in an adoption setting.

If she wants to be irresponsible and bring a child into this world knowing she cannot financially provide for it and knowing the father can't, or won't, and without being in a stable relationship then that is her choice. It is no one's fault but her own for not choosing an abortion or not choosing to give it up for adoption.

And again, we allow women to have full self-determination over their own autonomy in these situations. Really, you'll hardly see me arguing against this at all as I am a woman myself.

How can you be so sure of that? There are many men out there who love their partners, their wives and would give anything to keep them from being in any kind of physical pain. I don't know what has lead you to have such a misandrist view of all or even most men, but most are not like that.

Clearly. You are in favor of oppression of men but freedom of women? Sorry but I am going to call you out on that hypocrisy. This is exactly why I do not identify as a feminist. Too many feminists like yourself hold such misandrist views of men and simply do not care what happens to them. You don't care about true equality, only trying to one up men in some way and punish them somehow for some preconceived notion of inequality.

Even if that inconvenience means they cannot pay their rent? They cannot get to work? They cannot feed themselves? Yes, what a terrible inconvenience. Those same inconveniences we fight against when people try to force women to have babies and financially support them when they can barely afford to feed themselves? Inconvenience indeed!

And many men spend time in jail for being unwilling or even UNABLE to pay. Yeah, free as a bird my arse.

 

I am not arguing for that. I am arguing that men be able to sign away all parental rights much in the same way a woman can in an adoption setting.

Clearly you do not understand my position. Shall I elaborate it further for you?

Repetition of this pointless statement really means nothing to me.

Again, it is her problem and she should not be allowed to force it on him. If she wants a baby so badly then perhaps she should have one with a WILLING partner. That is what I often say about men who want to force women to give birth against their wills. Find a WILLING participant. Don't force people into parenthood against their wills.

Sounds like some pro-life mantra.

Equality is fairness.

Tell that to all the women having abortions.

Sorry but I won't play with your little strawman.

That's because it's a strawman, so of course it's stupid.

 

So those that believe it's a males responsibility to pay child support regardless of whether he wanted to be a father or not also believe a male must pay child support even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped-right?????


In what may be the most bizarre denial of the existence of male victims, courts have held that male victims of rape can be held responsible for child support.
In California, an appellate court upheld an order (San Luis Obispo Count y v. Nathan J., 1996) forcing a 15 year old boy to pay child support to his rapist after she became pregnant and gave birth.The court ruled that although the boy was considered too young to provide consent to the sex act, he was an admitted willing participant and therefore liable to pay support stating that he was not an “innocent victim” because he had discussed it with his rapist prior to having sex.

That this act was illegal and may have constituted coercion was apparently lost on the court. If the boy is considered legally incapable of providing consent, how can he be considered legally liable for giving that consent? Any consent or cooperation on his part should have been considered coercion and therefore not consent at all.

California is not the only state where this is the case. Kansas, Texas, Ohio, and other states also force rape victims to pay child support to their rapists.
In Kentucky, a prosecutor stated that he would help a woman collect child support from a man who was 14 at the time she raped him while neglecting to charge the woman with statutory rape. The state of Colorado attempted to recover AFDC payments from a man who was just 12 when he became a father with an older woman. Contrast this with the allowances made for abortion for women who are raped (including statutory rape) even from many who are opposed to abortion in other circumstances.

Mothers are also permitted to give up their children for adoption, no questions asked, should they not want their children. In no case is a woman forced to raise or pay for a child conceived during a rape.

But this is not the case with fathers. Two separate cases indicate that even when sperm is stolen or a man is forcibly raped, the man remains liable for child support. In Louisiana a man was ordered to pay child support to a woman who had him wear a condom during oral sex. She then took the condom extracted the sperm and impregnated herself. In Alabama, a man was actually raped by a woman and was still ordered to pay child support. This man got drunk at a party and passed out. The next morning he awoke in bed, naked from the waist down. He testified that he did not remember having sex. Others testified that the mother had actually bragged about having sex with him when he was “passed out” and “wasn’t even aware of it.” This constitutes rape in most states, yet the man was ordered to pay support to the woman who was apparently not even criminally charged.
The National Legal Research Group refers to this as “a strict liability theory of sperm,” i.e. a man is liable for

This is especially true in circumstances where the father was a victim of rape or statutory rape. Ordering a victim of rape (even statutory rape) to pay child support to his rapist is tantamount to allowing the rapist to rape him over and over again. Not only is it a constant reminder, it is like he is being punished for being a victim of a crime. It is unthinkable that our court system not only condones, but has legalized this draconian practice. It is not only an injustice, it is an obscenity that is being perpetrated on male victims. It needs to end

http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-governance-feminism/legally-obscene/

 

Please take absolute JOY in the fact that many men just walk away , free as a bird , with no life long damage to their bodies and no money lost! That is a FACT.... I guess we're even.



There is NO man in the world who would volunteer for those for periods and pregnancy. NOT ONE! And no matter who or how much they love( which has NOTHING to do with my statement) they would NOT want to go through what women do....and if they say, "Oh, I sure would ", they're either lying or have no idea what women REALLY go through....I have read many posts in here where men say pregnancy isn't an injury !! That there is NO discomfort, pain, or danger in pregnancy...so , of course they SAY they wouldn't mind!


Funny how you think it's "oppression" if men have to support their children....


And, I do not hate men....I just look at the history of the world, the horrors, unfairness, persecution, suffering of women because they are women and men ruled....and so a tiny segment of men who feel so "oppressed" makes laugh.... I don't hate men but I don't care about their perceived oppression.


If you adore men so much start a campaign to give them their rights, write to your Congressman and tell them to pass laws for men to sign away their parental rights. DO something besides cry over them....


How do you think women got their rights? By whining? Nope , they DID something....do men expect women to do THAT for them , too???

 

When a woman wants to keep a future child and man doesnt, then I dont consider him to be a father. Parenthood should require consent, from both parties separately, and separately from the act of sex. In such case the choice to have a baby lies only with the woman and so only she should be a parent.

It should also work in reverse, so if a man wants the baby but the woman doesnt want it, then they should put in on paper (before abortion limit has passed) and then even if the baby is born the man will be responsible for it and the woman will not.

I think this approach would be much more fair than what we have now, for both sexes. And it already takes into account biological differences between sexes.

 

there is really more of a .. Double standard on Adoption and child support

if both parents want to be dead beats, they pay no child support, but if only one wants nothing to do with the child, then he must still pay child support

 

the same SEVERE penalty that would exist if both the man and women gave a child up for adoption....

 

He is a father, though. It doesn't matter what you consider. There will be a child or even children, all of whom need food , clothes and shelter

And if in the future the father cannot work due to illness or redundancy and the mother pulls in a good salary? Why should tax payers support her child ?

You must be joking. A man could easily sire 50 children every year for 30 years and the tax payers should pick up the bill for their support because he doesn't want to?

I don't think in any shape or form is that fair.

 

And plenty of men spend time in prison for it. Are we gonna keep restating the same facts over and over?

I have no idea what your point here is. Because men can't physically go through pregnancy they therefore deserve no rights over their own self-determination?

It is just as much oppression of men as it is when you force a woman to financially sustain a child whether she can or not. (Which is why they give women the option to adopt out, no questions asked.)

I look at it too and I am seeing it be literally flipped on it's head. It has now become an issue of giving women more rights than men at least in whether or not they can choose to become parents and then force it on an unwilling participant. You really don't see how wrong that is?

Are you trying to dismiss me from this debate?

I thought this was an open debate and discussion forum where we may debate various respective issues?

 

The fallacies are many and often with this one-LOL

http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/en...-20130314.html

Data analysis suggests that women who fail to pay all of their child support are incarcerated only one-eighth as often as men with similar violations. Several possible explanations of these results other than gender bias are unsupported by the data, strengthening the view that gender bias against fathers is a major factor in the family courts.
A new report concludes that between 95% and 98.5% of all incarcerations in Massachusetts sentenced from the Massachusetts Probate and Family Courts from 2001 through 2011 have been men. Moreover, this percentage may be increasing, with an average of 94.5% from 2001 to 2008, and 96.2% from 2009 through 2011. It is likely that most of these incarcerations are for incomplete payment of child support.

 

That is a strawman as that situation has not even been mentioned.

totally agree, it is a stupid decision by the court.

Again another stupid decision

No man should be held responsible for child support if he was the victim of rape.

and as I have said all the way your response, those cases etc are bloody stupid, plain an simple . .so as you can see your strawman start to your comment is in no way, shape or form anything to do with the position I hold. What I am talking about is consensual sexual intercourse not rape.

Absolutely agree.

 

He is only the father until he signs away his parental rights in an adoption setting and then a new prospective father can take his place if he wants to. That is how adoption works. The woman, if she must keep the baby instead of giving it up for adoption, can always have a future spouse adopt the child as well.

Do you really have that little amount of faith in women that they cannot care for or take responsibility for the children they choose to birth and that they MUST have a man's paycheck once a month just to get by (even if that means putting him into financial turmoil?)

Good question. Why do we allow people to willingly orphan their children when there is not someone willing to adopt them right away? Why do we allow tax payers to pay for the 500,000+ kids bouncing in and out of foster care and orphanages? If the rule is that once someone births a child and they become instant parents by law then adoption should be outlawed completely.

That is why it is up to women to have abortions if they are not in a stable relationship with the guy to begin with. If it's just a fling I would highly recommend not having a baby with him.

Did you not just argue moments ago that "life is not fair"???

 

This is exactly the truth. I see people here arguing against the tax payers and the state being forced to pay for other people's children, well then why allow adoption/foster care at all?

 

so you think if the adoptive parents become disabled and can not work in the future, we should go after the original biological parents first for $$$ to support their unwanted children they gave up for adoption?

.

 

And until then?

Both parents support their child.

That doesn't make a lot of sense.

If both parents agree to give up their child for adoptuion, then the child becomes the responsibility of somebody else.

That doesn't happen very often these days, because usually at least one parent loves their child too much to give them up.

In that case, the parent who wants to care for the child takes care of the child and the parent who doesn't want to take care of the child, pays to help to support him or her.

It's very easy to understand, yes?

Sometimes, neither parents are fit to care for their child for a time, yet do not want to give them up for adoption. In that case, foster parents are found and both parents pay child support if they are able.

You are free to recommend whatever you wish.

Yes, I did.

Your argument is that allowing fathers to abandon their unwanted children is fair.

It isn't. You're wrong.

It doesn't give men equal rights to women.

 

a man and women could give up a child for adoption every year for 30 years, the tax payer could be responsible for everyone of those.... but the biological parents would not have to pay a dime

- - - Updated - - -

then allowing both parents to abandon their unwanted children is not fair too.. right?

should be we at least try to be consistent?


.

 

Well, the child becomes the financial responsibility of the adoptive parents just as if it were their own child.

Did you not know that?

What does that even mean?

 

So, in other words, as a feminist, Foxhastings believes women deserve special privileges because of their biology, and men should be punished for what other men did before they were born.

 

That's not what I read. Is English your first language?

 

Why don't you ask him, I can't read minds I'm afraid.

 

People have a right to abandon their children, they do it all the time. It's called giving them up for adoption. If a woman can sign away her parental rights without the father's permission why can't he sign away his rights without her permission?

 

I agree!!!!