Support NeoGAF

[Shanadeus]

so if you think this through it leads to forced abortions against the woman's will? unless you just mean not having to pay child support

What does being a father mean?
It's certainly not about having a biological bond with the child, that's an insult to million of great dads that has adopted.
No, being a father is about the emotional bond you have with your child, it's about wanting their best and wanting to take responsibility for them. Because you love your child, and you want your child to grow up strong and independent.

With that in mind, is it really a good idea to in any way encourage dads who do not want a child to stay in the relationship for the child?

What I mean is that the man in question completely absolves himself of all fatherly obligations, which include paying child support, as he by not wanting to be a father isn't fit to be a father - which in my opinion should always be a choice.

 

[Joel Was Right]

True that, but in reality people are scum. You expected them to be 100% with you, but that's not usually the case.

Its an easy way out and you're making someone else take the consequences (the would-be son/daughter).

I would agree with you last year and after having my experience, I would still agree with you. This is something in discussions from the Pro-Choice group that is never admitted. Instead, calls of 'choice' and 'freedom' drown it out. It's disingenuous. If you agree with them, then what if the girl has an abortion on almost a yearly basis with every pregnancy? What if she has 6 or 7 or 8

 

[hiro4]

what do you mean? If you have sex you should be prepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood.

What is the responsibility of fatherhood?
making sure that the child has a good life? Financially? Emotionally?
How does the mother fit in to all this?

While I agree people should be aware of the risks of sex and the chance of pregnancy. I disagree with the fact that it entails direct responsibility of the child.

I'm against abortion. Its an easy way out and you're making someone else take the consequences (the would-be son/daughter).

An easy way out? I don't think that people who had an abortion think that it was a easy way out.

 

[besada]

If the woman is amenable, you can shed your rights as the biological father by signing and presenting to the court a waiver of parental rights. You waive all parental rights and are no longer obligated to pay child support.

Again, though, it requires the woman to be amenable.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Let me get this straight ... you feel in the event a dad wants to 'opt out', we should force women to chose between an abortion or going it alone as their only two options?

:lol oh gaf

So the guy gets no choice whatsoever?, or are you going to say he should use protection or not have sex at all.

 

[Shanadeus]

Don't have sex unless your prepared to have a child with your partner.

There, I saved everyone mass amounts of drama with a little common sense and arrogance.

That's really not the case if you're a female, you can have sex with your partner without being prepared to have a child.

And saying that the world is unfair and partial in a discussion about how to make things more fair and balanced is kinda silly. If people always had that attitude then women would never have gotten the right to vote, or get abortions.

 

[Dorrin]

But just like a man cannot force a woman to abort, a woman should not force a man to become a father.

This, a man should be able to essentially 'abort' himself financially from the child if he so wishes with the conditions that he must make the decision early in the pregnancy just as a woman must decided early on and that he must never see the child or interact with the child. If he does become a part of the childs life then support must be iniated from that point forward as well as retroactive support.

What these posts really point out is that men really need their own form of birth control pill. I know as a married man I would have used it even while my wife was on the pill. Out of the two of us I was definately more paranoid about her being sure to take them.

 

[DY_nasty]

What does being a father mean?
It's certainly not about having a biological bond with the child, that's an insult to million of great dads that has adopted.

Thats nice and all but biologically and legally, you're 50% responsible for the child.

The last thing this society needs is a legit 'out' for douchebags who think that they don't have any obligation to the kids that they brought into the world in the first place.

"I don't like her anymore, so there - no more responsibility! Fuck yeah!"

 

[hiro4]

It should go as far as financially. You can't force a biological father to be part of his child's life, but you can force him to support the child financially.

Only the child or also the woman caring for the child?
And how much should he pay? Should he pay for all the clothes and food and other stuff?
Or only 50%?

Since that is where the nasty stuff comes.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

In a perfect world, where the mental effects of having a child are the same for both a male and female, I would agree . Unfortunately, women tend to gain a strong emotional attachment to the developing child during the pregnancy which causes many women, no matter their circumstances, to keep the child(which is partially the reason for so many single mothers). Even after an abortion is said and done, many women go through stages of great depression and sadness for days or even weeks.

While men, on the other hand, tend not to gain any sort of an attachment to a child until after the child is born. What I'm trying to say is that it's easier for us males to request a woman to have an abortion, but much harder for a female to go through with it.
Which needs to be taken into consideration.

 

[Escape Goat]

What is the responsibility of fatherhood?
making sure that the child has a good life? Financially? Emotionally?
How does the mother fit in to all this?

While I agree people should be aware of the risks of sex and the chance of pregnancy. I disagree with the fact that it entails direct responsibility of the child.



An easy way out? I don't think that people who had an abortion think that it was a easy way out.

Accepting the responsibility of giving the child a loving, stable life. Accepting the responsibility of providing for its needs, emotionally and financially. The same goes for the mother.

How can you dodge the consequences of something you consciously take part in? Just chalk it up to bad luck and get the hell out?

 

[ShinobiFist]

If the woman is amenable, you can shed your rights as the biological father by signing and presenting to the court a waiver of parental rights. You waive all parental rights and are no longer obligated to pay child support.

Again, though, it requires the woman to be amenable.

Exactly what the O.P. is saying, the women has all the choice when it comes down to it.

 

[Beezy]

I'm against abortion. Its an easy way out and you're making someone else take the consequences (the would-be son/daughter).

Easy way out of what? We're not required to have children. There's already too many people in the world as it is right now.

 

[Circle Jerk]

I would agree with you last year and after having my experience, I would still agree with you. This is something in discussions from the Pro-Choice group that is never admitted. Instead, calls of 'choice' and 'freedom' drown it out. It's disingenuous. If you agree with them, then what if the girl has an abortion on almost a yearly basis with every pregnancy? What if she has 6 or 7 or 8

Yeah women just have abortions every two+ months all the time.

 

[Agent Ghost]

It's pathetic that a couple could be completely unable to come to an agreement without resorting to a silly argument of who's body it is. Yeah it's her body for 9 months, then it's the child for a lifetime. If I had a partner I would expect we would come to an agreement where neither of us felt like we were forced to do anything against our will.

From a biological standpoint neither the man or woman should be able to abort the fetus if it goes against the wishes of the other parent. The fact that the fetus is carried in the womb of a woman is rather insignificant considering the implications the child itself. The woman doesn't have sole rights to a child, it belongs to both parents imo.

From a sociological and individual standpoint neither parent should be forced to take care of a child they don't want. However I do believe that if either or both parents make decent money the child is owed. Basically I agree with the basic premise of how child support works.

 

[Skiptastic]

Easy way out of what? We're not required to have children. There's already too many people in the world as it is right now.

You're also not required to squirt your love juice in a fertile womb.

 

[Beezy]

You're also not required to squirt your love juice in a fertile womb.

no shit

 

[Skiptastic]

no shit

So don't do it if you don't want a baby! Problem solved.

BTW, I'm not sure besada's claim that you can get a waiver of child support is actually legally enforceable. I think my law professor said that most courts will not hold a private agreement to "get out" of child support as a legal contract. I'd look further into that before writing on a piece of paper that you don't have to pay child support if you knock up your gf, even if she'll sign it.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Yeah women just have abortions every two+ months all the time.

My mistake with the phrasing but I hope the point of my post didn't go above your large head

 

[Beaulieu]

I havent read all the thread, but I know for a fact that it's possible to refuse parternity (here in quebec anyways) a coupe of friends of mine did it.

 

[hiro4]

Accepting the responsibility of giving the child a loving, stable life. Accepting the responsibility of providing for its needs, emotionally and financially. The same goes for the mother.

How can you dodge the consequences of something you consciously take part in? Just chalk it up to bad luck and get the hell out?

This can also be done by leaving the mother and give her a chance to find a better father figure. I'm not saying this is the way to go, since it is so extreme, but responsibility is such a vague word.

I think that in these kind of situations, people should make their own choice and leave the other out of it if they disagree. No need to drag somebody down and potentially ruin their whole live.

 

[Beezy]

So don't do it if you don't want a baby! Problem solved.

feels good man

Seriously though, I'm just talking about Hamburglar being against abortion. If that does happen for whatever reason and both potential parents agree that they don't wanna raise a child, then why shouldn't they be able to have an abortion?

 

[msv]

You're also not required to squirt your love juice in a fertile womb.

So condoms are an easy way out? What's with the ridiculous arguments in here, come on. This topic isn't about abortion, it's about legal balance between the man/woman during/after pregnancy. We're assuming that abortion is legal according to OP so stop whining about it.

 

[Escape Goat]

So don't do it if you don't want a baby! Problem solved.

I think people should be free to have sex, humans are sexual creatures. But taking a casual approach to it is not good. Wear a condom, get her on the pill, take charge of your lives. Telling someone its one or the other isn't really fair either.

If I have sex and get AIDS theres not much I can do. But I take precautions and I minimize my risk. But ultimately the consequences of engaging in sex are my own and no one elses.

Seriously though, I'm just talking about Hamburglar being against abortion. If that does happen for whatever reason and both potential parents agree that they don't wanna raise a child, then why shouldn't they be able to have an abortion?

Because you've created a human life. It may be a fetus and we can debate whether its right or wrong til we're blue in the face. If two parents decide they don't want it put it up for adoption.

 

[besada]

Family Court cases are always predicated on the welfare of the child, which people don't seem to understand. It's not the mother the judge is fond of, it's the baby. A Family Court judge in the U.S. will gladly run roughshod over both parents to mandate financial protection for the child.

Oh, and if you find yourself in this situation, I wouldn't whine in front of the judge. In my experience, Family Court judges have a very dim view of parents attempting to escape their financial responsibilities to a child.

 

[flsh]

Right now it seems to me that the woman has absolute control over whether or not she will become a mother, as well as over whether the partner contributing to the pregnancy will become a father. If she does not want a kid then she can just get an abortion, and she won't be burdened with a child.

But if she wants to keep the child, then the father of the child is obliged to at the very least support it economically (do correct me if I'm wrong as this is what I have an issue with) - no matter what he personally wants. He is always at the mercy of the female, who can decide whether or not he'll be the father regardless of whether he wants to become one or not (I am sorry for the gaffers here who've wanted a child but been denied when your partner got an abortion.)

This is a completely imbalanced and unjust system in my honest opinion.

While we cannot do anything against the last situation I mentioned above, where the mother wants an abortion and the father wants to keep the child, we can at least shift some power away from the mother to the father when he does not want a child yet the mother choses to have one by not aborting. The father should be able to opt out of parenthood if he's informed her in due time for an abortion that he is not interested in being a father, so that the mother will still have time to get an abortion in case she does not want to end up as a single mother.

He will be absolved of all responsibilities if the mother choses to proceed with the pregnancy and won't be legally bound to anything, with perhaps the mother not being allowed to tell anyone (including her child) who the father is - o that the effect will be that the guy simply isn't a father in any sense but biological.

What does gaf think?

Ah, but you see, having the male take responsibility separates us from our ape brethren. By letting the male not take any responsibility we will undo any differentiation we have so far accomplished, like loosing body hair!

Being serious, though, the man can use contraceptives. If it doesn't feel good or you are scared, that's your problem.

 

[Skiptastic]

I think people should be free to have sex, humans are sexual creatures. But taking a casual approach to it is not good. Wear a condom, get her on the pill, take charge of your lives. Telling someone its one or the other isn't really fair either.

If I have sex and get AIDS theres not much I can do. But I take precautions and I minimize my risk. But ultimately the consequences of engaging in sex are my own and no one elses.

I didn't say that you couldn't have sex. I was saying don't drop off your swimmers while there's an egg around.

Beezy, I figured you were talking about the whole thread, not just TH's stance on abortion. My apologies. Though, I do agree with TH on the abortion issue. I think the abortion option increases reckless activity to the detriment of society in a number of ways. But that's my opinion, and the laws and courts currently disagree. So be it.

 

[Shanadeus]

Thats nice and all but biologically and legally, you're 50% responsible for the child.

The last thing this society needs is a legit 'out' for douchebags who think that they don't have any obligation to the kids that they brought into the world in the first place.

"I don't like her anymore, so there - no more responsibility! Fuck yeah!"

That's not what I've been suggesting, I'm talking about a legit way of absolving yourself of future responsibilities before a child has been brought into the world. And the law changes as our world moves on and throws away old, adequated thoughts and beliefs.

Once again, just because the world is unfair already doesn't mean that we have to just sit here and accept it. Women once had to accept having a child if they got pregnant, but then they got the right to get abortions and now have the power to thus absolve themselves of the responsibilities of motherhood before a child is even born.

You really don't want to extend that power to men as well in order to make it fair and equal?

 

[oneHeero]

what do you mean? If you have sex you should be prepared to accept the responsibility of fatherhood.

I'm against abortion. Its an easy way out and you're making someone else take the consequences (the would-be son/daughter). But as it stands now abortion is legal. And for better or worse, females carry our young so its her decision ultimately. If the males carried the baby then the father would have the last say. Its not perfect system but its an imperfect world.

And what power would that be?

So shouldnt the mother be prepared to accept the full responsiblity alone? Its not a perfect world, so why not? It happens now, why not have something more legitimate instead of just dead beat fathers who split from the family and hide as oppose to a option to leave and inform the mother and he suffers no consequences.

All I hear from you guys is how the world is unfair and thats the father's responsibility. If things are so unfair, why shouldnt the mom have to take on the responsiblity all ALONE if a decision is made early on and the would be mom had a heads up.

I fully support the OP. Its always the womens decision, we can never take that from them, nor are we suggesting that. We are simply suggesting that the field be more even and the guy be forced into fatherhood(u guys give such lame excuses like he should have known).

In a perfect world, where the mental effects of having a child are the same for both a male and female, I would agree . Unfortunately, women tend to gain a strong emotional attachment to the developing child during the pregnancy which causes many women, no matter their circumstances, to keep the child(which is partially the reason for so many single mothers). Even after an abortion is said and done, many women go through stages of great depression and sadness for days or even weeks.

While men, on the other hand, tend not to gain any sort of an attachment to a child until after the child is born. What I'm trying to say is that it's easier for us males to request a woman to have an abortion, but much harder for a female to go through with it.Which needs to be taken into consideration.

Both veru true, but who ask for a abortion several months after finding out they are pregnant? Most women seem to find out they are pregnant 4-8weeks, if they havent developed a connection since they werent even aware they were pregnant(but had an idea) than suggesting a abortion shortly after shouldnt be a problem. Is the girl automatically attached when she leaves the dr office and finds out shes 6 weeks pregnant?
Nonetheless, this is something that is usually spoken about before the sex etc(depending on the relationship term etc).

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

I covered that as well, and you cannot force a woman to carry on a pregnancy. It'd break a fundamental right of the woman (control over her body), so I am sorry for all the men that want a child but ends up without one. The least we can do is to try to give a little power to the man.

You have the power to wrap your cock with latex before diving balls deep. Pregnancy is one of the real-life potential consequences of having sex, along with STDs, if you cant handle that, dont have unprotected sex.

I swear this board gets more naive and more misogynistic by the day.

 

[hiro4]

Because you've created a human life. It may be a fetus and we can debate whether its right or wrong til we're blue in the face. If two parents decide they don't want it put it up for adoption.

What is the difference of a man saying to a woman I don't want that child and a mother putting the child up for adoption without the consent of the father?

 

[Beezy]

Because you've created a human life. It may be a fetus and we can debate whether its right or wrong til we're blue in the face. If two parents decide they don't want it put it up for adoption.

Okay. I personally don't think that means much, but I know that most people don't share that opinion and I don't feel like getting into it. Back to the topic.

 

[Shanadeus]

Ah, but you see, having the male take responsibility separates us from our ape brethren. By letting the male not take any responsibility we will undo any differentiation we have so far accomplished, like loosing body hair!

Being serious, though, the man can use contraceptives. If it doesn't feel good or you are scared, that's your problem.

You need to read up on our ape brethren, many of them are very protective of their own blood and defend both them and their mother to death. And before anyone brings up chimps killing babies, it's merely because they want the kids to be of their own blood.

A woman can use contraceptives too, and still get pregnant. But does she has to man up and take responsibility?

Nope, she can just get an abortion and remove herself any responsibilities before a child is even born. I'm arguing that the same should hold true for men, as they cannot abort the child in the woman (it'd severly break the womans control over her own body) they should be able to take an action similar to a abortion - removing any and all responsibilities by opting out of parenthood.

 

[DY_nasty]

That's not what I've been suggesting, I'm talking about a legit way of absolving yourself of future responsibilities before a child has been brought into the world. And the law changes as our world moves on and throws away old, adequated thoughts and beliefs.

Once again, just because the world is unfair already doesn't mean that we have to just sit here and accept it. Women once had to accept having a child if they got pregnant, but then they got the right to get abortions and now have the power to thus absolve themselves of the responsibilities of motherhood before a child is even born.

You really don't want to extend that power to men as well in order to make it fair and equal?

If only all men were honorable and intelligent. Far too many people would abuse such a 'fair and equal' system.

Also, a woman choosing to have an abortion isn't the same as a man choosing to relinquish parental responsibility either.

 

[Fei]

As a father, it's sad to see so many trying to validate running away from responsibility. If you have sex, there's always some chance of pregnancy. Accept it.

 

[Skiptastic]

What is the difference of a man saying to a woman I don't want that child and a mother putting the child up for adoption without the consent of the father?

If the father wants the child and the mother does not, the father has the right to claim custody and (child support cases are new but I think this is true) the mother has to pay in to child support.

(I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the laws I've seen.)

 

[Shanadeus]

As a father, it's sad to see so many trying to validate running away from responsibility. If you have sex, there's always some chance of pregnancy. Accept it.

You have the power to wrap your cock with latex before diving balls deep. Pregnancy is one of the real-life potential consequences of having sex, along with STDs, if you cant handle that, dont have unprotected sex.

Just as a woman can get birth control before having someone dive balls deep inside of her.
Would you tell a woman to man up and just care for any potential child just because she has unprotected sex?

That's just silly, it's probably what people told women before they got the right to abortions.
"You're pregnant? Just deal with it, it's a consequence of having sex"

And just as people gave women the power to decide whether or not they want to be mothers through abortions, we should give men an equal power to decide whether or not they want to be fathers.

 

[besada]

All I hear from you guys is how the world is unfair and thats the father's responsibility. If things are so unfair, why shouldnt the mom have to take on the responsiblity all ALONE if a decision is made early on and the would be mom had a heads up.

So the child suffers because you don't want to support your biological child? How, exactly, is that more fair? The child is the only one who isn't responsible for the situation, but allowing fathers to skip off into the world without a care leaves that child in a more precarious financial position through no fault of its own.

That's why the laws are the way they are, because the state cares more about the rights of the innocent child than it does about either parent. Until the state (whatever state) is willing to allow the child to be punished for its parents irresponsibility, the law isn't going to change. States with truly effective social services sometimes allow the father to walk away because they can be sure the state itself will provide for the child. This certainly isn't true in the U.S., though.

If the father wants the child and the mother does not, the father has the right to claim custody and (child support cases are new but I think this is true) the mother has to pay in to child support.

(I'm not a lawyer, but that's my understanding of the laws I've seen.)

While not exactly common, it does happen. Generally the mother has to be a real wreck, or she's abandoned the child. Judges do set child support for women, though. We just finished a case that featured it.

(I'm not a lawyer, either, but I'm a paralegal for a lawyer who practices family law)

 

[Ducarmel]

BTW, I'm not sure besada's claim that you can get a waiver of child support is actually legally enforceable. I think my law professor said that most courts will not hold a private agreement to "get out" of child support as a legal contract. I'd look further into that before writing on a piece of paper that you don't have to pay child support if you knock up your gf, even if she'll sign it.

I knew guy in my Navy days who did not have to pay child support after signing an agreement he lost parental rights to the kid, and the girl agreed to not pursue child support. I guess this was in Atlanta, GA.

Anyway yeah the women has all the power it sucks, but if you consciously have sex knowing the consequences of sex then you have to man up. No bailing out imo. Use condoms, spermicide, etc always. Don't be an idiot if you don't want a child no sex or use contraceptive properly.

 

[Futureman]

You sound level headed enough in that you are trying to push for equality and more fairness in the law...

but honestly, get the fuck out of your little dream world and step into reality.

If this was actually the law, there would be soooooooooooooooooooooo many single mothers out there receiving NO support.

I'm 100% pro choice, but I'm with the whole group saying TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for your damn actions. Stop being a flaky fuck in the name of "equality."

 

[Shanadeus]

So the child suffers because you don't want to support your biological child? How, exactly, is that more fair? The child is the only one who isn't responsible for the situation, but allowing fathers to skip off into the world without a care leaves that child in a more precarious financial position through no fault of its own.

That's why the laws are the way they are, because the state cares more about the rights of the innocent child than it does about either parent. Until the state (whatever state) is willing to allow the child to be punished for its parents irresponsibility, the law isn't going to change. States with truly effective social services sometimes allow the father to walk away because they can be sure the state itself will provide for the child. This certainly isn't true in the U.S., though.

Then let us ponder what this system might achieve.

I believe we'd have more abortions in general, as less women would want to face pregnancy and the rearing of a child without the support of the father (both monetary and emotionally). We'd have less children raised in a single parent household, which might lead to some better crime statistics (I'll have to check up if children with a single parent commit more crimes, so don't hold me to that statement). The mothers who would go through with the pregnancy without a father paying for it all would probably be the ones that have the support of their own parents, and/or have the money to support themselves and their child.

Anyway I think that we'd see an increase or same level of children being born by parents who really want a child while we'd get less kids from parents who aren't so sure about it or are living in poverty.

This is all some guessing about how things might look like in the US in particular, and I don't have any numbers or statistics to back it up. We need to have some studies made on this, anyone have any numbers before and after they allowed this system in the Netherlands(or whatever country it was that some poster brought up)?

 

[flsh]

You need to read up on our ape brethren, many of them are very protective of their own blood and defend both them and their mother to death. And before anyone brings up chimps killing babies, it's merely because they want the kids to be of their own blood.

A woman can use contraceptives too, and still get pregnant. But does she has to man up and take responsibility?

Nope, she can just get an abortion and remove herself any responsibilities before a child is even born. I'm arguing that the same should hold true for men, as they cannot abort the child in the woman (it'd severly break the womans control over her own body) they should be able to take an action similar to a abortion - removing any and all responsibilities by opting out of parenthood.

1) How the hell did you not figure out I was being sarcastic? Everything was there but a huge banner popping out of your screen with a "SARCASM ->" on it. I was joking after your trolling (or at least I hope it was trolling) in the body hair thread.
2) I will say this again. As a male, you have the option to use condoms or go through a vasectomy. If you don't want a child, you have means to prevent having a child. By going bareback with a woman you are not sure would be willing to go through an abortion, you are risking it. It might not be fair that you would have to pay for a child you aren't raising, but it's even less fair for a child to be born to a poor family without a father. If you don't want a child, prevent the pregnancy. Abortion is not something a man should decide himself, but the man has the option to not get a woman pregnant.
The man should never have the last word in a procedure someone else has to take. If you got a woman pregnant without wanting to, you already did your mistake. The ball is in someone else's hands now. Deal with it.

 

[Treo360]

If you're having sex, then you've put yourself in that position. Don't trust anyone and don't rely solely on BC.

 

[Skiptastic]

While not exactly common, it does happen. Generally the mother has to be a real wreck, or she's abandoned the child. Judges do set child support for women, though. We just finished a case that featured it.

(I'm not a lawyer, either, but I'm a paralegal for a lawyer who practices family law)

Then do you know if my law professor is right and most courts will not honor an agreement that "waives" child support? She seemed pretty adamant that it's a worthless contract (like most non-competes in California).

 

[Shubit]

From a purely biological point of view sexual intercourse is meant for procreation not recreation. Going from this, each time two consenting adults engage in it (and conditions are met) from nature's point of view it's assumed they are willfully trying to produce offspring. Unless active countermeasures are involved, sooner or later having sex will lead to having a child.

We are social beings and being a part of society comes with it's set of moral and (thank Xenu) legal obligations. Because a child's upbringing is one of the most demanding tasks an individual could face in life, society expects that both parents take some part in it, if not active at least financial.

Where am I taking this? If you are too lazy and/or sloppy to wrap up, pull out on time, or use chemical contraceptives prepare to face the consequences. You are just as much at fault as the woman you've knocked up. Abortion on the other hand is an extreme violation of natural and in some cases societal rules and not to mention potentially health endangering, so no woman should be subjected to it unless it's 100% her own conscious choice.

 

[GitarooMan]

This is one the more disturbing threads in recent memory I've read on GAF.

 

[Ducarmel]

Anyway I think that we'd see an increase or same level of children being born by parents who really want a child while we'd get less kids from parents who aren't so sure about it or are living in poverty.

well until we get state assisted abortions it will never happen. No politician will ever commit political suicide by suggest tax payer money pay for abortions. So we will still have poor families and or poor single mothers having children. Since abortion cost can go from $400 to $1000 or more in the U.S.

 

[DY_nasty]

Then let us ponder what this system might achieve.

I believe we'd have more abortions in general, as less women would want to face pregnancy and the rearing of a child without the support of the father (both monetary and emotionally). We'd have less children raised in a single parent household, which might lead to some better crime statistics (I'll have to check up if children with a single parent commit more crimes, so don't hold me to that statement). The mothers who would go through with the pregnancy without a father paying for it all would probably be the ones that have the support of their own parents, and/or have the money to support themselves and their child.

Anyway I think that we'd see an increase or same level of children being born by parents who really want a child while we'd get less kids from parents who aren't so sure about it or are living in poverty.

This is all some guessing about how things might look like in the US in particular, and I don't have any numbers or statistics to back it up. We need to have some studies made on this, anyone have any numbers before and after they allowed this system in the Netherlands(or whatever country it was that some poster brought up)?

How'd you jump to that conclusion?

Are you saying that men should be able to call the shots on abortions now too? If so, this thread truly is a joke...

 

[besada]

BTW, I'm not sure besada's claim that you can get a waiver of child support is actually legally enforceable. I think my law professor said that most courts will not hold a private agreement to "get out" of child support as a legal contract. I'd look further into that before writing on a piece of paper that you don't have to pay child support if you knock up your gf, even if she'll sign it.

I wasn't discussing a private contract (which you might have noted by my use of the phrase "presenting to the court") but a court sanctioned Affadavit of Waiver of Parental Rights, which most states allow. (I'd be happy to cite the relevant code for my state, if you need it.)

I think she must have been talking about pre-nups which attempt to waive support, or other contracts that don't involve a release of parental rights. As far as I know, complete waiver of the parents rights is the only way to legally dodge child support, and it needs the other party's agreement. The judge also has to allow it, which he decides based on whether it's in the best interests of the child.

I'm off to work, but I'll pop in later if there are other questions.

 

[-PXG-]

It's her body.

It's not his.

The man has the freedom not to get his partner pregnant.

If he does, then he better man up and be responsible.

/thread