Why do Fathers Have to Pay Child Support?

The consequences of a man's OWN action of having coitus sex is the need for an abortion. He is certainly at least 50% responsible for the costs of same, IMO. But any liability beyond that aren't consequences of *HIS* action they're consequences of *HER* (in)action. Legally, one intends the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his own action. If I negligently hit someone with a car, my liability is not absolved should the victim's treating doctor also act negligently such negligence is reasonably foreseeable.

A victim of a tort, however, does have a duty to mitigate damages. Unlike the unconscious victim of an automobile accident, whose only choice is to lay there and get treated by whatever quack might happen along, a woman exercises a free choice over whether the damages are small (cost of an abortion) or whether they are huge (18+ years of child support). Her failure to mitigate the damages cannot be assigned to HIS "tortious" behavior, only the damages which would USUALLY flow from an unexpected conception by unmarried adults the cost of an abortion.

They have to pay support because the child deserves support from both parents.

Men have several choices. They can either choose not to have sex until they are ready to accept the fact that the act of sexual intercourse results could possibly result in a child, or they can wear condoms.

You play, you pay.

Abortion is not an option available to the man. Never has been, never will be. Abortion is not simply an "expense" to the mother that she should seek reimbursement for. It's a medical procedure with risks. And, for many women, it carries "emotional baggage"....and therefore, is a very personal decision, for the woman only.

Quote:

---

Quoting Just Breath

---

Abortion is not an option available to the man. Never has been, never will be. Abortion is not simply an "expense" to the mother that she should seek reimbursement for. It's a medical procedure with risks. And, for many women, it carries "emotional baggage"....and therefore, is a very personal decision, for the woman only.

---

Does not the woman having the child create emotional baggage for the man? Since the man has to give a pound of flesh each month to support that which he wants not?

Since abortion is not an option for the man shouldn't the man be allowed to have a legal abortion that which makes the child none of his concern?

Quote:

---

Quoting Neal1421

---

They have to pay support because the child deserves support from both parents.

Men have several choices. They can either choose not to have sex until they are ready to accept the fact that the act of sexual intercourse results could possibly result in a child, or they can wear condoms.

---

I fail to understand why you think the child deserves anything from an individual that does not want it? Just because they are alive they deserve something simply because it was the fault of two individuals with conflicting views?

If I choose to create more life by leaving the dishes in the sink unwashed does the penacillin deserve anything? Sure the penacillin has the potential to do wonderful things but does this mean it deserves anything?

She refused to have an abortion due to religious reasons, which I find unacceptable. Religion and anything else that falls into the realm of the paranormal is bunk and should not be even considered. She should have not lied to me about taking the pill to trap me, I should not have been so shallow to be the bed buddy simply because of physical attraction and she should have looked past her rediculous, unproven, unscientific beliefs and had an abortion.

Why do fathers have to pay child support?

Bottom line; because the law says so. You want the law to say differently, try your (expletive deleted) arguments on your elected representatives and see if you can convince them to change it.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ceritus

---

Does not the woman having the child create emotional baggage for the man? Since the man has to give a pound of flesh each month to support that which he wants not?

Since abortion is not an option for the man shouldn't the man be allowed to have a legal abortion that which makes the child none of his concern?

---

Following your logic if Abortion is the woman's option, remember it is MURDER, the taking of an innocent life in many eyes, then perhaps the man should consider castration? If he eventually wants children there is always a sperm bank.

How is it murder? Its preventing a collection of cells from growing into an individual.

It is not yet a conscious human being and it is a part of the woman's body. If anything it could be considered a parasite, would you consider removing a tape worm murder?

Quote:

---

Quoting rmet4nzkx

---

Following your logic if Abortion is the woman's option, remember it is MURDER, the taking of an innocent life in many eyes, then perhaps the man should consider castration? If he eventually wants children there is always a sperm bank.

---

Why should the man even consider castration? Make it simple, have a man be able to legally order an abortion or cut off all ties if the woman refuses the abortion.

Using the logic of calling it murder because it is preventing a possible human being from existing, wouldn't it be far worse for a man to become castrated which would eliminate billions of possible individuals?

But for those who may be interested in castrating themselves just for the fun of it take a look at this site. http://www.vhemt.org/

You cannot compaare apples to oranges and make a logical argument on this subject. A tapeworm cannot evolve as a member of society. Many prominent historic figures were created illegitmatedly and were no less significant than those who were a "wanted" pregnancy. I assume the child your wife carries is wanted?

It boils down to taking responsibility for one's actions, including one's mistakes. Your arguments choose to thrust the only accountability upon the women you choose to have sex with. I agree with Rmet.....you should consider surgery as I do not believe you should reproduce.

Medical Abortion, not spontaneous Abortion, is murder, because it halts the life already created which would continue if not interrupted until birth, and beyond whereas castration merely prevents conception. In some states it is MURDER when someone other than the mother intentionally ends that life. You make it abundantly clear why castration may be YOUR best option. Beauty is, after you do it, you will have less urge to do it!:D

Quote:

---

Quoting Just Breath

---

You cannot compaare apples to oranges and make a logical argument on this subject. A tapeworm cannot evolve as a member of society. Many prominent historic figures were created illegitmatedly and were no less significant than those who were a "wanted" pregnancy. I assume the child your wife carries is wanted?

It boils down to taking responsibility for one's actions, including one's mistakes. Your arguments choose to thrust the only accountability upon the women you choose to have sex with. I agree with Rmet.....you should consider surgery as I do not believe you should reproduce.

---

Many infamous historic individuals were created illegitmatedly as well, ones in which were legally murdered. I fail to understand your point.

I agree with taking responsibility for ones owns actions by all means which is why I believe the possible father should be forced to pay half an abortion cost. The possible father should not be responsible for the possible mothers inactions however.

While I appreciate your interest in my life so much to as considering your thoughts on my reproductive capabilities I regret to inform you I do not at this time have any urge to get myself castrated.

To answer your assumption, yes the child my wife carries is highly wanted and highly anticipated by both my wife and I. I am so happy to have shared my genetics with such a wonderful woman to create something that I am sure will be a wonderful individual. ( I will do my best to ensure that!!!)

Pending on how everything goes my wife and I are considering having atleast 3 more children after this wonderful bundle of joy. I was hoping to have eight children with her but she don't think she can do it!

Quote:

---

Quoting rmet4nzkx

---

Medical Abortion, not spontaneous Abortion, is murder, because it halts the life already created which would continue if not interrupted until birth, and beyond whereas castration merely prevents conception. In some states it is MURDER when someone other than the mother intentionally ends that life. You make it abundantly clear why castration may be YOUR best option. Beauty is, after you do it, you will have less urge to do it!:D

---

Tell me where it is written that a fetus carries the same weight as a conscious individual?

My friend used to joke with me saying that "you are only a swift kick away from solving all your problems" Meaning that I should kick the wench that bore this abomination.

I would never consider doing such a thing though, basically because I am a very moral man and it is a part of the woman's body. If she wants to keep it she can keep it but that I should not be held responsible for any costs other than what an abortion would entail if I did not want the child.

This isn't the 1400's anymore, we have advanced technologically to the point where we can control the outcome of a pregnancy using medical abortion with virtually no risk and very little reprocussion. Why not take advantage of that fact?

For starters:

CALIFORNIA CODES
PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199
187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.
(b) This section shall not apply to any person who commits an act
that results in the death of a fetus if any of the following apply:
(1) The act complied with the Therapeutic Abortion Act, Article 2
(commencing with Section 123400) of Chapter 2 of Part 2 of Division
106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(2) The act was committed by a holder of a physician's and surgeon'
s certificate, as defined in the Business and Professions Code, in a
case where, to a medical certainty, the result of childbirth would be
death of the mother of the fetus or where her death from childbirth,
although not medically certain, would be substantially certain or
more likely than not.
(3) The act was solicited, aided, abetted, or consented to by the
mother of the fetus.
(c) Subdivision (b) shall not be construed to prohibit the
prosecution of any person under any other provision of law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ceritus

---

Tell me where it is written that a fetus carries the same weight as a conscious individual?

My friend used to joke with me saying that "you are only a swift kick away from solving all your problems" Meaning that I should kick the wench that bore this abomination.
I would never consider doing such a thing though, basically because I am a very moral man and it is a part of the woman's body. If she wants to keep it she can keep it but that I should not be held responsible for any costs other than what an abortion would entail if I did not want the child.

This isn't the 1400's anymore, we have advanced technologically to the point where we can control the outcome of a pregnancy using medical abortion with virtually no risk and very little reprocussion. Why not take advantage of that fact?

---

Yes, I can totally see the humor in that comment......NOT!!:rolleyes:

"Moral" men take responsibility for their actions, including the support of THEIR child, planned or not.

WOW
http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b1...emotions18.gif
that's all I can say to this thread...well at least all that won't just get deleted

Ceritus is a great reason to legalize "retro active abortion".

Quote:

---

Quoting cissycicle

---

Ceritus is a great reason to legalize "retro active abortion".

---

I agree. :D

Quote:

---

Quoting rmet4nzkx

---

Following your logic if Abortion is the woman's option, remember it is MURDER, the taking of an innocent life in many eyes, then perhaps the man should consider castration? If he eventually wants children there is always a sperm bank.

---

murder? according to whom?

if you say the bible, i recommend you read it better, because the bible states quite clearly that an unborn fetus is PROPERTY, and of the man only, the woman has no claim to it. (the fundamentalists rarely wanna touch on this, or much else of the old testament.)

if you say the law, id like to know what law.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ceritus

---

Tell me where it is written that a fetus carries the same weight as a conscious individual?

My friend used to joke with me saying that "you are only a swift kick away from solving all your problems" Meaning that I should kick the wench that bore this abomination.

I would never consider doing such a thing though, basically because I am a very moral man and it is a part of the woman's body. If she wants to keep it she can keep it but that I should not be held responsible for any costs other than what an abortion would entail if I did not want the child.

This isn't the 1400's anymore, we have advanced technologically to the point where we can control the outcome of a pregnancy using medical abortion with virtually no risk and very little reprocussion. Why not take advantage of that fact?

---

Are you serious??? You are a "very moral person" however you don't want to be responsible for the child that you may have helped create. Give me a break!!!

I think most of you are missing his argument.

It is not about what is morally right or wrong.

It is simply about the woman having 100% choice over the matter.

A woman can decide to abort, or keep the child. The man has no choice over the matter, last i checked. So if one of you guys goes out and gets a girl pregnant, she can abort it, and you just have to live with it. She could instead decide to keep it, and you just have to live with it.

If both parties are involved in making the fetus, why dont both parties have say in the decisions made for the fetus?

I think that was his point. I could be wrong though.

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

I think most of you are missing his argument.

It is not about what is morally right or wrong.

It is simply about the woman having 100% choice over the matter.

A woman can decide to abort, or keep the child. The man has no choice over the matter, last i checked. So if one of you guys goes out and gets a girl pregnant, she can abort it, and you just have to live with it. She could instead decide to keep it, and you just have to live with it.

If both parties are involved in making the fetus, why dont both parties have say in the decisions made for the fetus?

I think that was his point. I could be wrong though.

---

The OP is the one that brought up the whole moral issue, I just addressed it.

He had the choice when he had sex with her. He should have worn a condom or not had sex at all if the is such a bad person as he decribes in his other post. That was his choice, bottom line.

Quote:

---

Quoting Neal1421

---

The OP is the one that brought up the whole moral issue, I just addressed it.

He had the choice when he had sex with her. He should have worn a condom or not had sex at all if the is such a bad person as he decribes in his other post. That was his choice, bottom line.

---

Are you saying it wasnt also the woman's choice? If he didnt rape her, they both made a choice to have sex. Yet the woman makes all the choices now, the man has no say in anything at all now.

That is the bottom line.

edit:

I think the Ntional Center for Men put it well:

"More than three decades ago Roe vs. Wade gave women control of their reproductive lives but nothing in the law changed for men. Women can now have sexual intimacy without sacrificing reproductive choice. Women now have the freedom and security to enjoy lovemaking without the fear of forced procreation. Women now have control of their lives after an unplanned conception. But men are routinely forced to give up control, forced to be financially responsible for choices only women are permitted to make, forced to relinquish reproductive choice as the price of intimacy."

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

Are you saying it wasnt also the woman's choice? If he didnt rape her, they both made a choice to have sex. Yet the woman makes all the choices now, the man has no say in anything at all now.

That is the bottom line.

---

Yes, they did both make the choice, and when a man makes the choice to have sex he should consider the fact that it may possibly result in pregnancy and if it does, he has no choice in the matter after that fact. It is not his body.

He does have a choice either have protected sex or don't have sex at all, and even with a condom he should keep in mind that they are not 100% effective.

This can and has been debated on so many levels, there is no reason to continue with this discussion.

Quote:

---

Quoting Neal1421

---

there is no reason to continue with this discussion.

---

We will just have to agree to disagree on this point. I find it a very good topic for discussion, especially with the pending lawsuit with Dubay.

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

I think most of you are missing his argument.

It is not about what is morally right or wrong.

It is simply about the woman having 100% choice over the matter.

A woman can decide to abort, or keep the child. The man has no choice over the matter, last i checked. So if one of you guys goes out and gets a girl pregnant, she can abort it, and you just have to live with it. She could instead decide to keep it, and you just have to live with it.

If both parties are involved in making the fetus, why dont both parties have say in the decisions made for the fetus?

I think that was his point. I could be wrong though.

---

I think he made his point, which was pointless. If it is not an issue of morality or ethics, what is it? It's not a question of law.....since there are NO LAWS supporting his argument, as he was obviously aware since his initial post did not even pose a real question.

What if it were the other way around, though?

What if the man had the legal right to FORCE the woman to abort, or FORCE her to keep the child? (think pre 1970s america, or pick at random one of many third world countries)

That is exactly the case for men, men just cant carry the child. Should one half of the equation receive all of the rights, while the other half get zero? Is that what everyone is saying? So much for equal rights of the sexes, then. How can anyone say they are for equality then ask for special treatment?

As for the "NO LAWS" part, well, before Roe v Wade, there were no laws for a woman's reproductive rights, either. Didnt make it right, or less about the law.

Forced child support is geared 100% against the male of the equation, this it seems we agree on. No one yet has refuted the fact that men have ZERO rights when it comes to a pregnancy. I think the OP's question was : Why is this so?

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

A woman can decide to abort, or keep the child. The man has no choice over the matter, last i checked. So if one of you guys goes out and gets a girl pregnant, she can abort it, and you just have to live with it. She could instead decide to keep it, and you just have to live with it.

If both parties are involved in making the fetus, why dont both parties have say in the decisions made for the fetus?

---

AT the time the man and women decide to have sex, they should already be aware of the choices available to them if there are any consequences from their actions. The man's only choices are....(1) to abstain from sex; (2) take responsibility for himself in protecting against unwanted pregnancy; or (3) only have sex with women whom he deems worthy to "share his genetics".

Quote:

---

Quoting Just Breath

---

AT the time the man and women decide to have sex, they should already be aware of the choices available to them if there are any consequences from their actions. .

---

I am not questioning this, of course people should go forward only with the consequences in mind. My question is: why does the law give 100% of the post conception choices to a woman, *AND* levy a huge financial burden on the man in addition?

You agree with me that the man AND the woman choose to have sex, why does the woman make EVERY choice after that point?

Considering the relatively tiny role the man plays in the reproductive process of mankind, I think he gets off pretty easy as it is. Unless the woman forces him to be held accountable, he can simply walk away from the pregnancy. The woman cannot.

If you've raised a child by yourself, without child support, as I have....then you would realize that the 20% of his income that my state says I'm entitled to, is just a fraction of the cost of raising a child.

Quote:

---

Quoting Just Breath

---

Considering the relatively tiny role the man plays in the reproductive process of mankind,

---

i believe its 50%.

Quote:

---

Unless the woman forces him to be held accountable, he can simply walk away from the pregnancy. The woman cannot.

---

Sadly, you are wrong, the woman can abort the fetus, and the man has absolutely no way to object to it.

Quote:

---

If you've raised a child by yourself, without child support, as I have....then you would realize that the 20% of his income that my state says I'm entitled to, is just a fraction of the cost of raising a child.

---

For a child *YOU* decided to keep, that the man may or may not have been wanting.

I am afraid you have missed the point. It is not about money, per se, it is about the choice. Women make *ALL* of the choices (edit: post conception). You have yet to deny this, so I assume you agree.

My question remains, why do women get 100% control over the situation?

Women make all the choices? I had no idea that virgin birth was so prevalent....

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Women make all the choices? I had no idea that virgin birth was so prevalent....

---

post conception? yes, they make all of the choices. I apologize if it sounded as if i meant all of the choices before conception, i was speaking strictly of what happens post coitus. the man of the equation must stand by any choice the woman makes. The baby is born, or the baby is not, and the man gets no say in this matter.

Then if a man wants to be sure that he will not become a father, it's best to "keep it zipped". ("Get snipped or keep it zipped"?)

Quote:

---

Quoting aaron

---

Then if a man wants to be sure that he will not become a father, it's best to "keep it zipped". ("Get snipped or keep it zipped"?)

---

I agree with you, this is the best method to avoid becoming a father, paying child support, etc. But what if the man WANTS to become a father, the woman can still abort.

It is obvious that I am alone (or close to it) in this line of thought, I am just curious as to why men have no rights at all when it comes to conception. I do not want to see a return to pre Roe v Wade, but a compromise would be nice.

Why go from total male control to total female control? There must be a middle ground.

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

I agree with you, this is the best method to avoid becoming a father, paying child support, etc. But what if the man WANTS to become a father, the woman can still abort.

It is obvious that I am alone (or close to it) in this line of thought, I am just curious as to why men have no rights at all when it comes to conception. I do not want to see a return to pre Roe v Wade, but a compromise would be nice.

Why go from total male control to total female control? There must be a middle ground.

---

WARNING
this comment may make others think I am one of these types
http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e9...eminist_en.gif
This is NOT the case AT ALL

I believe the answer is a simple fact of biology...if and/or when a Male Human is able to become pregnant He will have a "say" over what happens post-conception Untill such time it will remain a woman's choice...now get your panties out of a bunch and take it like a MAN!

[QUOTE=elorei;80308]i believe its 50%.QUOTE]

50%?!!!! Uh....No. Re-check that. I referred to the reproductive process....not the sex act. I'm talking about 9 mos compared to 1 minute, followed by months of nursing. His body doesn't change, his feet don't swell, he experiences no pain, his life is never in danger...and don't get me started about the monthly menses......

Quote:

---

Quoting Just Breath

---

50%?!!!! Uh....No. Re-check that. I referred to the reproductive process....not the sex act. I'm talking about 9 mos compared to 1 minute, followed by months of nursing. His body doesn't change, his feet don't swell, he experiences no pain, his life is never in danger...and don't get me started about the monthly menses......

---

The gestation period has no bearing on this discussion, I may as well say that the man releases millions of sperm, to the woman's one egg, putting a woman's role at less than 0.000001% involvement. It is fallacy, just as is comparing the 9 months of being pregnant to the few seconds of climax.

Remember, this is not just about paying child support, or carrying a baby to term. Half of the equation is the woman's right to abort without any input for the father of the child to be. I do not want to see a return to the days where a man decides if the woman has the child or not, but giving a woman the ability to decide what is right for her life *AND* the man's is too far the other way.

Just curious, Breath, what would your position be if a man had the right to dictate to you when you would be a mother? Imagine if you could have an abortion forced on you. Once you take the medical procedure away, that is exactly the right given to women now. On top of that, the woman could decide the other way, and instead undermine the man's chances at a future due to heavy financial burdens

Why be against a compromise?

Quote:

---

Quoting elorei

---

Just curious, Breath, what would your position be if a man had the right to dictate to you when you would be a mother? Imagine if you could have an abortion forced on you. Once you take the medical procedure away, that is exactly the right given to women now. On top of that, the woman could decide the other way, and instead undermine the man's chances at a future due to heavy financial burdens

Why be against a compromise?

---

I have been in that position - while dating my ex-husband. When my unplanned pregnancy occurred, my ex was so opposed to having a child at that time that I was forced to either abort or end the relationship with him. I obediently did his bidding in order to continue the relationship.....and I have had to live with that decision every day since while he never gave it a second thought.

I was his 2nd wife. I conceived my only living child "on the rebound" after I finally left my ex for good. His first wife was married to him for 10 years, however, and was unable to conceive by then. He now has children with his 3rd, younger wife. While woman have very limited biological clocks, men have been known to have children well into their golden years. THAT IS THE COMPROMISE.

I am exhausted by this thread and we obviously will never agree, so it is pointless to continue.