Support NeoGAF

[Mystic Theurge]

Because it's red herring really, by implementing such a system you'd probably end up with fewer kids with deadbeat dads that run away. I'll try dig up some numbers tomorrow on the number of children in single parent homes that end up with no financial support from their father/mother because he or she simply ran away and avoided the payments.



Children does lose critical financial support time after time again because of mothers deceiving their fathers. I'm talking about when the mother has concieved the child with some random man, and the partner to the mother request a paternity test and leaves upon finding out that he's not the father.

And there you have it, a child that has lost critical financial support because his mother deceived his father. The father might not be biological but it's not really relevant.

Should a child lose critical financial support because his mother deceived his father?

Did you miss that word? I said father not random dude who's not actually the father.

 

[Gaborn]

Don't you think a man has the right to have a baby he does want even if the woman doesn't want him, but she freely decided to have unprotected sex with him?

Then he can carry it himself for 9 months.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Don't you think a man has the right to have a baby he does want even if the woman doesn't want him, but she freely decided to have unprotected sex with him?

See this:

No, because she has a right to her own body. She decides whether the kid is born or not. You can't force her to do so without violating her rights.

 

[Broken Arrow]

Should a child lose critical financial support because his mother deceived his father?

If deceive is indeed proven, then the mother should lose the financial support from the father.

 

[Broken Arrow]

See this:

I don't agree with that and it is the whole point of the discussion. The mother does get a chance and the father does not.

For me it is not fair that she can decide to abort the baby if the father does want him, but not the other way around...

 

[Brian Griffin]

Don't you think a man has the right to have a baby he does want even if the woman doesn't want him, but she freely decided to have unprotected sex with him?

This is an inequality that can never and should never be changed. Women should always have final say weather to abort or not and if even if the dad really wants to keep the kid and will adopt it and take care of it on his own after it's born she should still be able to abort it if she wants. It's cruel and I would hate a woman forever if I was in that situation but it's her right and it always should be.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Post conception...no he does not.

He doesn't get one because of biology.

What choice does the man have when the woman is pregnant?
Is it the choice between manning up or paying for the kid?

The man doesn't get a choice post-conception. This is because of biology.

Go read Brian Griffin's post. Having sex makes a man no more a father than having sex makes a woman a mother. Women have a choice to become mothers or not, giving men a legal option of doing the same is the way to go. No one's rights are infringed upon, and kids would be wanted.

The rights of the child are infringed.

 

[Freeza Under The Shower]

A man hath the right to

FALCOooooon PUNCH!

Spoiler

since the law unsures any child an appeal to both parents, both man and woman always get a say about it. The idea that woman alone should decide about children is just a poor way of saying: "I can still bail out later". Just talk to the damn woman, you twit.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Men will never get equal rights on this issue [snip]

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Hey, why did Shanadeus get banned?

 

[Mystic Theurge]

If deceive is indeed proven, then the mother should lose the financial support from the father.

So you're saying that the child so be punished for the sins of it's mother. Got it.

I don't agree with that and it is the whole point of the discussion. The mother does get a chance and the father does not.

For me it is not fair that she can decide to abort the baby if the father does want him, but not the other way around...

It is fair. You just don't see why.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Hey, why did Shanadeus get banned?

Another topic? Don't see why she'd get banned from anything she said in here.

 

[Cruzader]

OP sounds egoistic/selfish. WTF was that about?

 

[Espada]

The rights of the child are infringed.

Nonsense. The best interests of the child are served because this will remove all men except those who want to be fathers from having children. This promotes responsibility on both sides, as well as making an legal abortion option available to men.

Of course, the state will have to subsidize abortions. But that is cheaper to the taxpayer, and we get the best possible people raising children (those who went into willingly).

 

[Toski]

Men will never get equal rights on this issue so lets just continue the practice of getting paid 25% more than women.

Us men need to stop propagating this thought and look at reality.

It is only a matter of time before women start making more than us since they hear crap like this which keeps them driven and makes men complacent.

 

[SapientWolf]

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)?

If it was easier for fathers to bail out I think we would just have less guys paying child support. There are a lot of issues underlying a woman's post pregnancy decision that this bailout option wouldn't change (moral, social, religious, emotional, economical, etc.) Some guys may even be supportive at first only to bail out at the last minute.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

Us men need to stop propagating this thought and look at reality.

It is only a matter of time before women start making more than us since they hear crap like this which keeps them driven and makes men complacent.

Its a joke.

I'm pretty sure there are laws in place to prevent it and to rectify it if its ever discovered.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Nonsense. The best interests of the child are served because this will remove all men except those who want to be fathers from having children. This promotes responsibility on both sides, as well as making an legal abortion option available to men.

It infringes the child's right for financial support.

 

[Gaborn]

Us men need to stop propagating this thought and look at reality.

It is only a matter of time before women start making more than us since they hear crap like this which keeps them driven and makes men complacent.

If you're "complacent" because you think you make 25% more than a woman then you're already a lazy fuck. You shouldn't base how hard you work on how much (or little) you think another person is making or you're a massive idiot.

 

[Espada]

It infringes the child's right for financial support.

There is no child until it is born. After the man's signed that document, it's fully in the woman's power to decide whether she wants to raise a child that will not have the financial,and more importantly, emotional support of a willing father.

Any woman who really wants a child would likely balk at disadvantaging her child from birth.

 

[Gaborn]

There is no child until it is born. It's fully in the mother's power to decide whether she wants to raise a child that will not have the financial,and more importantly, emotional support of a willing father.

In other words, you're trying to incentivize and pressure her into aborting it.

 

[Toski]

Its a joke.

I'm pretty sure there are laws in place to prevent it and to rectify it if its ever discovered.

I know you said it jokingly, but a lot of men actually believe they can half-ass their way through life and make more then many women who are driven.

 

[Brian Griffin]

It infringes the child's right for financial support.

Financial support isn't a right it's a privilege. Rich parent's can give their kid up for adoption to poor parents and while it sucks for the kid, he doesn't have a right to his biological parents' money.

 

[Espada]

In other words, you're trying to incentivize and pressure her into aborting it.

There's no pressure beyond the daunting responsibility of caring for a child on your own, something single mothers already face (hence, it's already an incentive to abort for single women). And there is nothing immoral about abortion.

 

[Gaborn]

Financial support isn't a right it's a privilege. Rich parent's can give their kid up for adoption to poor parents and while it sucks for the kid, he doesn't have a right to his biological parents' money.

I'm pretty sure if both of your parents died and left no will (I'm assuming for simplicity's sake you're an only child) you'd have a claim to their entire estate. Similarly even if you were totally excluded from a will you have a right to challenge the validity of that will as a legal heir. Same if they died before adding you into an existing will. Children ALWAYS have a claim to their parent's money.

Espada - There's no pressure - except a complete lack of interest in stepping up and helping, placing the entire burden of a decision like that on the woman? Yeah. No pressure there at ALL :lol :lol :lol

 

[Vanillalite]

This is really confusing me. Aren't condoms male birth control? They are 98% effective, which is comparable to any pharmaceutical solution.

Eh IUDs are 99.9% effective. While the difference is small there is a difference. Plus with something like an IUD there isn't any failure rate (as long as it's still in) which isn't always true with condoms. Men don't have anything close to what really good birth control or an IUD could do for them. Plus women have options where as men have one thing.

 

[Espada]

Espada - There's no pressure - except a complete lack of interest in stepping up and helping, placing the entire burden of a decision like that on the woman? Yeah. No pressure there at ALL :lol :lol :lol

Like I said, that's already the case for single mothers. It's cheaper for the state to provide abortions, and it'll benefit society for these women not to have children while men become fathers enthusiatically. Those children will be born with the financial and emotional support of their father and IIRC these children do better in life on average.

IMO, it's like divorce. It's seen as negative by many in society, but it is a good thing.

 

[oneHeero]

Rather than taking responsibility for what you did you'd go to jail? REALLY? You're gonna make a GREAT dad some day.

and "nobody has sympathy for them" but I didn't exactly hear too many of you guys protesting the person advocating that position earlier.

Its because that position is fucken stupid and we would think your smart enough to realize that.
Apparently that's not the case, I cant even believe you brought up that position when its been mentioned on such a small basis vs some of the other positions in this thread. Its like you compared your own position vs the weakest position offered instead of something I mentioned or the Op or Evlar or anyone else who didnt make a stupid suggestion.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

There is no child until it is born. It's fully in the mother's power to decide whether she wants to raise a child that will not have the financial,and more importantly, emotional support of a willing father.

You are correct that there is no child until it's born. But if it is, its right to financial support kicks in.

 

[Brian Griffin]

I'm pretty sure if both of your parents died and left no will (I'm assuming for simplicity's sake you're an only child) you'd have a claim to their entire estate. Similarly even if you were totally excluded from a will you have a right to challenge the validity of that will as a legal heir. Same if they died before adding you into an existing will. Children ALWAYS have a claim to their parent's money.

Espada - There's no pressure - except a complete lack of interest in stepping up and helping, placing the entire burden of a decision like that on the woman? Yeah. No pressure there at ALL :lol :lol :lol

I'm assuming everyone is still alive. The biological parent's don't have to support the kid because they gave him up for adoption. Mystic Theurge is saying that the father shouldn't be able to "abort" himself if the mother deceives him because the kid has a right to be supported by him. I disagree and think that the kid isn't being punished for the sins of his mother because financial support was never a right to begin with. However, he definitely won't have the privilege of being supported by his mother and father.

 

[Jamesfrom818]

This issue is messed up no matter which side you take. The only thing we could do as a society is educate people on proper sexual protection and hope for the best.

I'm saying this as a guy who really wanted to have a baby but still supported his girlfriend when she decided to have an abortion.

 

[Espada]

You are correct that there is no child until it's born. But if it is, its right to financial support kicks in.

I'm in complete agreement with you in that case. Once the child is born, its best interests are paramount. That said, the idea Griffin put out was for men to have a similar timeframe that women get to abort BEFORE the child comes about.

 

[Jenov]

I'm assuming everyone is still alive. The biological parent's don't have to support the kid because they gave him up for adoption. Mystic Theurge is saying that the father shouldn't be able to "abort" himself if the mother deceives him because the kid has a right to be supported by him. I disagree and think that the kid isn't being punished for the sins of his mother because financial support was never a right to begin with. However, he definitely won't have the privilege of being supported by his mother and father.

"financial support" - it's not extra money for games and toys, its FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER. Basic necessities that require financing! Every child is entitled to this, regardless of the any wrong doing by the mother.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

Financial support isn't a right it's a privilege. Rich parent's can give their kid up for adoption to poor parents and while it sucks for the kid, he doesn't have a right to his biological parents' money.

I want you go and think long and hard on why this statement makes no sense.

 

[daw840]

If you're "complacent" because you think you make 25% more than a woman then you're already a lazy fuck. You shouldn't base how hard you work on how much (or little) you think another person is making or you're a massive idiot.

I have a fairly large problem with this. I base everyone's success in life based on what they earn......

Spoiler

I am a failure so far

 

[Jenov]

A lot of you are completely missing the point of what it means when a child is born into the world. It is not about you, you, you, or her, her her. It's about the baby and IT'S needs, not yours.

 

[Gaborn]

Like I said, that's already the case for single mothers. It's cheaper for the state to provide abortions, and it'll benefit society for these women not to have children while men become fathers enthusiatically. Those children will be born with the financial and emotional support of their father and IIRC these children do better in life on average.

IMO, it's like divorce. It's seen as negative by many in society, but it is a good thing.

I'd say that abortions are a "necessary evil." but they shouldn't be used as a great out for fuckwit people that just don't want to step up and take an ounce of responsibility for having Sex While Stupid. Sometimes abortions are necessary because of the health of the mother, or to get rid of her rape baby, or because she's a student, the dad's a student, and there's just no way they can take care of it. But abortion is not and shouldn't be a part of general birth control. Abortion can be extremely traumatic and life changing for some women (and no big deal for others). The way it should work is anyone who is even halfway able to step up should offer to do so if they're responsible for creating a child even if the woman decides ultimately to get an abortion, and these intimations that abortions aren't a "big deal" really seem more about the guy's comfort than any thought for what the woman wants.

Its because that position is fucken stupid and we would think your smart enough to realize that.

Apparently that's not the case, I cant even believe you brought up that position when its been mentioned on such a small basis vs some of the other positions in this thread. Its like you compared your own position vs the weakest position offered instead of something I mentioned or the Op or Evlar or anyone else who didnt make a stupid suggestion.

Hey, I wasn't the one who asked if I thought anyone on gaf was stupid enough to have sex without protection and then advocate Shanadeus's position. All I did really was... wow, reference the very guy making that argument ON THE PAGE HE WAS MAKING IT! I'm not naive enough to think it's a general position of most gaffers in this thread but it does seem like the attitude some people have, that the man shouldn't be responsible after he ejaculates.

Brian Griffin - Prost already pretty much made my response for me there. essentially, if you create a human life and it's taken to term you don't abdicate your responsibilities and force society to care for your spawn.

 

[Brian Griffin]

"financial support" - it's not extra money for games and toys, its FOOD, CLOTHING, SHELTER. Basic necessities that require financing! Every child is entitled to this, regardless of the any wrong doing by the mother.

I know, but I don't think the father should be forced to pay for this stuff if he never wanted the kid in the first place. The kid does not have a right to his financial support. Myself, I would do the honorable thing and "man up" because I would want the best for the kid but sadly not everyone has that mindset and I think it's wrong to impose my values on them.

 

[Brian Griffin]

I want you go and think long and hard on why this statement makes no sense.

You think parents who give their kid up for adoption should still have to pay to support it? Isn't the whole point of adoption so you don't have to pay?

 

[oneHeero]

This is an inequality that can never and should never be changed. Women should always have final say weather to abort or not and if even if the dad really wants to keep the kid and will adopt it and take care of it on his own after it's born she should still be able to abort it if she wants. It's cruel and I would hate a woman forever if I was in that situation but it's her right and it always should be.

That's the problem with you and the rest of the guys that share your opinion. We arent making them have a abortion, its been stated a billion times in this thread that its a woman's choice. This is about giving the guy a legal opportunity to not be responsible for the child in cases where it was originally agreed upon that there would be no kids and than the girl changes her mind after a accidental pregnant or similar positions.

This isnt about giving deadbeat dads a way out. Those men must man up. This is for people who, prior to any pregnancy, agree on no pregnancy up front.

This also isnt about making/forcing a woman to have an abortion, no one wants to take that option a way from a woman. But if she decides to change her mind AFTER initially agreeing to no pregnancy and the guy still doesn't want a kid, he shouldn't have to be responsible for the child, she should have to act as an adult and take on responsibility for wanting the child after all. If she cant afford the child alone than she should put that into consideration before bringing a child into a life where both parents dont want to be present nor responsible for a mistak(insensitive i know, sorry).

EDIT: Not changing the post, just mentioning that I'm not in disagreement with you Brian Griffith, I misread the name when posting etc. lol so many new posters in the thread.

 

[Gaborn]

I know, but I don't think the father should be forced to pay for this stuff if he never wanted the kid in the first place. The kid does not have a right to his financial support. Myself, I would do the honorable thing and "man up" because I would want the best for the kid but sadly not everyone has that mindset and I think it's wrong to impose my values on them.

Then who should be forced to pay for it? Kids need food, clothing, shelter, etc. If the mother can't do it by herself then who should have to pay for it?

 

[Espada]

I'd say that abortions are a "necessary evil." but they shouldn't be used as a great out for fuckwit people that just don't want to step up and take an ounce of responsibility for having Sex While Stupid. Sometimes abortions are necessary because of the health of the mother, or to get rid of her rape baby, or because she's a student, the dad's a student, and there's just no way they can take care of it. But abortion is not and shouldn't be a part of general birth control. Abortion can be extremely traumatic and life changing for some women (and no big deal for others). The way it should work is anyone who is even halfway able to step up should offer to do so if they're responsible for creating a child even if the woman decides ultimately to get an abortion, and these intimations that abortions aren't a "big deal" really seem more about the guy's comfort than any thought for what the woman wants.

I can't say I agree with you there. Many people view divorce in a similar light (a "necessary evil") but that isn't any reason why it shouldn't be an an easily accessible option to women. Divorces are often extremely traumatic to all involved, that doesn't mean they aren't a net good. Any other position essentially punishes women with a child for having sex, and we're back to the pre-legalized abortion days.

No one wants to return to those days as it shits on women and is terrible for children. It's one of the situations worse than a fatherless child.

 

[Jenov]

I know, but I don't think the father should be forced to pay for this stuff if he never wanted the kid in the first place. The kid does not have a right to his financial support. Myself, I would do the honorable thing and "man up" because I would want the best for the kid but sadly not everyone has that mindset and I think it's wrong to impose my values on them.

What you're suggesting is to punish the child by taking away the father's half of financial backing. All just because "oops! I don't want it, and if you're not comfortable with an abortion, well tough shit, ITS EQUAL NOW."

 

[Brian Griffin]

That's the problem with you and the rest of the guys that share your opinion. We arent making them have a abortion, its been stated a billion times in this thread that its a woman's choice. This is about giving the guy a legal opportunity to not be responsible for the child in cases where it was originally agreed upon that there would be no kids and than the girl changes her mind after a accidental pregnant or similar positions.

This isnt about giving deadbeat dads a way out. Those men must man up. This is for people who, prior to any pregnancy, agree on no pregnancy up front.

This also isnt about making/forcing a woman to have an abortion, no one wants to take that option a way from a woman. But if she decides to change her mind AFTER initially agreeing to no pregnancy and the guy still doesn't want a kid, he shouldn't have to be responsible for the child, she should have to act as an adult and take on responsibility for wanting the child after all. If she cant afford the child alone than she should put that into consideration before bringing a child into a life where both parents dont want to be present nor responsible for a mistak(insensitive i know, sorry).

Go back and read my posts, we totally agree on this. I love this topic and have discussed it multiple times with friends but I've got to head out from work now to get my beer on. FRIDAY!!

 

[Gaborn]

I can't say I agree with you there. Many people view divorce in a similar light (a "necessary evil") but that isn't any reason why it shouldn't be an an easily accessible option to women. Any other position essentially punishes women with a child for having sex, and we're back to the pre-legalized abortion days.

No one wants to return to those days as it shits on women and is terrible for children. It's one of the situations worse than a fatherless child.

abortions SHOULD be accessible, but women shouldn't feel pressured by "either abort the baby or pay for EVERYTHING alone." That mentality is as bad as the 50s and 60s mentality of a girl "going away for a bit" and having the baby out of town and being forced to give it up for adoption. The right to choose isn't a right to be pressured into HAVING an abortion, ti's about the choice to do so or not free from coercion and knowing that whatever you choose you're going to have some support structure there for you.

 

[ShinobiFist]

It is fair. You just don't see why.

What if the guy is religious, and wants to keep the child, but the woman says no, I'm aborting it f' that! Is that fair, no in my POV, but if it was vice versa, the guy is seemed as the asshole(that's the point the OP was trying to say) She knows what she's getting herself into as much as the man as well. There are many situations that was brought in the thread(Like the female skipping out on the birth control, or the guy pinching a hole to the condom)that ends up trapping that partner.

BTW, I'm not disagreeing with, I think people should be fully aware who the fuck they're screwing. If your fucking a scumbag or a grimy chick, you asked to be on the Maury show.

 

[Espada]

abortions SHOULD be accessible, -but women shouldn't feel pressured by "either abort the baby or pay for EVERYTHING alone." That mentality is as bad as the 50s and 60s mentality of a girl "going away for a bit" and having the baby out of town and being forced to give it up for adoption. The right to choose isn't a right to be pressured into HAVING an abortion, ti's about the choice to do so or not free from coercion and knowing that whatever you choose you're going to have some support structure there for you.

I've said it before, but that's already the case for single women now. A lot of them don't know the father, and she winds up with full responsibility of the child and all of its attendant needs and she already has a support structure in the forms of numerous social programs made to help single mothers.

And there is already societal pressure on young single women to abort, with this pressure being reversed in more conservative areas.

 

[Mystic Theurge]

I'm in complete agreement with you in that case. Once the child is born, its best interests are paramount. That said, the idea Griffin put out was for men to have a similar timeframe that women get to abort BEFORE the child comes about.

If a woman aborts than the child will not exist and thus has no rights.

If a man "aborts" than the child may still get to exist and if does has rights.

 

[oneHeero]

Go back and read my posts, we totally agree on this. I love this topic and have discussed it multiple times with friends but I've got to head out from work now to get my beer on. FRIDAY!!

EDIT: Not changing the post, just mentioning that I'm not in disagreement with you Brian Griffith, I misread the name when posting etc. lol so many new posters in the thread.
Part of my post

Then who should be forced to pay for it? Kids need food, clothing, shelter, etc. If the mother can't do it by herself then who should have to pay for it?

If a mother cant do it, why is she forcing a child to be born? You make it seem like we are trying to change the world in the sense that there arent already millions of dead beat fathers already and deceitful women out there.

We are simply proposing a legal option to opt out of accidental pregnancy AHEAD of any pregnancy.
We arent saying there are 2 people dating never talk about having kids but the girl gets pregnant and the guy wants a legal option to not raise the kid financially or emotionally.We are talking about both people agreeing to no accidental pregnancy taking place and if one happens than the women agrees to take full responsibility because she either agreed she wasnt ready for pregnancy or because she understands that she shouldnt force another person into parenthood because she decided to have the child after all.

Can you guys really not see the difference?

 

[Espada]

If a man "aborts" than the child may still get to exist and if does has rights.

If a man "aborts" the child in that arrangement put out, it would be as if the child has no father, and the father no child. The mother would've made a serious mistake, but she would be treated as any other single mother who has no father on the child's birth certificate.

Notify her of this, and move along.