If women can get abortions, men should be able to opt out of fatherhood

[Immanuel]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

That is, perhaps, the most asinine reasoning I have ever read.

No more asinine than the argument that abortion should be legal because the fetus is not a human being.

Immie

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Men should be equally responsible for a pregnancy.
Men should be equally responsible for birth control.

Neither is the reality.

Bottom line is that no one has the right to control a woman's body except the woman.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

You’re confusing two separate issues, and exhibiting your ignorance in the process.

Once born, compelling the father to pay child support is perfectly appropriate.

Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family, but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman.

The Constitution protects individuals, men and women alike, from unjustified state interference, even when that interference is enacted into law for the benefit of their spouses.

I meant opting out prior to birth, sorry if I didn't make that obvious enough.

As for the constitution, I'm not too sure how many of those rights you seem to claim it protects (I'd wager the document limits liberty does not grant it) are still in existence.

@Connery, if I had it my way those social programs would be gone so that wouldn't be an issue.

Again this is before birth.

The time to "opt out" is before impregnation.

 

[bripat9643]

Actions have consequences...now STFU.

Apparently not for women. They have "choice." Men don't.

 

[bripat9643]

The time to "opt out" is before impregnation.

Women can opt out after the impregnation. Men can't.

That's the point that morons like you pretend not to understand.

 

[Si modo]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

I agree, but the man needs to back out as soon as he finds out the woman is pregnant. He can't hang around til the baby is born, and then decide he doesn't want to be a father. The sooner he states his intention the better.

I also agree, but under these circumstances: If the father does not want the baby and is in favor of aborting it, but the mother insists on carrying it to term - one of her choices - then, yeah...I think he should be able to opt out as long as he can document it.

Seems fair to me.

 

[bripat9643]

You’re confusing two separate issues, and exhibiting your ignorance in the process.

Once born, compelling the father to pay child support is perfectly appropriate.

There's nothing appropriate about it, and quoting some humbug political hack judge doesn't prove a thing except what some humbug political hack judge believes.

 

[Connery]

I agree, but the man needs to back out as soon as he finds out the woman is pregnant. He can't hang around til the baby is born, and then decide he doesn't want to be a father. The sooner he states his intention the better.

What if the man stated he did not want the child in the third trimester? Should he have any legal obligations once the child is born.

 

[Noomi]

I agree, but the man needs to back out as soon as he finds out the woman is pregnant. He can't hang around til the baby is born, and then decide he doesn't want to be a father. The sooner he states his intention the better.

What if the man stated he did not want the child in the third trimester? Should he have any legal obligations once the child is born.

Why would a man hang around for six months or more and then decide? No, he should decide straight away, before the woman even tells him she is pregnant - before they even have sex, for that matter.

 

[LibertyLemming]

My point is that is seems today that a man isn't good enough to be involved in the decision making process on the future of the child but he is good enough to pay child child support.

A woman may carry the child, but for 9 months, child support is for YEARS.

If a guy has absolutely no say in the woman having an abortion, no say in whether or not the child is put up for adoption, then why does he have to assume full share of the financial responsibility?

 

[Connery]

I agree, but the man needs to back out as soon as he finds out the woman is pregnant. He can't hang around til the baby is born, and then decide he doesn't want to be a father. The sooner he states his intention the better.

What if the man stated he did not want the child in the third trimester? Should he have any legal obligations once the child is born.

Why would a man hang around for six months or more and then decide? No, he should decide straight away, before the woman even tells him she is pregnant - before they even have sex, for that matter.

I agree he should decide immediately. Sometimes people just do not work that way and at the last minute change their mind.

 

[Charles_Main]

A lot of worthless men do. Sadly. They think they can **** everything in sight without taking responsibility for it.

They can try, but the State will force them to Pay Child Support.

It is an interesting Question. If a woman has the right to choose to kill an Unborn baby because she does not want to be Burdened with a child. Why is it we force men to pay when they make the same choice?

Not that I am defending Men who make that choice. I think they are scum, just like I think a Woman that chooses Abortion solely for Selfish reasons is scum as well.

 

[Sherry]

This thread was not intended as a means to beat what I'd imagine is an already very dead horse.

Just beat your meat, and then you'll have no worries.

 

[OKTexas]

You’re confusing two separate issues, and exhibiting your ignorance in the process.

Once born, compelling the father to pay child support is perfectly appropriate.

I meant opting out prior to birth, sorry if I didn't make that obvious enough.

As for the constitution, I'm not too sure how many of those rights you seem to claim it protects (I'd wager the document limits liberty does not grant it) are still in existence.

@Connery, if I had it my way those social programs would be gone so that wouldn't be an issue.

Again this is before birth.

The time to "opt out" is before impregnation.

That door swings both ways.

 

[OKTexas]

This thread was not intended as a means to beat what I'd imagine is an already very dead horse.

Just beat your meat, and then you'll have no worries.

That door also swings both ways.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

My point is that is seems today that a man isn't good enough to be involved in the decision making process on the future of the child but he is good enough to pay child child support.

A woman may carry the child, but for 9 months, child support is for YEARS.

If a guy has absolutely no say in the woman having an abortion, no say in whether or not the child is put up for adoption, then why does he have to assume full share of the financial responsibility?

you have a 'point' but it is kinda misplaced....today it is the woman who holds the life or death decision on the baby......a baby who is the child of BOTH....you might be asking instead why the father has no say so about the life of HIS child....

actually these are good arguments against pre-marital sex....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

Not the same thing. In the case of an abortion there is no child for anyone to pay for. The slate is wiped clean, so to speak. If the baby is born then it has to be taken care of and both parents need to bear responsibility.

I don't feel bad for guys who get stuck paying child support for a kid they had out of wedlock. They're victims only of their own actions so they need to man up and face the consequences. Birth control is 99.9% affective, so there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy these days other than shear irresponsibility on the part of both the man and the woman.

 

[AmyNation]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

I agree.

 

[LibertyLemming]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

Not the same thing. In the case of an abortion there is no child for anyone to pay for. The slate is wiped clean, so to speak. If the baby is born then it has to be taken care of and both parents need to bear responsibility.

I don't feel bad for guys who get stuck paying child support for a kid they had out of wedlock. They're victims only of their own actions so they need to man up and face the consequences. Birth control is 99.9% affective, so there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy these days other than shear irresponsibility on the part of both the man and the woman.

Well hence why we are saying it would be done before birth. The double standard is there you just don't seem to have an issue with it. Women can opt out, men cannot.

Your entire last comment could easily be directed at women having abortions.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I find it highly hypocritical that a woman can get an abortion, without notifying the man who impregnated her, and without even justifying it. Yet if a woman gets pregnant, keeps the baby, the male now has to pay child support. That is insane. Men should be able to opt out completely from being involved in raising the child and not have to pay a dime of child support since women can do the same thing via abortion.

Not the same thing. In the case of an abortion there is no child for anyone to pay for. The slate is wiped clean, so to speak. If the baby is born then it has to be taken care of and both parents need to bear responsibility.

I don't feel bad for guys who get stuck paying child support for a kid they had out of wedlock. They're victims only of their own actions so they need to man up and face the consequences. Birth control is 99.9% affective, so there is no reason for an unwanted pregnancy these days other than shear irresponsibility on the part of both the man and the woman.

Well hence why we are saying it would be done before birth. The double standard is there you just don't seem to have an issue with it. Women can opt out, men cannot.

Your entire last comment could easily be directed at women having abortions.

It's not a double standard, it's nature. If you don't like the way our biology is take it up with God. The child has to be cared for, period. That is the issue here and that is the purpose of child support. Whether or not you find that fair is completely irrelevant because it's not about you or men versus women, it's about the child. Don't get someone pregnant if you aren't ready to be a father and then you'll never have to deal with this situation. It's really quite a simple concept.