Laws behind pregnancy.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Oh, and the man in West Virginia should pay what he owes, but sue the bio father for the child support the legal father is paying.

[surly74]

does the man in WV have a leg to stand on for suing the biological father based on what the law says?

he's paid and is paying CS for the kid but refuses to play alimony to his ex wife. for that I agree with him.

[Johan]

Ok here's my problem with all of this. First lets establish the premise and then we'll look at the proposed solution. The premise here is that its unfair that men have no legal rights when it comes to deciding whether or not to abort a pregnancy and can therefore end up having to pay child support for a child which they never wanted and would have opted to abort had they been given the choice.

And the proposed solution to the lack of equal rights is to allow men to opt out of their responsibility via a so called paper abortion. In this scenario the man essentially says that if the woman chooses to have the baby, she does so against his will and on her own and he is therefore no longer responsible for paying any child support nor would he have any legal rights to the child.

The problem I have with this solution is that it does not solve the problem in question i.e. the lack of equal rights between both parties. It does not give the man rights equal to the woman. All that it does is give the man a legal means to be a deadbeat dad.

Now if we decide that we think its a good thing to legalize being a deadbeat, so be it. I don't agree for reasons I'll go into below, but so be it. But only if we call it what it is, legalizing deadbeats. Don't say it grants men the same rights as women because it doesn't do that. Not even close. Women still make the choice. Men still have no say in it. There are no equal rights here. None. There is only a loophole which allows deadbeat dads to be deadbeat dads.

But now lets look a few other realities of the situation. Child support is not an automatic thing in most states as far I know. When a woman has a child out of wedlock, the state does not automatically step in and demand the know the name of the father so they may find him and shake him down for child support. In order to get child support, the mother of the child must ask for it. A paternity test will likely be required as well as few visits to the court.

Now we've already discussed how birth control is never 100% effective. But we've also discussed how when used properly, the chances of an unplanned pregnancy are incredibly small. So we're already dealing with a small number here. And of that small number, some of them are going to be aborted at the mutual decision of both partners. Because regardless of whether the law says the man has a right or not, lots of women will grant the man a say anyway.

But of course that's not all cases. And some women who find themselves in the already small group will indeed decide to have the kid even the guy doesn't want it. Of those, it is very likely that not all will end up going to court for child support. The law of averages says that some of those women will have personal ethics which cause them to be of the opinion that if it was they alone are making the choice to have the kid, they alone will take all responsibility for the kid regardless of what the law says.

But again, that's not going to be all cases. So of that small percentage where birth control is used properly and fails, and where the woman decides to have the kid against the wishes of the man, there will inevitably be a few who women who will also say fuck ethics, he stuck his dick in me so I'm going to make him pay. So what we are talking about here is making a law which would apply to a very small percentage of men. That percentage being those men who used birth control, had it fail, and then realized they were sleeping with someone whom they did not well enough to know that she would go after them for child support even if they did not want the baby carried to term. And any way you slice it, that is irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. If he doesn't want a kid and sticks his dick in someone without birth control, that's irresponsible. And if he doesn't want a kid and he sticks his dick in someone whom he doesn't know well enough to predict what she will do should she get pregnant, then that too is irresponsible. You have these discussions with each other before the clothes come off or the clothes don't come off. That is what responsible adults do.

And once again my question is why are we even talking about legalizing irresponsible behavior? The solution to irresponsible behavior is not to make it legal. That is the way I see this issue. We're talking about legalizing stupid and nothing more as far as I'm concerned.

[Aroura33]

Ok here's my problem with all of this. First lets establish the premise and then we'll look at the proposed solution. The premise here is that its unfair that men have no legal rights when it comes to deciding whether or not to abort a pregnancy and can therefore end up having to pay child support for a child which they never wanted and would have opted to abort had they been given the choice.

And the proposed solution to the lack of equal rights is to allow men to opt out of their responsibility via a so called paper abortion. In this scenario the man essentially says that if the woman chooses to have the baby, she does so against his will and on her own and he is therefore no longer responsible for paying any child support nor would he have any legal rights to the child.

The problem I have with this solution is that it does not solve the problem in question i.e. the lack of equal rights between both parties. It does not give the man rights equal to the woman. All that it does is give the man a legal means to be a deadbeat dad.

Now if we decide that we think its a good thing to legalize being a deadbeat, so be it. I don't agree for reasons I'll go into below, but so be it. But only if we call it what it is, legalizing deadbeats. Don't say it grants men the same rights as women because it doesn't do that. Not even close. Women still make the choice. Men still have no say in it. There are no equal rights here. None. There is only a loophole which allows deadbeat dads to be deadbeat dads.

But now lets look a few other realities of the situation. Child support is not an automatic thing in most states as far I know. When a woman has a child out of wedlock, the state does not automatically step in and demand the know the name of the father so they may find him and shake him down for child support. In order to get child support, the mother of the child must ask for it. A paternity test will likely be required as well as few visits to the court.

Now we've already discussed how birth control is never 100% effective. But we've also discussed how when used properly, the chances of an unplanned pregnancy are incredibly small. So we're already dealing with a small number here. And of that small number, some of them are going to be aborted at the mutual decision of both partners. Because regardless of whether the law says the man has a right or not, lots of women will grant the man a say anyway.

But of course that's not all cases. And some women who find themselves in the already small group will indeed decide to have the kid even the guy doesn't want it. Of those, it is very likely that not all will end up going to court for child support. The law of averages says that some of those women will have personal ethics which cause them to be of the opinion that if it was they alone are making the choice to have the kid, they alone will take all responsibility for the kid regardless of what the law says.

But again, that's not going to be all cases. So of that small percentage where birth control is used properly and fails, and where the woman decides to have the kid against the wishes of the man, there will inevitably be a few who women who will also say fuck ethics, he stuck his dick in me so I'm going to make him pay. So what we are talking about here is making a law which would apply to a very small percentage of men. That percentage being those men who used birth control, had it fail, and then realized they were sleeping with someone whom they did not well enough to know that she would go after them for child support even if they did not want the baby carried to term. And any way you slice it, that is irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. If he doesn't want a kid and sticks his dick in someone without birth control, that's irresponsible. And if he doesn't want a kid and he sticks his dick in someone whom he doesn't know well enough to predict what she will do should she get pregnant, then that too is irresponsible. You have these discussions with each other before the clothes come off or the clothes don't come off. That is what responsible adults do.

And once again my question is why are we even talking about legalizing irresponsible behavior? The solution to irresponsible behavior is not to make it legal. That is the way I see this issue. We're talking about legalizing stupid and nothing more as far as I'm concerned.

The exact same thing can, and HAS and for that matter still IS being said about womens rights and abortion. Only instead of legalizing something as trivial as beaing a "deadbeat", they say we are legalizing murder. And surely, we are legalizing irresponsible behavior, because easy abortions just means woman will use it AS birth control, and start sleeping around more promiscuislt, right?

No, it is not legalizing irresponsible behavior, unless you agree it goes both ways, and that abortions are also legalizing irresponsible behaviotr, aka having sex and not accepting the consequences.

You cannot say it is a womans body and her life and her choice, and then say the exact opposite about men without sounding hypocritical. Yes, it is not his body, but the life and choice part should still apply.

I am a woman, and sadly I also disagree with your educated guesses on the number of unmarried women who sue for child support. Most, like you, assume a man who will not pay for his child is a deadbeat, his choice does not matter, and ETHICALLY the right thing to do is make him pay. Even most men, as can be seen on this forum, think men, ethically, should pay for any offspring they produce, and have no moral ground to stand on if they disagree.

[Johan]

The exact same thing can, and HAS and for that matter still IS being said about womens rights and abortion. Only instead of legalizing something as trivial as beaing a "deadbeat", they say we are legalizing murder. And surely, we are legalizing irresponsible behavior, because easy abortions just means woman will use it AS birth control, and start sleeping around more promiscuislt, right?

No, it is not legalizing irresponsible behavior, unless you agree it goes both ways, and that abortions are also legalizing irresponsible behaviotr, aka having sex and not accepting the consequences.

This is an excellent point. You're absolutely correct that legalizing abortion is also legalizing irresponsible behavior. but here's the difference. We tried making abortion illegal and abortions didn't stop. Instead women went underground to get them and as a result many were seriously injured or died. So in a nutshell if being a deadbeat dad significantly increased the risk that men would end up seriously injured or dead then I would say you have a valid argument. But to my knowledge being a deadbeat dad does no such thing, therefore I see no reason to legalize it.

[MrsSassyPants]

Forgive me for having an oppinion here but men....here's a kleenex.  And some cheese.  Good gracious I have been looking at this way to much.  Bk to real life for a bit now

[MrsSassyPants]

Who gives a fk about hypothetical.  Seriously. I'm drunk and going to bed now.  Only after I visit the drunk section of the forum. ;)

[Plu]

I'm fully agreeing with Aurora.

Also Johan, by calling this "legalizing deadbeats", you are simply trying to poison the discussion. It makes me not even want to discuss the subject with you and I consider it rather rude.
You are also completely glossing over the fact that it takes two people to have unsafe sex.

[surly74]

so....women don't have any responsibility? Is that what you are saying?

And any way you slice it, that is irresponsible behavior on the part of the man. If he doesn't want a kid and sticks his dick in someone without birth control, that's irresponsible. And if he doesn't want a kid and he sticks his dick in someone whom he doesn't know well enough to predict what she will do should she get pregnant, then that too is irresponsible.

Where is the cry of irresponsibility on the part of the woman?

You don't want to legalize irresponsible behaviour on the man but it already exists for women...it's call child support.

[Johan]

You are also completely glossing over the fact that it takes two people to have unsafe sex.

Are we talking about unsafe sex here? If we are then I agree that it takes two do that. I thought the premise we were discussing revolved around the fact that guy could EVERYTHING right, have a trusting partner, practice safe sex and do it properly, discuss both partners feelings on the subject and know what each partner would want BEFORE having sex and then STILL end up having to pay child support for a kid he never wanted and because of that, we need a law god dammit. I thought the argument was that guys have it bad because they could do everything right and still get screwed simply because they're guys and don't have the same options available as women do.

If that's the argument, I say that it is indeed a bit of a double standard but its also not really that big of a problem and its certainly not a big enough problem to need its own law.

However if the argument is actually just that men should get the same options as women and it doesn't matter how irresponsible either party is, then my opinion is we don't need more laws to legalize irresponsible behavior. Yep abortion does that already for the girls. But like I said, when we get rid of abortion, girls get dead. That alone in my mind justifies abortion. So my question is do guys get dead if we force them to pay child support against their will? If the answer is no then I don't believe we need a law to protect guys from having to pay child support.  Double standard? Sure. Fair? Nope. That's life and life ain't always fair or equal.

The bottom line is this. How wide spread is the problem really? How many guys do everything right as I've outlined above and still end up having to pay child support every year? Less than 10,000? Less than 1000? And how many of those guys have the rest of their lives totally ruined because there isn't a law to protect them? Wouldn't our time and effort be better spent focusing on laws that might protect far more people from far worse things?

[Plu]

The bottom line is this. How wide spread is the problem really? How many guys do everything right as I've outlined above and still end up having to pay child support every year? Less than 10,000? Less than 1000? And how many of those guys have the rest of their lives totally ruined because there isn't a law to protect them? Wouldn't our time and effort be better spent focusing on laws that might protect far more people from far worse things?

If the answer is "more than 0" I would say that is reason enough to at least establish there is a problem, and ideally it should be fixed. I can accept "It's wrong but I'm not going to do anything about it", but "It's wrong, but so what" is a bullshit position imho. At the very least be willing to say you think it's wrong and should be changed, even if you don't care to put it into action.

(It's not like I'm going to take action myself since I don't even live in the country, but that doesn't change that it's wrong the way it goes now.)

[Hijiri Byakuren]

The bottom line is this. How wide spread is the problem really? How many guys do everything right as I've outlined above and still end up having to pay child support every year? Less than 10,000? Less than 1000? And how many of those guys have the rest of their lives totally ruined because there isn't a law to protect them? Wouldn't our time and effort be better spent focusing on laws that might protect far more people from far worse things?

Okay, you're going in kind of a scary direction here, so here's a little food for thought:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibEJoNyDDgw&t=0m13s

[wolf39us]

As atheists, we are an extremely small minority.  We shouldn't overlook things that are wrong just because the group that is affected is composed of a small number of people!

[Johan]

If the answer is "more than 0" I would say that is reason enough to at least establish there is a problem, and ideally it should be fixed. I can accept "It's wrong but I'm not going to do anything about it", but "It's wrong, but so what" is a bullshit position imho. At the very least be willing to say you think it's wrong and should be changed, even if you don't care to put it into action.

Yeah I don't know that I think its so wrong. I guess it just comes down to that. The reason women have the option of abortion available is because women die is it isn't available. Having to pay child support doesn't compare to death. The difference between the two is like night and day. We need a law for one and we simply don't need a law for the other imo. That's just how I feel about it.

I understand that some of you don't agree. That's fine. My opinion is what it is and I've heard nothing so far which compels me to change it. Treat your dick like a loaded gun and be responsible about where you point it and what you do with it and this issue becomes a non-issue in 99.9999% of cases. We don't need a law to help the 0.0001 percenters and or allow the other 99 to leave their character and personal responsibility at home every time they get a little horny. That's just how I feel about it.

[wolf39us]

I think your 0.0001% might be tad... no probably way off.