Why do the males get no say? (legal, abortions, financial)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A woman, with no man interested in the child, at 9 months can decide to place her child up for adoption
Therefore, the child is still taken care of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by West of Encino
That would be best.
Obviously, neither one of you has a clue about how many children do not get adopted, ever.
Have fun spewing your delusions, I am gonna go watch a movie.
A woman, with no man interested in the child, at 9 months can decide to place her child up for adoption
Therefore, the child is still taken care of.
Nope. Children who can't get adopted will still become the state's problem.
They are not going for it.
Plus, you are advocating that a woman who WANTS to raise her own child could have the child forceably taken away if the man says no.
Try selling that in America. Ain't gonna happen. And once again, your solution has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the child. What the law will always do is look at the situation from the vantage point of the child, who is seen as defenseless. Being raised by a fit biological parent who wants them is always going to win. The law will not protect you over the child.
Obviously, neither one of you has a clue about how many children do not get adopted, ever.
Have fun spewing your delusions, I am gonna go watch a movie.
There aren't foster homes?
There is not a child in the United States that, if given to the state, is not take care of.
Look, I don't like abortion, or the thought that a man would walk away from a child he doesn't want. But its an equal rights issue. If the woman can walk away from it, then the man should be able to do so also. And asking him to pay for 18 or more years of child support without his consent, is no less heinous then asking a woman to carry a child to term that she does not want.
Nope. Children who can't get adopted will still become the state's problem.
They are not going for it.
Plus, you are advocating that a woman who WANTS to raise her own child could have the child forceably taken away if the man says no.
Try selling that in America. Ain't gonna happen. And once again, your solution has nothing to do with what is in the best interest of the child. What the law will always do is look at the situation from the vantage point of the child, who is seen as defenseless. Being raised by a biological parent who wants them is always going to win. The law will not protect you over the child.
No, thats not what I'm saying at all.
If a woman wants the child, she should know up front if the man wants the child or not. If he doesn't, and he isn't going to be forced to supply her with child support, then she has decisions to make on her own. Thats just life, we all have to make sucky decisions that we all don't like every day of our lives, some bigger then others.
As I said, if the mother doesn't want the child, she can abort it. If she wants it, but can't support it without a mans support, then she has the option of giving the child to the state. The child is still taken care of, so this whole "its for the baby" thing is a false argument.
There is not a child in the United States that, if given to the state, is not take care of.
Look, I don't like abortion, or the thought that a man would walk away from a child he doesn't want. But its an equal rights issue. If the woman can walk away from it, then the man should be able to do so also. And asking him to pay for 18 or more years of child support without his consent, is no less heinous then asking a woman to carry a child to term that she does not want.
Well said. If a woman can just up and decide after conceiving a child "I don't want to be a mom" and have an abortion whenever she wants (regardless of what the father wants), a man should be able to opt out of parenthood as well. Neither is ideal. But at least it would be fair.
If a woman wants the child, she should know up front if the man wants the child or not. If he doesn't, and he isn't going to be forced to supply her with child support, then she has decisions to make on her own. Thats just life, we all have to make sucky decisions that we all don't like every day of our lives, some bigger then others.
As I said, if the mother doesn't want the child, she can abort it. If she wants it, but can't support it without a mans support, then she has the option of giving the child to the state. The child is still taken care of, so this whole "its for the baby" thing is a false argument.
It's not a false argument.
You are arguing that this is an equal rights issue. You keep looking at it from a framework of what is "best" or "fair" for the man vs the woman.
What I am telling you is that the state is not giving a F. All they see is a baby that didn't ask to be born and needs to be taken care of. They are not interested in the way you are seeing it. They are looking at it from the baby's point of view, and from society's.
Society doesn't want to have to pay, directly or indirectly, for babies when it is possible for the people who made the baby to take care of it. Period. In the law's view, your "rights" don't trump the baby's rights. You don't get to live a comfortable life while possibly having a kid who is starving or otherwise living a lesser existence. They don't care about you once the baby is born. They care about the baby.
It sucks but it's true, and all the whining in the world won't change it.
You are caught up in the man vs woman POV. Take this statement:
Quote:
If he doesn't, and he isn't going to be forced to supply her with child support, then she has decisions to make on her own.
The child support is for THE BABY, not her. And that is the crux of the issue. I suggest you take this statement...
Quote:
Thats just life, we all have to make sucky decisions that we all don't like every day of our lives, some bigger then others.
Obviously you people are missing the point, so why don't I explain:
I am not trying to control what a female does.
The thought of parenthood devastates me so I'm thinking from this point of view:
If a female wants to get an abortion, she should. I support abortion. I can see why someone wouldn't want a baby.
But if the male doesn't want to pay, why should he?
Why can a female have all the sex she wants and get off scot free, but the male takes a risk every time he has sex?
If a female wants a baby, she can go ahead and have the baby. But the male shouldn't need to pay. The female can make the choice of whether or not she wants to pay, so the male should be able to make the same choice.
I don't agree with abortion. I see it as murder. But I have understood your point from the onset. And I also feel that fair is fair: What's good for the gander should be good for the goose.
In actuality, child support money goes to the government, not the child.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinawina
It's not a false argument.
You are arguing that this is an equal rights issue. You keep looking at it from a framework of what is "best" or "fair" for the man vs the woman.
What I am telling you is that the state is not giving a F. All they see is a baby that didn't ask to be born and needs to be taken care of. They are not interested in the way you are seeing it. They are looking at it from the baby's point of view, and from society's.
Society doesn't want to have to pay, directly or indirectly, for babies when it is possible for the people who made the baby to take care of it. Period. In the law's view, your "rights" don't trump the baby's rights. You don't get to live a comfortable life while possibly having a kid who is starving or otherwise living a lesser existence. They don't care about you once the baby is born. They care about the baby.
It sucks but it's true, and all the whining in the world won't change it.
You are caught up in the man vs woman POV. Take this statement:
The child support is for THE BABY, not her. And that is the crux of the issue. I suggest you take this statement...
A woman, with no man interested in the child, at 9 months can decide to place her child up for adoption
Therefore, the child is still taken care of.
If that's what the woman chooses to do, fine. But the reluctant biological father cannot force her to make that choice.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
