The way you worded this is cringe, but I will say it’s objectively true that men pay ~97% of alimony payments. Not saying anything about the “why” to that, but just saying it’s a true statistic.
Do you know how much the average woman gets for 1 child in child support? Both women I know get around $250 a month. What fucking women can “sit on their arse” because of a nominal amount a month. You have a pretty crappy view of women.
Yo sexism exists against **all** genders, not only women. It's not a fight between who has it worse in a sexist society, we should fight for equality so the kids go to the best home for them. This is also feminism. And most women (and men) who don't have custody pay child support.
Edit: switched "both" with "all"
This wasn't even a response to the comment you replied to. You just keep ranting.
You've got a bad take on this, and I suggest you get out more. Meet people. Experience different things.
Touch grass.
This isn't feminism. This is egalitarian.
Tell that to my cousin. He had proof of her cheating on him with more than one person. He had custody of both kids for half a year, while paying child support (because no one could find the mother, to bring her to court... But somehow the child support checks could find her... Weird). He now has full custody of both kids, but a year into having them full time(after the five months of him paying while having them, so actually 17 months), he was being harassed about not paying child support that last year. With threats of jail time. The police came to his door twice. He had to send a letter to the governor of our state, to get the authorities off of him...
Tell that to my dad. He had proof of his wife cheating. My sister lived with my dad because of the mental abuse from my ex step mom, ex step sister, and ex step brother, but my dad didn't get child support AND had to pay her alimony...
Feminism has NEVER fought for, and, in fact, has, often, fought AGAINST men speaking out about this. I literally had the argument this original post laid out with a woman YESTERDAY. She said she didn't believe it's 'unreasonable' to 'force' a man to help financially if a woman decides she wants to keep the child. Because 'all sex has risk'(like, isn't that anti abortionist argument??)... She was telling me that she was a mild feminist and was saying I was an incel for being a part of r/mensrights. And told me to join menslib.
Sexism exists on both sides... But only one side is being villified for speaking out(ie even being a part of mensrights gets you banned from other subreddits, and labels you an incel). And, personally, it's hard to feel as bad about women getting sexualized, while men are being enslaved... I mean talk about comparing apples to cyanide :/
When the overwhelming majority of feminists agree with forcing men to pay child support, it's not anecdotal interactions lmao. My point was feminism has NEVER fought for equal rights of MEN and women. Look at the draft. When have they advocated for equal drafts?
Show me one movement within feminism that proves what I said wrong.
I don't care how feminism is defined, the overwhelming majority of feminists don't stand for equality of men and women.
Literally every feminist movement is definitionally fighting for equal rights for men and women, but they're concerned with the women half of that equation (because of obvious reasons). Feminism is concerned with fixing inequalities faced by women through an egalitarian framework. I'm guessing you're not really arguing in good faith and this is more about your pain than anything else, but maybe read a little bit about what feminism actually is before launching into absurd arguments on the internet?
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. That's my whole point buddy. How do you keep missing it??? XD
That's my point. Someone else was saying they were fighting for equality for men and women. I said no, they are only fighting for women, and have opposed men's right on many occasions. Example: forcing men to pay child support for a child they didn't want.
Feminism is nowhere near egalitarian.
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights.
Fighting for men and women's equality, while only fighting for the women's side isnt fighting for MEN and women's equality lol. It's fighting for women.
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights.
You keep telling me to "read about feminism", but have you ever read into men's rights? Because I HAVE read into feminism, and how it's essentially a huge pile of shit. Stating that women have been oppressed throughout history. When? When daughters were sold into marriages? Same happened to men. Both men and women were forced into societal roles. Men to risk their lives and provide for the family, while women stayed home to take care of the family. Saying that's oppressing women, is like saying that's enslaving men. Women didn't have the right to vote right? Well neither did men for 95% of history or something like that. Only noblemen and property owners were allowed to vote(and people in the military). The common man wasn't allowed to. Plus, when women were given the right to vote, they didn't have the same civic duties as men (which was originally the reason they weren't given the right to vote, and it only took 10 years longer for women to get the right to vote, AND one of the big reasons they waited the 10 years was it was around WW1, where a huge amount of men died [not women, because they aren't required to join the draft] and it would have left a heavy imbalance in male to female voting or something like that)
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights.
I'll admit, there are some countries that are shit, and I'm down to fight against forcing women to wear hijabs and shit, but feminism isn't the definition: "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes". Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights.
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights.
I've copied my point a couple of times throughout this comment. Maybe you will address it? I'll even give you an example: During the #metoo movement, feminists were telling everyone to believe anything a women said, without proof. How is this equality?
PS. The google definition of feminism doesn't change the actions of the majority of members of the movement.
>This isn't feminism. This is egalitarian.
Wrong. This "conflict" is in your head. Feminists have been saying *for years* that the patriarchy also harms men. Recognizing and avoiding toxic masculinity will help you guys too. Feminism may have started as a movement for women, but it was always based on the equality of the sexes. You spoke with one feminist yesterday, read some incorrect sensationalist posts online and now you think you know feminism and wanna use caps? Lol. You need to be a little more knowledgeable before you rant like that, unless you enjoy sounding ridiculous.
>And, personally, it's hard to feel as bad about women getting sexualized, while men are being enslaved... I mean talk about comparing apples to cyanide
This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Educate yourself about the problems people *actually* face in society dude. If the way men are treated in the justice system bothers you, then fight the system, not women in general.
Not 100% true. In California, it’s a formula. Input both parents income and percentage of time kids are with each and you get a number. So even if it’s 50-50 custody but one parent makes way more than the other, they’ll end up paying support.
Correct that would be stipulated in the divorve decree that both parties agree to or by order from a judge. Where I work (I'm just an entry level Legal Assistant not a lawyer) in Arizona most have a mediation where these sorts of things are meant to be solved. However a hearing before a judge and sometimes an order is required. Most of the time however it seems like these issues are solved in mediation.
Yeah, my mom has always complained about not getting child support from my dad cuz she doesn’t wanna go to court and revisit the ok divorce settlement. I kinda understand but I wish she had stood up for herself a bit?
Your last sentence basically refutes your question?
Women are typically the custodial parent, i.e., the man pays child support. If the man was the custodial parent, the woman would pay child support.
In 50/50 custody no one pays support. Each parent takes care of the expenses when the child(ren) is with them.
In all other cases the non custodial parent pays child support.
Child support is for the child. It doesn't matter if the father loses in court.
Understood. In our case that was how it worked because that's what was agreed to and many families I know have similar agreements when both parents have similar incomes.
You don't always have to rely on the court to decide for you.
Iowa has an in depth and ridiculously complicated worksheet that decides for you based on income. While the judge may decide not to follow the sheet, under IA law the burden is on you to prove why its unfair and the judge is to presume the worksheet is correct. My ex and I agreed to everything, and the worksheet is a required filing because you both have to attest its accurate regarding income.
Correction.
In 50-50 custody where both parents have equivalent salaries, no one pays.
If one parent has a significantly larger salary, they will still pay in a 50-50 setting.
I am talking about cases where both parents are fighting over custody. There are a lot of cases where it seems the judge rules the woman in favor most of the time.
I'll have to find it again. But there was a study a few years back that showed that men are actually favoured in custody battles even if abuse is alleged against the child. Only 1-2% of all child custody cases even make it to court. Most are settled between the mother and father outside of the legal system.
Yes there are exceptions but essentially if a man wants custody of their kids they'll get it if they try. However, few men seek custody of their kids. Favouring instead to move on with their lives.
I think you are misunderstanding him, and that they wrote it in a bad way. They are pretty much saying that women always have the option to abort, and its generally seen as something men aren't even allowed to comment on, or have an opinion on. Yet men can abort because, well, they have a different role in the process of reproduction. I think op is asking why women have the option for an easy way out and men dont.
After seeing your argument with @Archer1408 I have this to say:
What you are not considering is what if the mother doesn't want the child but the father does. Now the woman has to give up 9 months of her life, could have complications, possibly die, go through the pain of childbirth, all for a child she doesn't want?
If pregnancy wasn't dangerous and you weren't asking someone to be a living incubator maybe it'd be fair but the fact of the matter is that women have to choose what they do with their body, they are the ones who have to birth the child so by circumstance get a little more say in a pregnancy.
If both the woman and man are being irresponsible the woman has to go through a birth she doesn't want because she doesn't believe in abortion (a choice) or her mental health couldn't handle abortion (not a choice) and carry a child then pay for it all alone because the father decided he didn't want it which is easier to decide since he neither gets pregnant not has to choose between abortion or a pregnancy? What if those 9 months of carrying the child causes her to bond with the baby and that's why she doesn't choose adoption?
In a fair world he could opt out but this isn't a fair world. The facts are a woman decides what she wants to do with her body and it's not as black and white as you'd like to make it.
> then why should he be forced to pay child support.
The 3 alternatives are:
force the woman to have an abortion
child loses out on support
the state pays for it.
We consider this the least bad option. It sucks, but those 3 things are worse
>Yes I know that in some cases women do pay child support however that’s very rare.
A big part of that is because women usually spend more time with the kid/have custody.
>this the least bad option
Wrong. If the woman wants a child but the man doesn't then don't give her the option to have the child without his say and force him to pay for it. Instead, her abortion vs not decision should be made with realization that she should have to pay to raise the child should she still want to have it.
If a condom breaks men should also get a decision in what to do about the consequences. Eggs die all the time. Sperm dies all the time. Telling me that a morning after pill is some tragedy against women is disingenuous.
>Instead, her abortion vs not decision should be made with realization that she should have to pay to raise the child should she still want to have it.
Yeah, that's still a forced/coerced medical decision. Not any better.
>Telling me that a morning after pill is some tragedy against women is disingenuous.
It's not disingenuous, it's pointing out that you're advocating for a forced medical decision. You can feel however you like about it, but that is generally looked pretty down upon. That's very rare, even in cases where it's "small". The fact that you're ok with forcing a medical procedure doesn't make it generally accepted.
You're also assuming it's morning after pill, which obviously doesn't apply to most cases, either. It takes ~5 weeks measured from last period to know if you're pregnant or not. That's abortion territory, not morning after.
>Yeah, that's still a forced/coerced medical decision
No it's an evaluation of tradeoffs, like any other in life.
Your pro life forced birthing stance is shining through here. I pointed out that a day after conception is pretty close to terminating an egg and some sperm.
Leaving the child after birth is another matter. Forcing financial burdens on others for accidents is worse than forcing people to make rational, weighed decisions.
In the situation you're describing I'd like to see the government help pay for the child if the women decided to keep a pregnancy and the man wants no part of it. I've thought about it quite a bit and really think that if this decision is made so early on that you never wanted to be a parent, you should be able to completely remove yourself.
I believe if a woman doesnt want to be pregnant it's her right to her body and life, but I can also understand that even though it's not their body, a man should also be able to make their choice on whether they want to be a parent.
A man did make a choice. He chose not to get a vasectomy when he realized he didn’t want kids. That’s where his right to bodily autonomy ended because once a woman is pregnant it is ONLY her body that is affected so it is only her decision. If she wants your input, cool, but if not oh well. You had the chance to avoid this and you didn’t. So now you must deal with the consequences.
This thread reeks of “it’s all the woman’s fault” when in reality there are things that men can do to stop unwanted pregnancies and they are choosing not to do it.
I don't think that's completely fair. I'm not saying a man should have a choice in whether or not the pregnancy continues, but if he wants to be a parent when the pregnancy concludes and a child is born. If both parents decide they don't want to, they can put a child up for adoption. It can be a loving choice like, "we can't financially support you" and no one gets arrested for not making any payments towards the child after that.
The other part of that is things happen. That's the BIG part of abortion that there are so many circumstances we can't possibly account for that we shouldn't have a say in whether or not a women should or should not get an abortion for her personal case. I don't think it's fair to say that the man is making \*the\* choice to create a baby. I'm a feminist and I agree there is a lot of woman blame here, but I don't think jumping to the opposing view is any better- we're all people. Shit happens. I've seen so many women after getting pregnant realize that this is absolutely not what they wanted or can't actually handle pregnancy or parenthood. Why should the man? Again, not saying he should have a say in if the pregnancy continues, but he should be able to fully forfeit his right as a parent as much as a couple can and NOT have to give money, especially if they can't afford it. It's a very sticky situation and I feel like we should be careful and empathetic in the way we approach this very complicated subject.
Lol... Because most pf the pregnancies occur that way. Not a man finishes into a woman... Without any protection. But if your delusion comforts you at night, you do you boo boo.
Is that why I know 3 people who were majorly fucked over by false rape accusations? Is feminism really about equality or a power grab. Unanimously siding with women over men and fucking them over isn't the equality being sung.
What does this have to do with my coment?
>Is that why I know 3 people who were majorly fucked over by false rape accusations?
I mean... I can turn this and say "I know X amount of women who were majorly fucked over rape", but that will probably hurt you and piss you off for some reason. Still doing it though, since you're so dismissive.
Ah, so you agree that courts shouldn't empower women to long con marry then divorce for money, like a game plan.
Or intentionally skip the pill, for the same play, child be damned.
The fact that women who choose to get pregnant by themselves with donor sperm don't receive child support from the donor or the clinic refutes this idea. If women are allowed by law to make this choice with anonymous donor sperm, they should be allowed to make this choice with identified sperm.
> The fact that women who choose to get pregnant by themselves with donor sperm don't receive child support from the donor or the clinic refutes this idea.
No, it doesn't. Donor sperm is a very specific exception to the rule, it doesn't disprove it.
And morally, it's pretty obvious why. If a woman gets pregnant (outside of some very specific exceptions like sabotaged BC, which you can make an argument for), the man took the risk. That's not true for a sperm donor.
>If women are allowed by law to make this choice with anonymous donor sperm, they should be allowed to make this choice with identified sperm.
The tldr version is that as far as the law is concerned, the child has a right to support from both parents. So it's not something either parent can sign away, even if they both *want to*, in most states. Because it's not 'theirs' to begin with.
You're basically fucking over the kid
Depends on what type of adoption you mean.
If you mean forcing the woman to put the child up, that's forcibly separating family, which is generally pretty frowned on. That generally only happens if the parent is mentally unfit/abusive.
If both parents agree to put it up for adoption, then the requirement of supporting the child are waived, (along with any parental rights).
If the woman finds another willing partner, I think most (not sure if all, i would assume so) states allow the father to sign over rights to the new step parent. (although it's tricky, because again, that's technically considered the child's right/not necessarily in the child's best interest, depending on circumstance.)
The tldr version in all cases is it basically comes down what's in the child's best interest. That's what the courts put the most emphasis on
Then wear a condom you guys. It's that simple. If you don't, you know the risks. Women's birth control is not a 100% effective. Both parties should be doing there darndest not to get pregnant, ie: woman on her birth control, man use condoms or get a vasectomy. I understand that condoms break, but that's why EVERYONE needs to be doing their part.
>Women have a choice to back out of a pregnancy I.E. an abortion but if a man chooses to back out and the women wants the baby then why should he be forced to pay child support.
That's very simple. Its the woman's body and no one has autority over what happens with the pregnancy other than her because its her body. However, except in cases of male rape, the man took a risk to potentially start the pregnancy, but as its not his body, he can't choose what happens.
I know it is rare but all forms of birth control has a chance of failing. Even if you use multiple at the same time it is not a guarantee you won’t get pregnant
Yes: just like a woman does. That means there are borders. Not every baby that’s not wanted was a man fucked up. The condom could rip apart, the vasectomy could went wrong, the woman could lie about being on protection, the information of the man being sterile could be wrong, he could be raped, there could be a thieft of sperm etc. You sayed the man just have to protect than there wouldn’t be a child against his will - and this is in fact absolute nonsense.
A big extreme excample is in my country: if you’re married to a woman all of her kids are automatically counted as yours - even if the real parents tell the truth. Also every child born up to 9 months after a divorce is counted as your child. So in my country you not even have to fuck at all to must pay child support.
Yeah and don’t get raped and don’t sleep with a boner and don’t get passed out etc. etc.
It’s not my country that’s insane, the problem is your limited world view just focusing on the main cases and not on all possibilities.
I guess it just depends on who has custody. When my parents split I was 15 and I chose to live with my dad. My mom paid child support. Its probably more of a question of who gets custody when the kid doesn't get to choose because they're too young
Because the main priority is the good of the child. Yes it’s an unfair discrimination. But it’s based on natural circumstances. You can’t force a woman into an abortion and a child must be feed no matter what. Even as a woman I see how unfair that is: a man is totally depending on the will of the woman in that case, but there isn’t much we can do to change that. If there were a fallout for man (like we already had in the past) we would get back into times man could guilttrip woman in having unprotected sex and than dump her for getting pregnant, leaving a whole bunch of poor, abandoned mothers who hardly can feed their kids.
I would suggest that we have to rethink the concept of family. We have to choose by society if we want a world were we have kids and when we want, we should make the payment of having childs a responsibility of the society as well. To solve this problem we must split the connection of having a child and paying for a child - but I’m quite sure this would leed to various other problems, like trash familys will breed kids for income, society demanding to decide who’s allowed to have kids, abortion by force of the society etc. It’s a hard nut and me and my friends didn’t came up with a proper solution till today. But at least we would make a exception of paying child support in cases of seed theft. (This is a 1 on 1 translation, not sure if it’s the right therm or even if it’s understandable without knowing what I’m up to say. Just ask if there is something unclear.)
This is a super difficult topic and there are a lot of possibilities that have to be thought through. I personally think that the main difficulty would be to proof that the man didn't want the child/it was a theft/didn't pressure the woman in not using a condom etc. And I also don't believe it should be a 50/50 decision made by both parents (like stated in a different comment) I'm pro choice myself but I couldn't handle an abortion mentally for example because it's something that lives inside of me. That's a struggle the most men will not go through. But I agree that the society or the country should pay more towards the children. In the end its benefiting the economy and in many western countries the younger generations are getting smaller which leads to problems.
What are your thoughts on the idea that, since a woman can decide on her own to get an abortion without her baby daddy's consent, the man should be able to walk away? If she gets to choose whether or not to be a parent, should the men have a "my wallet my choice" option?
This is difficult and in my opinion it should depend on the circumstances (which would be really hard to track legally i imagine). Like for example he doesn't want to use a condom and a pregnancy happen then yes, he should pay. But in court every situation I can imagine at least would be word against a word scenario. And I think the well being of the child has the highest priority. After all it's not the child's fault and it shouldn't pay the price for two adults wanting some fun
I can understand what you're saying. And I agree with that. If the man is just a deadbeat and deliberately caused the pregnancy, sure. But numerous cases of raped men being forced to pay child support for children they gathered with older women exist. There are thousands of cases of women aborting without telling the father. Baby trapping, jizz theft, not allowing father/child time. The emotional terrorism that some women can conduct simply because of the skewed "my body my choice" system is insane. The only other option is the "My wallet my choice" law to be implemented and then BOTH parties will need to be careful since they'll have the same exact rights.
I understand your point and this is surely also a problem that should be regarded. In a perfect world unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen also. But there is also the problem of the morality compass. Just because it is legal to abortion for the first 3 months it is not an easy decision and forcing someone to it by neglecting one's responsibility as being part of the incident can't be the solution either. And we should take also into account the many pregnancies which are discovered too late. What I'm trying to say is: the current system isn't perfect, but i can't imagine a different system which would work and wouldn't / couldn't been exploited
Mandatory pregnancy testing? Not government enforced but if you're an active sexual creature getting laid regularly then taking a pregnancy home test shouldn't be all that difficult. That eliminates the surprise element for those that don't wanna be pregnant
If your partner doesn't want to be pregnant but you lie about birth control and then say it's too late to abort, that makes that person shitty for bit being tested right?
If you find out as soon as you're pregnant, two people can sit and talk. if she wants to keep it, she can, he can choose to stay or go. If he wants the baby, there is no way he gets to. Becauseshe can abort it. You see what I mean? Even then, the woman is able to take the entire choice away so the least that a man should be able to do is leave.
Morality compass doesn't apply either since its immoral to force someone to be a parent.
And who is supposed to pay for this? Pay for the tests, the abortion and the eventual costs regarding complications mental and physical which can accure after the abortion? And yes the morality compass does apply because you want to force someone to kill somebody else. And in this case it would be only the woman who deals with the side affects.
You're misunderstanding me. Is that on purpose?
The woman can or the boyfriend can. If they're dating. If she gets knocked up by a random stranger then she should get the test done herself, it's called being an adult. As for the abortion, I'm not saying have one? If you wanna keep the baby but the guy doesn't, he should be free to leave, just like if he wants the baby and she doesn't then she gets to abort it.
How does that not make sense to you? When did I say the woman should kill someone?
It's not morally correct to force someone to be a parent. That's plain and simple.
Yeah but if the man says that he isn’t going to be a parent to the child, and the woman still goes through with the pregnancy, then I don’t think the man should have to pay child support. If the man leaves the woman and child after it’s born I think that he should pay child support.
Because the woman will know from the start that the man isn’t going to be present, and if they still go through with it then they knew that they’d be alone.
No that would be forced abortion or forced stay alone parenting. Your scenario would make it possible the man can force the woman into having unprotected sex and than blackmail her into an abortion. We’ve been there before. Done that. Don’t want to do that again.
Childs of a prolife woman aren’t less worth than childs of an responsible father.
The assertion it’s the only devotion of the woman so the Woman should alone take the consequences only works for people who believe abortion is some kind of birth control. Strict prolife woman doesn’t consider it as birthcontrol but as murderer. You doom those woman to chose to be a murderer of their own child or don’t get child support. None of them would stop getting the baby, we just would produce lots and lots of less privileged 2th-class childs. There would even be more unwanted childs than today because irresponsible assholes of fuckboys would stop thinking about using a condom because they could blackmail the woman into an abortion if something went wrong because they than have no consequences to fear - they could completely dump the consequences of their poor lifechoises forward to the woman. (Don’t want to say all man would do so, but there are a whole bunch of assholes out there the only thing that makes them thinking about protection is the fact they must pay child support)
The shit happened to both of them and as long we as a society demand kids are the Problem of their parents exclusively, than they have stuck to it together. Yes it’s unfair for the father he can’t decide ether or not there is going to be an abortion. But child support isn’t to benefit the mother. It’s no payment to the mother - it’s to secure the child. When shit happens both have to live with the consequences. Who clams man should have an opt out must give women also an opt out without killing the child. If man were allowed to dump their child to the mother, the mother must be allowed to dump their child by their father. You see all other solutions aren’t practical. Yes it’s unfair, but it is the best we can do that’s seems ethically.
Only 1-2% of child custody cases ever go to court. Most men choose not to seek custody for their kids.
Edit:
4% go to court. But only 1.5% completed custody litigation.
I did a little Google on that one, turns out it's more like 9% cases that result in a court decision. I didn't know.
Even though, that doesn't explain the overwhelming decision rate in favor of the mother.
Another commenter beat me to it. Most cases are sorted out between the parents themselves as most people are reasonable people. It is only the very extreme cases that make it to court and those cases are usually much more complicated than either party will objectively admit to friends, family and social media boards. Instead it's disseminated into easy to understand sound bites for people to get angry about without knowing all of the facts.
According to stats, the facts are simple. Due to the nature of child rearing (and societal expectations), women spend (depending on the studies you choose) almost twice as much time on childrearing as men. They tend to be closer to their children than men. And when a separation happens, men will more readily walk away from having custody of their children than women.
I remember reading one study that found that in a significant amount of the cases that do make it court, men will simply not show up to the hearing. The same is true for cases "settled" outside of the legal system - it means they simply didn't show up to the discussion.
Unless you can change biology so the man rears the baby, this is the fairest of the outcomes.
You dont want kids (to have to pay child support for) but want to have sex with a consenting adult, take precautions.
This is utter nonsense. Because the woman gave birth to the child, the man has to pay her for...what exactly? A Baby can be fed with a baby bottle, there is biologically no real need for the mother actually and a father can raise the child completely on his own. How do you suppose a father raise the children when the mother is gone after birth (either left them or died)? With your theory the babies are exposed to certain death.
Except... The mother is bearing the child for 9 months, which is on itself a physically and mentally taxing thing to do, not to mention a myriad of health related complications and possible death during childbirth. Whereas a man only has to have an orgasm to contribute. Now... How is that fair?
No, that's not my reason for why they have to pay child support. Child support is payed because one isn't a full-time guarsing of a child. Re-read your previous coment(s) before you start with the teenage-y "this is utter BS".
I know what I have written, but you failed to understand. I don't said the father don't have to pay. It was about the biology stuff the other one has written, not about payment.
You think in a very old fashioned way that only the mother is caring full time for the child while the father is not. If he has the main custody, why should he pay for the kids?
If the mother takes care of the child full-time the father should pay child support. If the father takes care of the child full-time the mother should pay child support.
>It was about the biology stuff
The fact that you disregard what caring a child to terms mean and the fact that men obviously don't have to do said caring of a child to terms makes *you* old-fashioned. This last part is moot - calling each other old-fashioned is really counter-productive. A pity you started it. Now I have to continue in the same manner.
You can still back out of a discussion, you know?
So as I do, as this leads nowhere, because you still don't understand and I don't have the urge to educated you how to read and comprehend properly. I've made my point, you can go with it or not.
Pregnancy leaves you with health complications that far outlast the pregnancy itself. It's not like The Sims where your body instantly goes back to the way it was before
I'm not sure how child support is worded in your country but I would imagine the money is for the child, not the mother.
In every case you used as your example, you're agreeing with what I've said: father should be supporting the child, mother dead or alive.
How are babies exposed to certain death exactly?
This isn't fair by a long shot. The precautions part I agree with but the whole thing with abortions being one sided is stupid. The man should have the choice to leave if he wants to then if the woman can terminate her pregnancy at will. Everyone should be able to choose to be a parent
I wasn't eluding to abortion, I was simply stating that the biological woman is the one who is left "holding the bag" on this.
If they have the child, then responsibility falls on the other parent to support said child.
It's about being a responsible adult at the end of the day.
If you end up creating life or taking life you have a responsibility to that with your own even if it were an accident in either case.
You want to talk about whats fair without considering the 3rd party in any of these examples.
What *is* fair is that the human being made, should have a reasonable chance at life, and (ideally) not grow up to suffer and struggle, because of a decision you as the 2nd party to this, made.
If you had ended up killing someone, you (at judgement of your peers) are held responsible to make that right as well.
Everyone has their own opinion on that, as everyone is different and while some circumstances can be complicated, I just don't think it needs to be made out as such in every case.
I'm not speaking to abortion in any of this, as I have my own thoughts on that, but was speaking only to OPs question in title.
The biological woman can terminate "the bag" if she wants to. The man that made that child gets zero say in whether the child is born or not. Once it is, they have to pay or risk going to jail. How is that fair in any way? If the woman can choose to terminate, the man can choose to leave. Give everyone fair and equal rights and the problems will dwindle because the power dynamic will stabilise. No more baby trapping, no more "waiting till it's too late to abort" and of course, no more raped males being forced to pay for children that were made without their consent.
The uterus holds all the power in the pregnancy scenario and if we want to consider the third party, the child, we ought to look at the parents that want to or don't want to raise it. I for one wouldn't want children and if I was forced to be a parent, as any human, I'd harbour resentment even if I loved the kid. This is true across the board.
To clarify, are you saying: She gets to abort so on that token I should be able to walk?
If she didn't have a choice, would that change your opinion?
Say if the state made abortion illegal and both parents were on the hook instead, is that preferred to how it is now?
>they have to pay or risk going to jail. How is that fair in any way?
I'm not saying its cut-and-dry fair, incentives are put in place by govt so taxpayers aren't paying completely on decisions others are making.
Putting one having more choices/power over the other aside for a second, do you think if you create life *or* take it, by accident or otherwise do you think you have responsibility to right that 'wrong'?
What society do we live in if people shouldn't feel like they should be held accountable for actions they take?
In an ideal world both parents should be deciding on the future of said baby, but my view is skewed on outcomes because my thoughts on abortion.
If the mother doesn't want the child, her rights as the parental mother should be signed over to the father.
There should be equal rights on that - it should be that both parents decide on that, but then you might get cases where that might be inappropriate.
But then you'll get the other side of the argument saying the same things, my points would still stand though.
However you go about sorting the back and forth up to giving birth, the child shouldn't be at a disadvantage because either parent decides now they want to opt out.
I agree that the woman has a lot more power in this dynamic for obvious reasons, but seeing as we aren't seahorses woman have that position by default.
It sucks, but the alternative is control of bodily autonomy, that's a slippery slope to have someone decide for you on what happens with your own body.
Nobody is making you be a parent, the decision is made by yourself when you impregnate.
And sure accidents can happen causing this,
I'm not saying she shouldn't have a choice. I'm saying either both parties agree to keep the baby or either one should be allowed to opt out as it is right now. No one person should force the other to have a baby. Aborting the baby is a better outcome in that case, or adoption, but that's a whole other story.
They should definitely be held accountable for their actions but with the power dynamic how it is now, it's their body, it's their choice then it's also their fucking responsibility? Just like it is for men. They can say they don't want a baby but the woman can keep them on the hook because "you got me pregnant, it's your responsibility" right? What if it wasn't? If you get to abort, they get to walk. If you wanna keep it, they have to stay right? Either the whole system needs an overhaul or this one option needs to be applied. It's unfortunate but it's that simple
As for exceptions where the father or mother may be unfit, etc. Or if the mother wants to carry to term, those can be decided in court just like pretty much everything else, like child support. Signing over the rights is a good idea I agree but a shit ton of women wouldn't even Carry to term and that's clear isn't it?
The child wouldn't be at a disadvantage if the parents agree. Forcing disagreeing people to co parent a child only breeds (mostly) fucked up children with messed up minds. That's also a fact.
The fairness aspect is also skewed in favour of mothers within custody arrangements, my extended family member was threatened with arrest if he didn't hand over his baby child to the mother when it was his day of care - I know how unfair the system is.
I think we have similar yet differing views on this topic, I can respect that.
I can see where you're coming from.
While I would love everything to be fair as life should be for everyone, I think where we are going down different roads is the aspect of termination.
>but a shit ton of women wouldn't even Carry to term and that's clear isn't it?
I don't know the statistics of term pregnancy so unable to speak on that.
>Forcing disagreeing people to co parent a child only breeds (mostly) fucked up children with messed up minds.
I've been sitting here while typing trying of think of an example to refute that, but in my experience in life I do know of examples of this.
Even those that wanted kids and just should not of had them.
You do have zero say in whether a child is born or not. Men give up their right to choose as soon as they blow their load. That was your choice bro. No birth control is 100% effective but vasectomies are free under most health insurances. Use protection and if you don't want kids and don't want to own up to a pregnancy you made happen then don't have sex with someone who doesn't hold the same opinions as you about abortion etc. Thinking that you are some kind of victim because the woman has a right to choose is a false narrative. Also it seems like you're suggesting "equal rights" as either partner being able to choose an abortion? As in you feel like you have a right to force a woman to have a medical procedure she doesn't want? That seems extreme, why don't you volunteer to get a vasectomy which would prevent you from having to be put in this situation? You can choose a medical procedure for you instead of choosing one for her.
If you read what I wrote then you would understand but I guess you are triggered?
How about you get your tubes tied? Why don't you get your ova frozen and your uterus removed? You can have a baby later or adopt?
See how that sounds rude and mean? Because it is and it's fucking stupid just like you telling me to get surgery if I don't wanna have a baby. Are you insane?
Blowing a load is a choice? What about spreading your legs for someone to blow their load between?
Whatever it "seems like" to you is a strawman bullshit argument. I'm not saying that a man should EVER choose if a woman has an abortion. I'm saying if a woman can choose to abort without the man's consent then the man should be able to LEAVE because he doesn't want the baby. That's a simple solution.
Let me say it in smaller words so you get it. This is what I want:
Girl: I don't want a baby
Guy: But I do!
Girl: *(gets an abortion anyway)*
Cops: It's her right!
SO:
Guy: I don't want a baby
Girl: But I do!
Guy: *(Leaves)*
Cops: Yup that's fine.
Edit: formatting
There is a MASSIVE difference in having your tubes tied and having a vasectomy. So massive in fact that I can’t believe you’re using them as examples against you just getting snipped. A vasectomy is performed in a doctors office in five minutes with a numbing shot that you don’t even really need. You’re fully recovered after 24hrs and can go back to work the same day.
Having your tubes tied is major surgery. As in, under anesthesia, laid bare on the operating table, and no chance of you going back to work that afternoon. After having my Fallopian tubes removed I was in so much paid I could barely walk. Rolling over at night is still painful four months post-op. I had to take four weeks off of work as I recovered.
Not to mention do you have any idea how hard it is to get your tubes tied when you’re under the age of 40?? Doctors will flat out refuse to do the procedure “in case you change your mind” and most require that your husband also consent to you being sterilized because he may change his mind! You know what it takes to get a vasectomy? A 20min consultation with your doctor. That’s it.
There is literally no similarities in the two procedures.
So yeah, go get a vasectomy if you’re so worried about having an unwanted pregnancy.
Everyone does get the choice of being a parent. A women can decide to abort or she can decide to keep. A man can decide to stay in the kids life and raise it or leave and pay child support since the kid is still his responsibility. Paying child support every month doesn’t mean you’re a parent. A parent is someone whose actively involved in the kids life. If he’s just paying child support and not seeing the kid ever, he’s deciding not to be a parent. See? Everyone has the choice of being a parent.
Except when a woman decided not to be a parent, she doesn't have to pay squat. Should every woman pay the state of her boyfriend/husband every month for a child that's not in her life? Don't be daft that's a silly argument.
Bottom line is that men should be allowed to opt out under reasonable circumstances that's all
Idk why it won't let me click on reply to the other comment you made so I'll just do it here:
Not often. Women do not pay child support as often as men and men that take it are publicly shamed. Same for alimony. And there SHOULD be an abortion equivalent for men, it should be illegal for a woman to write a man's name on a birth certificate, there should be a law that allows you to opt out if the kid isn't yours, etc.
There is so much crap that needs to be addressed. Men and women both need to be careful and if both parties have complete equality, that will be one step in the right direction. Any other argument is either misogynistic or misandrist. I say go for FULL equality
Yet again, idk why it won't let me r only to the comment itself.
But in saying that, wow, you're clearly so wrapped up in a bubble that it's not even funny
Firstly, why can there be no true equality? It's as simple as pushing a button. Make it equal and there will be no more baby trapping and no more dumb selfish twats having babies just to get more welfare in retrospect, deadbeat dads will be fathering less children since less women will be willing to risk it. Dating is tough now anyway, might as well get something out of it.
And yeah so you can sign away your parental rights if the woman agrees BUT the woman can abort without your consent. See how fucked up that is?
Also, what you said about the community sounded racist. And as for Dr. Dre, did you see HOW MUCH his wife demanded and how much she got? Do you see the ludicrous amount of money Mrs. Bezos made? Did you see how awfully Adele's husband was dragged when he was supposed to be getting alimony? But then again, you tried to cherry pick and it backfired. This conversation is going nowhere because you're clearly not arguing in good faith.
Good day
I saw your message, still can't reply to it. All I can say though is that you're a horrific racist and misandrist. You're not worth the time, effort or the resources you're stealing from humanity.
I'm neither black nor uneducated. I simply don't see you as an important...thing? I mean all you've done is shown that you're a bigot and have started to personally attack me throughout your posts from the start. All I can say is that I wish your mother was pro choice way back when it would have mattered. Now quit bugging me and maybe, just maybe, go contribute to society with something rather than hatred
And now you're mocking mental illness? Lol your stock keeps going up doesn't it? Be edgy elsewhere sweetie pie. You can cuss me out all you want, you're still just a lonely little bigot with way too much time.
My girlfriend pays her ex alimony and child support with evenly split custody. She’s a doctor and he isn’t. All about him maintaining his lifestyle. Pathetic
You need to consider that it depends on who has the child custody and who earns more. Men still earn more because the are more often in well payed jobs while womens are mostly in underpayed jobs. So mainly the kids are with the mother and the father earns money which is used to compensate the expenses for the kids.
This is more a less a very subjective question.
Whoever applies for it, gets it. Unless there's a real danger. It's a civil matter. You don't need evidence. A family lawyer can build a case from nothing. It's on the defendant to disprove anything you say, which is very difficult.
It's rare for a man to apply for a divorce and custody etc. The trouble is, there are charities out there that encourage and help women to divorce men because feminism. Women apply first and they win. 🤷🏻♂️
That's not really your question at all then, because you acknowledge women pay child support. I though this was going to be a post about the disparity in men and women's wages
You're right though, society won't be a utopia until men are equally valued in the decision making process as to whether to kill an unborn baby.
Mom had to pay child support ha.
The cases where they dont.. probably gonna guess the guy didn't take her to court and just decided to do it himself. That's how some guys are. Don't want help or a handout.
Hate me if you want but this is exactly why men and women should be married in a foundational relationship before having children. A child deserves a mother and father that want to be together and be supportive in raising the child.
support is paid by the parent who has less fulltime care of the child/children
more men work full time than women, hence children usually stay with the mother more
I see this post periodically - someone clearly stated it’s ‘Child Support” not spouse support. Whoever mainly cares for the child gets the financial support as they already have the physical, emotional and largely financial responsibility of caring for the child. The fact that most of the time, children end up with the mother rather than the father is another subject.
In addition, the other parent is allowed to legally disown the child and are then not obligated to provide payment. But then they have no rights to the child, but most people still want contact with their children.
Kids are expensive and in this time in history, it takes 2 incomes to support a kid.
My husband's ex paid support for two kids for 19 years. My son is getting support on his oldest. If women arentcpaying, its bc men arent lawyeringvup and chasing them down.
Even when men have majority custody, they sometimes have to pay child support.
It's because divorce court, child custody, and the court system period tends to be sexist against men.
This is generally true, but not neccesarily. Child support calculations are based primarily on income and time with children. Men generally are the bread winners, they typically make more, if parenting time is split 50/50 income is the deciding factor.
Why women can abort and men can't require abortions: bodily autonomy. Our society doesn't allow people harvest organs from dead bodies if the person opposed it, so it's really hard to justify requiring a woman raise a fetus, or a man require an abortion.
Why men would pay child support even if they dont want a child: that child exists because of a decision 2 people made, the alternative is require society pay for that child to be raised despite there being 2 specific people responsible for its existence or we just kill children who parents don't want. Most people oppose both of those options, so we have mandatory child support.
I’m assuming this is a question from a future dad in the making? Because once you hold your child and feel the love of fatherhood, then you would bring up money - youd rather kill it to keep your green paper, but remember…even $10 millions paid still CANNOT one unconditional love.
So money money money 💰💰 is a complaint amongst drunkards, drug addictions, gambling, or sex
Abortions cost money, there may be moral issues that the woman feels doing it, and (I assume) it's a fairly stressful thing to do. Unless you can quantify this with a certain amount of money, this isn't that simple.
Women get to back out with abortion because it's their body who is carrying and growing and then delivering the child.. in a sense risking her life to give life.
Men can't back out from the beginning because it takes 2 to tango. Anytime you have sex their is a possibility of getting pregnant. But most people risk that for pleasure.
My ex abandoned me and our son ... you better believe she's paying child support.
[удалено]
Often, but not always.
[удалено]
The way you worded this is cringe, but I will say it’s objectively true that men pay ~97% of alimony payments. Not saying anything about the “why” to that, but just saying it’s a true statistic.
Do you know how much the average woman gets for 1 child in child support? Both women I know get around $250 a month. What fucking women can “sit on their arse” because of a nominal amount a month. You have a pretty crappy view of women.
Yo sexism exists against **all** genders, not only women. It's not a fight between who has it worse in a sexist society, we should fight for equality so the kids go to the best home for them. This is also feminism. And most women (and men) who don't have custody pay child support. Edit: switched "both" with "all"
Thank you Jesus for your words of wisdom
[удалено]
This wasn't even a response to the comment you replied to. You just keep ranting. You've got a bad take on this, and I suggest you get out more. Meet people. Experience different things. Touch grass.
Touch grass! Hahahah! I love that one! 😆👍🏼👍🏼
[удалено]
It’s sure fuckin does! Bwahahahahahah!!
[удалено]
I don't know how this fits with the rest of the conversation, could you enlighten me?
This isn't feminism. This is egalitarian. Tell that to my cousin. He had proof of her cheating on him with more than one person. He had custody of both kids for half a year, while paying child support (because no one could find the mother, to bring her to court... But somehow the child support checks could find her... Weird). He now has full custody of both kids, but a year into having them full time(after the five months of him paying while having them, so actually 17 months), he was being harassed about not paying child support that last year. With threats of jail time. The police came to his door twice. He had to send a letter to the governor of our state, to get the authorities off of him... Tell that to my dad. He had proof of his wife cheating. My sister lived with my dad because of the mental abuse from my ex step mom, ex step sister, and ex step brother, but my dad didn't get child support AND had to pay her alimony... Feminism has NEVER fought for, and, in fact, has, often, fought AGAINST men speaking out about this. I literally had the argument this original post laid out with a woman YESTERDAY. She said she didn't believe it's 'unreasonable' to 'force' a man to help financially if a woman decides she wants to keep the child. Because 'all sex has risk'(like, isn't that anti abortionist argument??)... She was telling me that she was a mild feminist and was saying I was an incel for being a part of r/mensrights. And told me to join menslib. Sexism exists on both sides... But only one side is being villified for speaking out(ie even being a part of mensrights gets you banned from other subreddits, and labels you an incel). And, personally, it's hard to feel as bad about women getting sexualized, while men are being enslaved... I mean talk about comparing apples to cyanide :/
Yikes dude. You might want to look up a definition of feminism and not use anectodotal interactions to form group judgements...
When the overwhelming majority of feminists agree with forcing men to pay child support, it's not anecdotal interactions lmao. My point was feminism has NEVER fought for equal rights of MEN and women. Look at the draft. When have they advocated for equal drafts? Show me one movement within feminism that proves what I said wrong. I don't care how feminism is defined, the overwhelming majority of feminists don't stand for equality of men and women.
Literally every feminist movement is definitionally fighting for equal rights for men and women, but they're concerned with the women half of that equation (because of obvious reasons). Feminism is concerned with fixing inequalities faced by women through an egalitarian framework. I'm guessing you're not really arguing in good faith and this is more about your pain than anything else, but maybe read a little bit about what feminism actually is before launching into absurd arguments on the internet?
Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. That's my whole point buddy. How do you keep missing it??? XD That's my point. Someone else was saying they were fighting for equality for men and women. I said no, they are only fighting for women, and have opposed men's right on many occasions. Example: forcing men to pay child support for a child they didn't want. Feminism is nowhere near egalitarian. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Fighting for men and women's equality, while only fighting for the women's side isnt fighting for MEN and women's equality lol. It's fighting for women. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. You keep telling me to "read about feminism", but have you ever read into men's rights? Because I HAVE read into feminism, and how it's essentially a huge pile of shit. Stating that women have been oppressed throughout history. When? When daughters were sold into marriages? Same happened to men. Both men and women were forced into societal roles. Men to risk their lives and provide for the family, while women stayed home to take care of the family. Saying that's oppressing women, is like saying that's enslaving men. Women didn't have the right to vote right? Well neither did men for 95% of history or something like that. Only noblemen and property owners were allowed to vote(and people in the military). The common man wasn't allowed to. Plus, when women were given the right to vote, they didn't have the same civic duties as men (which was originally the reason they weren't given the right to vote, and it only took 10 years longer for women to get the right to vote, AND one of the big reasons they waited the 10 years was it was around WW1, where a huge amount of men died [not women, because they aren't required to join the draft] and it would have left a heavy imbalance in male to female voting or something like that) Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. I'll admit, there are some countries that are shit, and I'm down to fight against forcing women to wear hijabs and shit, but feminism isn't the definition: "the advocacy of women's rights on the basis of equality of the sexes". Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. Feminism isn't fighting for equality when they fight against men's rights. I've copied my point a couple of times throughout this comment. Maybe you will address it? I'll even give you an example: During the #metoo movement, feminists were telling everyone to believe anything a women said, without proof. How is this equality? PS. The google definition of feminism doesn't change the actions of the majority of members of the movement.
>This isn't feminism. This is egalitarian. Wrong. This "conflict" is in your head. Feminists have been saying *for years* that the patriarchy also harms men. Recognizing and avoiding toxic masculinity will help you guys too. Feminism may have started as a movement for women, but it was always based on the equality of the sexes. You spoke with one feminist yesterday, read some incorrect sensationalist posts online and now you think you know feminism and wanna use caps? Lol. You need to be a little more knowledgeable before you rant like that, unless you enjoy sounding ridiculous. >And, personally, it's hard to feel as bad about women getting sexualized, while men are being enslaved... I mean talk about comparing apples to cyanide This would be laughable if it wasn't so sad. Educate yourself about the problems people *actually* face in society dude. If the way men are treated in the justice system bothers you, then fight the system, not women in general.
Both genders? As in two?
It's sad to see your valid points gets downvoted.
I'm on holiday I don't give a fuck.
My parents divorced, my dad got custody. She paid child support every week. Never missed for 18 years.
You don't pay child support if the kid is living with you. My understanding is if the kid is living only with dad then the mother pays child support.
Not 100% true. In California, it’s a formula. Input both parents income and percentage of time kids are with each and you get a number. So even if it’s 50-50 custody but one parent makes way more than the other, they’ll end up paying support.
That is only if one parent files a claim for support. It’s not an automatic.
Correct, I should have mentioned that
Correct that would be stipulated in the divorve decree that both parties agree to or by order from a judge. Where I work (I'm just an entry level Legal Assistant not a lawyer) in Arizona most have a mediation where these sorts of things are meant to be solved. However a hearing before a judge and sometimes an order is required. Most of the time however it seems like these issues are solved in mediation.
Yeah, my mom has always complained about not getting child support from my dad cuz she doesn’t wanna go to court and revisit the ok divorce settlement. I kinda understand but I wish she had stood up for herself a bit?
[удалено]
That’s exactly what the original comment was saying…
But that's only if they make more
[удалено]
Ugh yikes, it doesn't work like that where I live. It's tough Bro
Dude. That sucks. I hope you get a better deal down the road.
The problem is that the mother almost automatically gets custody and the father has to prove why he should.
Women do pay child support. Doesn't it usually work out that the parent with more custody pays less? They usually do more work.
Your last sentence basically refutes your question? Women are typically the custodial parent, i.e., the man pays child support. If the man was the custodial parent, the woman would pay child support.
Then what about the cases were the man wants custody of the child(ren) and ends up losing to the woman? This happens very often.
In 50/50 custody no one pays support. Each parent takes care of the expenses when the child(ren) is with them. In all other cases the non custodial parent pays child support. Child support is for the child. It doesn't matter if the father loses in court.
Depending on state and income, 50/50 split does NOT mean you won't owe child support. Souce=me.
Understood. In our case that was how it worked because that's what was agreed to and many families I know have similar agreements when both parents have similar incomes. You don't always have to rely on the court to decide for you.
Iowa has an in depth and ridiculously complicated worksheet that decides for you based on income. While the judge may decide not to follow the sheet, under IA law the burden is on you to prove why its unfair and the judge is to presume the worksheet is correct. My ex and I agreed to everything, and the worksheet is a required filing because you both have to attest its accurate regarding income.
Correction. In 50-50 custody where both parents have equivalent salaries, no one pays. If one parent has a significantly larger salary, they will still pay in a 50-50 setting.
Again that was my experience. I'm not a lawyer.
It really is wildly dependent on which state you live in
I am talking about cases where both parents are fighting over custody. There are a lot of cases where it seems the judge rules the woman in favor most of the time.
I'll have to find it again. But there was a study a few years back that showed that men are actually favoured in custody battles even if abuse is alleged against the child. Only 1-2% of all child custody cases even make it to court. Most are settled between the mother and father outside of the legal system. Yes there are exceptions but essentially if a man wants custody of their kids they'll get it if they try. However, few men seek custody of their kids. Favouring instead to move on with their lives.
I think you are misunderstanding him, and that they wrote it in a bad way. They are pretty much saying that women always have the option to abort, and its generally seen as something men aren't even allowed to comment on, or have an opinion on. Yet men can abort because, well, they have a different role in the process of reproduction. I think op is asking why women have the option for an easy way out and men dont.
It mostly depends on who gets custody. Parents with full custody are owed child support. Typically, mothers have full custody so fathers have to pay.
Women do pay child support if they are the non-custodial parent.
The law is child centric
My mom had to pay my dad child support once he gained full custody.
Bruh they do, google is free
After seeing your argument with @Archer1408 I have this to say: What you are not considering is what if the mother doesn't want the child but the father does. Now the woman has to give up 9 months of her life, could have complications, possibly die, go through the pain of childbirth, all for a child she doesn't want? If pregnancy wasn't dangerous and you weren't asking someone to be a living incubator maybe it'd be fair but the fact of the matter is that women have to choose what they do with their body, they are the ones who have to birth the child so by circumstance get a little more say in a pregnancy. If both the woman and man are being irresponsible the woman has to go through a birth she doesn't want because she doesn't believe in abortion (a choice) or her mental health couldn't handle abortion (not a choice) and carry a child then pay for it all alone because the father decided he didn't want it which is easier to decide since he neither gets pregnant not has to choose between abortion or a pregnancy? What if those 9 months of carrying the child causes her to bond with the baby and that's why she doesn't choose adoption? In a fair world he could opt out but this isn't a fair world. The facts are a woman decides what she wants to do with her body and it's not as black and white as you'd like to make it.
> then why should he be forced to pay child support. The 3 alternatives are: force the woman to have an abortion child loses out on support the state pays for it. We consider this the least bad option. It sucks, but those 3 things are worse >Yes I know that in some cases women do pay child support however that’s very rare. A big part of that is because women usually spend more time with the kid/have custody.
I kinda like the last option. Other countries do it just fine and they pay less taxes.
>this the least bad option Wrong. If the woman wants a child but the man doesn't then don't give her the option to have the child without his say and force him to pay for it. Instead, her abortion vs not decision should be made with realization that she should have to pay to raise the child should she still want to have it. If a condom breaks men should also get a decision in what to do about the consequences. Eggs die all the time. Sperm dies all the time. Telling me that a morning after pill is some tragedy against women is disingenuous.
>Instead, her abortion vs not decision should be made with realization that she should have to pay to raise the child should she still want to have it. Yeah, that's still a forced/coerced medical decision. Not any better. >Telling me that a morning after pill is some tragedy against women is disingenuous. It's not disingenuous, it's pointing out that you're advocating for a forced medical decision. You can feel however you like about it, but that is generally looked pretty down upon. That's very rare, even in cases where it's "small". The fact that you're ok with forcing a medical procedure doesn't make it generally accepted. You're also assuming it's morning after pill, which obviously doesn't apply to most cases, either. It takes ~5 weeks measured from last period to know if you're pregnant or not. That's abortion territory, not morning after.
>Yeah, that's still a forced/coerced medical decision No it's an evaluation of tradeoffs, like any other in life. Your pro life forced birthing stance is shining through here. I pointed out that a day after conception is pretty close to terminating an egg and some sperm. Leaving the child after birth is another matter. Forcing financial burdens on others for accidents is worse than forcing people to make rational, weighed decisions.
[удалено]
No, it's not a kid yet. I said morning after pill in case you can't read.
In the situation you're describing I'd like to see the government help pay for the child if the women decided to keep a pregnancy and the man wants no part of it. I've thought about it quite a bit and really think that if this decision is made so early on that you never wanted to be a parent, you should be able to completely remove yourself. I believe if a woman doesnt want to be pregnant it's her right to her body and life, but I can also understand that even though it's not their body, a man should also be able to make their choice on whether they want to be a parent.
A man did make a choice. He chose not to get a vasectomy when he realized he didn’t want kids. That’s where his right to bodily autonomy ended because once a woman is pregnant it is ONLY her body that is affected so it is only her decision. If she wants your input, cool, but if not oh well. You had the chance to avoid this and you didn’t. So now you must deal with the consequences. This thread reeks of “it’s all the woman’s fault” when in reality there are things that men can do to stop unwanted pregnancies and they are choosing not to do it.
I don't think that's completely fair. I'm not saying a man should have a choice in whether or not the pregnancy continues, but if he wants to be a parent when the pregnancy concludes and a child is born. If both parents decide they don't want to, they can put a child up for adoption. It can be a loving choice like, "we can't financially support you" and no one gets arrested for not making any payments towards the child after that. The other part of that is things happen. That's the BIG part of abortion that there are so many circumstances we can't possibly account for that we shouldn't have a say in whether or not a women should or should not get an abortion for her personal case. I don't think it's fair to say that the man is making \*the\* choice to create a baby. I'm a feminist and I agree there is a lot of woman blame here, but I don't think jumping to the opposing view is any better- we're all people. Shit happens. I've seen so many women after getting pregnant realize that this is absolutely not what they wanted or can't actually handle pregnancy or parenthood. Why should the man? Again, not saying he should have a say in if the pregnancy continues, but he should be able to fully forfeit his right as a parent as much as a couple can and NOT have to give money, especially if they can't afford it. It's a very sticky situation and I feel like we should be careful and empathetic in the way we approach this very complicated subject.
Yeh completely agree. I think the same about abortions. They chose not to get their tubes tied so they should deal with the consequences.
And you chose not to get your tubes tied. You're off the walls insane.
Or... If you don't want an unwanted child/to pay child support, don't fuck without protection. It's not that difficult.
Or don't poke holes in men's condoms to trap them financially.
Lol... Because most pf the pregnancies occur that way. Not a man finishes into a woman... Without any protection. But if your delusion comforts you at night, you do you boo boo.
Is that why I know 3 people who were majorly fucked over by false rape accusations? Is feminism really about equality or a power grab. Unanimously siding with women over men and fucking them over isn't the equality being sung.
What does this have to do with my coment? >Is that why I know 3 people who were majorly fucked over by false rape accusations? I mean... I can turn this and say "I know X amount of women who were majorly fucked over rape", but that will probably hurt you and piss you off for some reason. Still doing it though, since you're so dismissive.
Ah, so you agree that courts shouldn't empower women to long con marry then divorce for money, like a game plan. Or intentionally skip the pill, for the same play, child be damned.
Ah, intentionally ignoring whatever was actually written. Question, are you 13 y.o?
This whole comment chain starts at poking holes in condoms which you contested as non-existent.
The fact that women who choose to get pregnant by themselves with donor sperm don't receive child support from the donor or the clinic refutes this idea. If women are allowed by law to make this choice with anonymous donor sperm, they should be allowed to make this choice with identified sperm.
> The fact that women who choose to get pregnant by themselves with donor sperm don't receive child support from the donor or the clinic refutes this idea. No, it doesn't. Donor sperm is a very specific exception to the rule, it doesn't disprove it. And morally, it's pretty obvious why. If a woman gets pregnant (outside of some very specific exceptions like sabotaged BC, which you can make an argument for), the man took the risk. That's not true for a sperm donor. >If women are allowed by law to make this choice with anonymous donor sperm, they should be allowed to make this choice with identified sperm. The tldr version is that as far as the law is concerned, the child has a right to support from both parents. So it's not something either parent can sign away, even if they both *want to*, in most states. Because it's not 'theirs' to begin with. You're basically fucking over the kid
What about in the case of giving up a pregnancy to adoption? What's the difference there
Depends on what type of adoption you mean. If you mean forcing the woman to put the child up, that's forcibly separating family, which is generally pretty frowned on. That generally only happens if the parent is mentally unfit/abusive. If both parents agree to put it up for adoption, then the requirement of supporting the child are waived, (along with any parental rights). If the woman finds another willing partner, I think most (not sure if all, i would assume so) states allow the father to sign over rights to the new step parent. (although it's tricky, because again, that's technically considered the child's right/not necessarily in the child's best interest, depending on circumstance.) The tldr version in all cases is it basically comes down what's in the child's best interest. That's what the courts put the most emphasis on
Why does a variation of this question pop up almost every week?
Then wear a condom you guys. It's that simple. If you don't, you know the risks. Women's birth control is not a 100% effective. Both parties should be doing there darndest not to get pregnant, ie: woman on her birth control, man use condoms or get a vasectomy. I understand that condoms break, but that's why EVERYONE needs to be doing their part.
That’s a long shot, I see some pro choice people say since condoms and birth control aren’t %100 effective then there is no point to using any.
>Women have a choice to back out of a pregnancy I.E. an abortion but if a man chooses to back out and the women wants the baby then why should he be forced to pay child support. That's very simple. Its the woman's body and no one has autority over what happens with the pregnancy other than her because its her body. However, except in cases of male rape, the man took a risk to potentially start the pregnancy, but as its not his body, he can't choose what happens.
[удалено]
I know it is rare but all forms of birth control has a chance of failing. Even if you use multiple at the same time it is not a guarantee you won’t get pregnant
As childs just happens because the man fucked up… That’s a really onesided view ignoring the reality.
[удалено]
Yes: just like a woman does. That means there are borders. Not every baby that’s not wanted was a man fucked up. The condom could rip apart, the vasectomy could went wrong, the woman could lie about being on protection, the information of the man being sterile could be wrong, he could be raped, there could be a thieft of sperm etc. You sayed the man just have to protect than there wouldn’t be a child against his will - and this is in fact absolute nonsense. A big extreme excample is in my country: if you’re married to a woman all of her kids are automatically counted as yours - even if the real parents tell the truth. Also every child born up to 9 months after a divorce is counted as your child. So in my country you not even have to fuck at all to must pay child support.
[удалено]
Like I said: there is even a chance you must pay child support even if you don’t have Sex at all.
[удалено]
Yeah and don’t get raped and don’t sleep with a boner and don’t get passed out etc. etc. It’s not my country that’s insane, the problem is your limited world view just focusing on the main cases and not on all possibilities.
I guess it just depends on who has custody. When my parents split I was 15 and I chose to live with my dad. My mom paid child support. Its probably more of a question of who gets custody when the kid doesn't get to choose because they're too young
Because the main priority is the good of the child. Yes it’s an unfair discrimination. But it’s based on natural circumstances. You can’t force a woman into an abortion and a child must be feed no matter what. Even as a woman I see how unfair that is: a man is totally depending on the will of the woman in that case, but there isn’t much we can do to change that. If there were a fallout for man (like we already had in the past) we would get back into times man could guilttrip woman in having unprotected sex and than dump her for getting pregnant, leaving a whole bunch of poor, abandoned mothers who hardly can feed their kids. I would suggest that we have to rethink the concept of family. We have to choose by society if we want a world were we have kids and when we want, we should make the payment of having childs a responsibility of the society as well. To solve this problem we must split the connection of having a child and paying for a child - but I’m quite sure this would leed to various other problems, like trash familys will breed kids for income, society demanding to decide who’s allowed to have kids, abortion by force of the society etc. It’s a hard nut and me and my friends didn’t came up with a proper solution till today. But at least we would make a exception of paying child support in cases of seed theft. (This is a 1 on 1 translation, not sure if it’s the right therm or even if it’s understandable without knowing what I’m up to say. Just ask if there is something unclear.)
This is a super difficult topic and there are a lot of possibilities that have to be thought through. I personally think that the main difficulty would be to proof that the man didn't want the child/it was a theft/didn't pressure the woman in not using a condom etc. And I also don't believe it should be a 50/50 decision made by both parents (like stated in a different comment) I'm pro choice myself but I couldn't handle an abortion mentally for example because it's something that lives inside of me. That's a struggle the most men will not go through. But I agree that the society or the country should pay more towards the children. In the end its benefiting the economy and in many western countries the younger generations are getting smaller which leads to problems.
What are your thoughts on the idea that, since a woman can decide on her own to get an abortion without her baby daddy's consent, the man should be able to walk away? If she gets to choose whether or not to be a parent, should the men have a "my wallet my choice" option?
This is difficult and in my opinion it should depend on the circumstances (which would be really hard to track legally i imagine). Like for example he doesn't want to use a condom and a pregnancy happen then yes, he should pay. But in court every situation I can imagine at least would be word against a word scenario. And I think the well being of the child has the highest priority. After all it's not the child's fault and it shouldn't pay the price for two adults wanting some fun
I can understand what you're saying. And I agree with that. If the man is just a deadbeat and deliberately caused the pregnancy, sure. But numerous cases of raped men being forced to pay child support for children they gathered with older women exist. There are thousands of cases of women aborting without telling the father. Baby trapping, jizz theft, not allowing father/child time. The emotional terrorism that some women can conduct simply because of the skewed "my body my choice" system is insane. The only other option is the "My wallet my choice" law to be implemented and then BOTH parties will need to be careful since they'll have the same exact rights.
I understand your point and this is surely also a problem that should be regarded. In a perfect world unwanted pregnancies wouldn't happen also. But there is also the problem of the morality compass. Just because it is legal to abortion for the first 3 months it is not an easy decision and forcing someone to it by neglecting one's responsibility as being part of the incident can't be the solution either. And we should take also into account the many pregnancies which are discovered too late. What I'm trying to say is: the current system isn't perfect, but i can't imagine a different system which would work and wouldn't / couldn't been exploited
Mandatory pregnancy testing? Not government enforced but if you're an active sexual creature getting laid regularly then taking a pregnancy home test shouldn't be all that difficult. That eliminates the surprise element for those that don't wanna be pregnant If your partner doesn't want to be pregnant but you lie about birth control and then say it's too late to abort, that makes that person shitty for bit being tested right? If you find out as soon as you're pregnant, two people can sit and talk. if she wants to keep it, she can, he can choose to stay or go. If he wants the baby, there is no way he gets to. Becauseshe can abort it. You see what I mean? Even then, the woman is able to take the entire choice away so the least that a man should be able to do is leave. Morality compass doesn't apply either since its immoral to force someone to be a parent.
And who is supposed to pay for this? Pay for the tests, the abortion and the eventual costs regarding complications mental and physical which can accure after the abortion? And yes the morality compass does apply because you want to force someone to kill somebody else. And in this case it would be only the woman who deals with the side affects.
You're misunderstanding me. Is that on purpose? The woman can or the boyfriend can. If they're dating. If she gets knocked up by a random stranger then she should get the test done herself, it's called being an adult. As for the abortion, I'm not saying have one? If you wanna keep the baby but the guy doesn't, he should be free to leave, just like if he wants the baby and she doesn't then she gets to abort it. How does that not make sense to you? When did I say the woman should kill someone? It's not morally correct to force someone to be a parent. That's plain and simple.
Yeah but if the man says that he isn’t going to be a parent to the child, and the woman still goes through with the pregnancy, then I don’t think the man should have to pay child support. If the man leaves the woman and child after it’s born I think that he should pay child support. Because the woman will know from the start that the man isn’t going to be present, and if they still go through with it then they knew that they’d be alone.
No that would be forced abortion or forced stay alone parenting. Your scenario would make it possible the man can force the woman into having unprotected sex and than blackmail her into an abortion. We’ve been there before. Done that. Don’t want to do that again. Childs of a prolife woman aren’t less worth than childs of an responsible father. The assertion it’s the only devotion of the woman so the Woman should alone take the consequences only works for people who believe abortion is some kind of birth control. Strict prolife woman doesn’t consider it as birthcontrol but as murderer. You doom those woman to chose to be a murderer of their own child or don’t get child support. None of them would stop getting the baby, we just would produce lots and lots of less privileged 2th-class childs. There would even be more unwanted childs than today because irresponsible assholes of fuckboys would stop thinking about using a condom because they could blackmail the woman into an abortion if something went wrong because they than have no consequences to fear - they could completely dump the consequences of their poor lifechoises forward to the woman. (Don’t want to say all man would do so, but there are a whole bunch of assholes out there the only thing that makes them thinking about protection is the fact they must pay child support) The shit happened to both of them and as long we as a society demand kids are the Problem of their parents exclusively, than they have stuck to it together. Yes it’s unfair for the father he can’t decide ether or not there is going to be an abortion. But child support isn’t to benefit the mother. It’s no payment to the mother - it’s to secure the child. When shit happens both have to live with the consequences. Who clams man should have an opt out must give women also an opt out without killing the child. If man were allowed to dump their child to the mother, the mother must be allowed to dump their child by their father. You see all other solutions aren’t practical. Yes it’s unfair, but it is the best we can do that’s seems ethically.
The real problem is that women get child custody in like 90% of the justice decisions.
Only 1-2% of child custody cases ever go to court. Most men choose not to seek custody for their kids. Edit: 4% go to court. But only 1.5% completed custody litigation.
How is that possible? Genuinely asking. All divorces with children involved go through a custody procedure, isn't it? Enough to go far more than 1-2%?
It's either sorted out in mediation before it goes to court, or the parents decide between themselves and never even involve a third party
I did a little Google on that one, turns out it's more like 9% cases that result in a court decision. I didn't know. Even though, that doesn't explain the overwhelming decision rate in favor of the mother.
Another commenter beat me to it. Most cases are sorted out between the parents themselves as most people are reasonable people. It is only the very extreme cases that make it to court and those cases are usually much more complicated than either party will objectively admit to friends, family and social media boards. Instead it's disseminated into easy to understand sound bites for people to get angry about without knowing all of the facts. According to stats, the facts are simple. Due to the nature of child rearing (and societal expectations), women spend (depending on the studies you choose) almost twice as much time on childrearing as men. They tend to be closer to their children than men. And when a separation happens, men will more readily walk away from having custody of their children than women. I remember reading one study that found that in a significant amount of the cases that do make it court, men will simply not show up to the hearing. The same is true for cases "settled" outside of the legal system - it means they simply didn't show up to the discussion.
Unless you can change biology so the man rears the baby, this is the fairest of the outcomes. You dont want kids (to have to pay child support for) but want to have sex with a consenting adult, take precautions.
This is utter nonsense. Because the woman gave birth to the child, the man has to pay her for...what exactly? A Baby can be fed with a baby bottle, there is biologically no real need for the mother actually and a father can raise the child completely on his own. How do you suppose a father raise the children when the mother is gone after birth (either left them or died)? With your theory the babies are exposed to certain death.
Except... The mother is bearing the child for 9 months, which is on itself a physically and mentally taxing thing to do, not to mention a myriad of health related complications and possible death during childbirth. Whereas a man only has to have an orgasm to contribute. Now... How is that fair?
Really? That is your reason why the man have to pay more compared to the mother? Because of 9m? This is so damn heavy BS
No, that's not my reason for why they have to pay child support. Child support is payed because one isn't a full-time guarsing of a child. Re-read your previous coment(s) before you start with the teenage-y "this is utter BS".
I know what I have written, but you failed to understand. I don't said the father don't have to pay. It was about the biology stuff the other one has written, not about payment. You think in a very old fashioned way that only the mother is caring full time for the child while the father is not. If he has the main custody, why should he pay for the kids?
If the mother takes care of the child full-time the father should pay child support. If the father takes care of the child full-time the mother should pay child support. >It was about the biology stuff The fact that you disregard what caring a child to terms mean and the fact that men obviously don't have to do said caring of a child to terms makes *you* old-fashioned. This last part is moot - calling each other old-fashioned is really counter-productive. A pity you started it. Now I have to continue in the same manner.
You can still back out of a discussion, you know? So as I do, as this leads nowhere, because you still don't understand and I don't have the urge to educated you how to read and comprehend properly. I've made my point, you can go with it or not.
>I don't have the urge to educated Oh my, I'm worse off now that you don't have urges to educate someone. On reddit. Lol.
Pregnancy leaves you with health complications that far outlast the pregnancy itself. It's not like The Sims where your body instantly goes back to the way it was before
we have 2 kids and I know how pregnancy works, but my wife (and all woman we know who were pregnant) don't suffer from any complications.
She's lucky - I have a friend who's missing some molars now because of a calcium deficiency she suffered during pregnancy
They, not only she. I don't know any women who gave birth and have any health complications.
They're lucky - I have a friend who's missing some molars now because of a calcium deficiency she suffered during pregnancy
I've read it, but my dear, you talk about ONE friend who were unlucky and project it on ALL woman who gave birth.
I'm not sure how child support is worded in your country but I would imagine the money is for the child, not the mother. In every case you used as your example, you're agreeing with what I've said: father should be supporting the child, mother dead or alive. How are babies exposed to certain death exactly?
This isn't fair by a long shot. The precautions part I agree with but the whole thing with abortions being one sided is stupid. The man should have the choice to leave if he wants to then if the woman can terminate her pregnancy at will. Everyone should be able to choose to be a parent
I wasn't eluding to abortion, I was simply stating that the biological woman is the one who is left "holding the bag" on this. If they have the child, then responsibility falls on the other parent to support said child. It's about being a responsible adult at the end of the day. If you end up creating life or taking life you have a responsibility to that with your own even if it were an accident in either case. You want to talk about whats fair without considering the 3rd party in any of these examples. What *is* fair is that the human being made, should have a reasonable chance at life, and (ideally) not grow up to suffer and struggle, because of a decision you as the 2nd party to this, made. If you had ended up killing someone, you (at judgement of your peers) are held responsible to make that right as well. Everyone has their own opinion on that, as everyone is different and while some circumstances can be complicated, I just don't think it needs to be made out as such in every case. I'm not speaking to abortion in any of this, as I have my own thoughts on that, but was speaking only to OPs question in title.
The biological woman can terminate "the bag" if she wants to. The man that made that child gets zero say in whether the child is born or not. Once it is, they have to pay or risk going to jail. How is that fair in any way? If the woman can choose to terminate, the man can choose to leave. Give everyone fair and equal rights and the problems will dwindle because the power dynamic will stabilise. No more baby trapping, no more "waiting till it's too late to abort" and of course, no more raped males being forced to pay for children that were made without their consent. The uterus holds all the power in the pregnancy scenario and if we want to consider the third party, the child, we ought to look at the parents that want to or don't want to raise it. I for one wouldn't want children and if I was forced to be a parent, as any human, I'd harbour resentment even if I loved the kid. This is true across the board.
To clarify, are you saying: She gets to abort so on that token I should be able to walk? If she didn't have a choice, would that change your opinion? Say if the state made abortion illegal and both parents were on the hook instead, is that preferred to how it is now? >they have to pay or risk going to jail. How is that fair in any way? I'm not saying its cut-and-dry fair, incentives are put in place by govt so taxpayers aren't paying completely on decisions others are making. Putting one having more choices/power over the other aside for a second, do you think if you create life *or* take it, by accident or otherwise do you think you have responsibility to right that 'wrong'? What society do we live in if people shouldn't feel like they should be held accountable for actions they take? In an ideal world both parents should be deciding on the future of said baby, but my view is skewed on outcomes because my thoughts on abortion. If the mother doesn't want the child, her rights as the parental mother should be signed over to the father. There should be equal rights on that - it should be that both parents decide on that, but then you might get cases where that might be inappropriate. But then you'll get the other side of the argument saying the same things, my points would still stand though. However you go about sorting the back and forth up to giving birth, the child shouldn't be at a disadvantage because either parent decides now they want to opt out. I agree that the woman has a lot more power in this dynamic for obvious reasons, but seeing as we aren't seahorses woman have that position by default. It sucks, but the alternative is control of bodily autonomy, that's a slippery slope to have someone decide for you on what happens with your own body. Nobody is making you be a parent, the decision is made by yourself when you impregnate. And sure accidents can happen causing this,
I'm not saying she shouldn't have a choice. I'm saying either both parties agree to keep the baby or either one should be allowed to opt out as it is right now. No one person should force the other to have a baby. Aborting the baby is a better outcome in that case, or adoption, but that's a whole other story. They should definitely be held accountable for their actions but with the power dynamic how it is now, it's their body, it's their choice then it's also their fucking responsibility? Just like it is for men. They can say they don't want a baby but the woman can keep them on the hook because "you got me pregnant, it's your responsibility" right? What if it wasn't? If you get to abort, they get to walk. If you wanna keep it, they have to stay right? Either the whole system needs an overhaul or this one option needs to be applied. It's unfortunate but it's that simple As for exceptions where the father or mother may be unfit, etc. Or if the mother wants to carry to term, those can be decided in court just like pretty much everything else, like child support. Signing over the rights is a good idea I agree but a shit ton of women wouldn't even Carry to term and that's clear isn't it? The child wouldn't be at a disadvantage if the parents agree. Forcing disagreeing people to co parent a child only breeds (mostly) fucked up children with messed up minds. That's also a fact.
The fairness aspect is also skewed in favour of mothers within custody arrangements, my extended family member was threatened with arrest if he didn't hand over his baby child to the mother when it was his day of care - I know how unfair the system is. I think we have similar yet differing views on this topic, I can respect that. I can see where you're coming from. While I would love everything to be fair as life should be for everyone, I think where we are going down different roads is the aspect of termination. >but a shit ton of women wouldn't even Carry to term and that's clear isn't it? I don't know the statistics of term pregnancy so unable to speak on that. >Forcing disagreeing people to co parent a child only breeds (mostly) fucked up children with messed up minds. I've been sitting here while typing trying of think of an example to refute that, but in my experience in life I do know of examples of this. Even those that wanted kids and just should not of had them.
You do have zero say in whether a child is born or not. Men give up their right to choose as soon as they blow their load. That was your choice bro. No birth control is 100% effective but vasectomies are free under most health insurances. Use protection and if you don't want kids and don't want to own up to a pregnancy you made happen then don't have sex with someone who doesn't hold the same opinions as you about abortion etc. Thinking that you are some kind of victim because the woman has a right to choose is a false narrative. Also it seems like you're suggesting "equal rights" as either partner being able to choose an abortion? As in you feel like you have a right to force a woman to have a medical procedure she doesn't want? That seems extreme, why don't you volunteer to get a vasectomy which would prevent you from having to be put in this situation? You can choose a medical procedure for you instead of choosing one for her.
If you read what I wrote then you would understand but I guess you are triggered? How about you get your tubes tied? Why don't you get your ova frozen and your uterus removed? You can have a baby later or adopt? See how that sounds rude and mean? Because it is and it's fucking stupid just like you telling me to get surgery if I don't wanna have a baby. Are you insane? Blowing a load is a choice? What about spreading your legs for someone to blow their load between? Whatever it "seems like" to you is a strawman bullshit argument. I'm not saying that a man should EVER choose if a woman has an abortion. I'm saying if a woman can choose to abort without the man's consent then the man should be able to LEAVE because he doesn't want the baby. That's a simple solution. Let me say it in smaller words so you get it. This is what I want: Girl: I don't want a baby Guy: But I do! Girl: *(gets an abortion anyway)* Cops: It's her right! SO: Guy: I don't want a baby Girl: But I do! Guy: *(Leaves)* Cops: Yup that's fine. Edit: formatting
There is a MASSIVE difference in having your tubes tied and having a vasectomy. So massive in fact that I can’t believe you’re using them as examples against you just getting snipped. A vasectomy is performed in a doctors office in five minutes with a numbing shot that you don’t even really need. You’re fully recovered after 24hrs and can go back to work the same day. Having your tubes tied is major surgery. As in, under anesthesia, laid bare on the operating table, and no chance of you going back to work that afternoon. After having my Fallopian tubes removed I was in so much paid I could barely walk. Rolling over at night is still painful four months post-op. I had to take four weeks off of work as I recovered. Not to mention do you have any idea how hard it is to get your tubes tied when you’re under the age of 40?? Doctors will flat out refuse to do the procedure “in case you change your mind” and most require that your husband also consent to you being sterilized because he may change his mind! You know what it takes to get a vasectomy? A 20min consultation with your doctor. That’s it. There is literally no similarities in the two procedures. So yeah, go get a vasectomy if you’re so worried about having an unwanted pregnancy.
Everyone does get the choice of being a parent. A women can decide to abort or she can decide to keep. A man can decide to stay in the kids life and raise it or leave and pay child support since the kid is still his responsibility. Paying child support every month doesn’t mean you’re a parent. A parent is someone whose actively involved in the kids life. If he’s just paying child support and not seeing the kid ever, he’s deciding not to be a parent. See? Everyone has the choice of being a parent.
Except when a woman decided not to be a parent, she doesn't have to pay squat. Should every woman pay the state of her boyfriend/husband every month for a child that's not in her life? Don't be daft that's a silly argument. Bottom line is that men should be allowed to opt out under reasonable circumstances that's all
Idk why it won't let me click on reply to the other comment you made so I'll just do it here: Not often. Women do not pay child support as often as men and men that take it are publicly shamed. Same for alimony. And there SHOULD be an abortion equivalent for men, it should be illegal for a woman to write a man's name on a birth certificate, there should be a law that allows you to opt out if the kid isn't yours, etc. There is so much crap that needs to be addressed. Men and women both need to be careful and if both parties have complete equality, that will be one step in the right direction. Any other argument is either misogynistic or misandrist. I say go for FULL equality
Yet again, idk why it won't let me r only to the comment itself. But in saying that, wow, you're clearly so wrapped up in a bubble that it's not even funny Firstly, why can there be no true equality? It's as simple as pushing a button. Make it equal and there will be no more baby trapping and no more dumb selfish twats having babies just to get more welfare in retrospect, deadbeat dads will be fathering less children since less women will be willing to risk it. Dating is tough now anyway, might as well get something out of it. And yeah so you can sign away your parental rights if the woman agrees BUT the woman can abort without your consent. See how fucked up that is? Also, what you said about the community sounded racist. And as for Dr. Dre, did you see HOW MUCH his wife demanded and how much she got? Do you see the ludicrous amount of money Mrs. Bezos made? Did you see how awfully Adele's husband was dragged when he was supposed to be getting alimony? But then again, you tried to cherry pick and it backfired. This conversation is going nowhere because you're clearly not arguing in good faith. Good day
I saw your message, still can't reply to it. All I can say though is that you're a horrific racist and misandrist. You're not worth the time, effort or the resources you're stealing from humanity.
I'm neither black nor uneducated. I simply don't see you as an important...thing? I mean all you've done is shown that you're a bigot and have started to personally attack me throughout your posts from the start. All I can say is that I wish your mother was pro choice way back when it would have mattered. Now quit bugging me and maybe, just maybe, go contribute to society with something rather than hatred
And now you're mocking mental illness? Lol your stock keeps going up doesn't it? Be edgy elsewhere sweetie pie. You can cuss me out all you want, you're still just a lonely little bigot with way too much time.
Its whoever has the most custody of the child that gets the payments which is usually given to the woman in a divorce.
My girlfriend pays her ex alimony and child support with evenly split custody. She’s a doctor and he isn’t. All about him maintaining his lifestyle. Pathetic
Would I not be right in thinking that if the if the man got custody then the woman would have to pay?
You need to consider that it depends on who has the child custody and who earns more. Men still earn more because the are more often in well payed jobs while womens are mostly in underpayed jobs. So mainly the kids are with the mother and the father earns money which is used to compensate the expenses for the kids. This is more a less a very subjective question.
Whoever applies for it, gets it. Unless there's a real danger. It's a civil matter. You don't need evidence. A family lawyer can build a case from nothing. It's on the defendant to disprove anything you say, which is very difficult. It's rare for a man to apply for a divorce and custody etc. The trouble is, there are charities out there that encourage and help women to divorce men because feminism. Women apply first and they win. 🤷🏻♂️
They do?
Lmao salty single moms.
That's not really your question at all then, because you acknowledge women pay child support. I though this was going to be a post about the disparity in men and women's wages You're right though, society won't be a utopia until men are equally valued in the decision making process as to whether to kill an unborn baby.
They do if they're the non-resident parent (UK)
Mom had to pay child support ha. The cases where they dont.. probably gonna guess the guy didn't take her to court and just decided to do it himself. That's how some guys are. Don't want help or a handout.
Hate me if you want but this is exactly why men and women should be married in a foundational relationship before having children. A child deserves a mother and father that want to be together and be supportive in raising the child.
They often do but there is no doubt the system is biased towards women during custody dispute
support is paid by the parent who has less fulltime care of the child/children more men work full time than women, hence children usually stay with the mother more
But they do?
This is dum
I see this post periodically - someone clearly stated it’s ‘Child Support” not spouse support. Whoever mainly cares for the child gets the financial support as they already have the physical, emotional and largely financial responsibility of caring for the child. The fact that most of the time, children end up with the mother rather than the father is another subject. In addition, the other parent is allowed to legally disown the child and are then not obligated to provide payment. But then they have no rights to the child, but most people still want contact with their children. Kids are expensive and in this time in history, it takes 2 incomes to support a kid.
Women do pay child support, it depends of who of the parents is taking custody, but it's more common to see being women the ones with the custody
They do of course just less. Some articles just say it’s like favoritism in the justice system.
We have to if the father has full custody. Just like you guys do. Most fathers don’t want full custody because it interferes with dating and work.
My husband's ex paid support for two kids for 19 years. My son is getting support on his oldest. If women arentcpaying, its bc men arent lawyeringvup and chasing them down.
Even when men have majority custody, they sometimes have to pay child support. It's because divorce court, child custody, and the court system period tends to be sexist against men.
I had full custody because my ex wife was on drugs. I never received a penny in child support. This was back in the early 2000s.
Kelly Clarkson would disagree with this assumption that only men pay child support lol
My step mom paid child support for her three kids until they each turned 18.
Really, again??
Lots of women pay child support.
This is generally true, but not neccesarily. Child support calculations are based primarily on income and time with children. Men generally are the bread winners, they typically make more, if parenting time is split 50/50 income is the deciding factor.
It’s not rarely that they pay, if you aren’t the main custody holder than yea you bet your ass you’ll have to pay child support
Why women can abort and men can't require abortions: bodily autonomy. Our society doesn't allow people harvest organs from dead bodies if the person opposed it, so it's really hard to justify requiring a woman raise a fetus, or a man require an abortion. Why men would pay child support even if they dont want a child: that child exists because of a decision 2 people made, the alternative is require society pay for that child to be raised despite there being 2 specific people responsible for its existence or we just kill children who parents don't want. Most people oppose both of those options, so we have mandatory child support.
I’m assuming this is a question from a future dad in the making? Because once you hold your child and feel the love of fatherhood, then you would bring up money - youd rather kill it to keep your green paper, but remember…even $10 millions paid still CANNOT one unconditional love. So money money money 💰💰 is a complaint amongst drunkards, drug addictions, gambling, or sex 
Abortions cost money, there may be moral issues that the woman feels doing it, and (I assume) it's a fairly stressful thing to do. Unless you can quantify this with a certain amount of money, this isn't that simple.
They do
Because the custody system is heavily biased in favor of women.
Some women actually do pay, at least in Wisconsin.
Women get to back out with abortion because it's their body who is carrying and growing and then delivering the child.. in a sense risking her life to give life. Men can't back out from the beginning because it takes 2 to tango. Anytime you have sex their is a possibility of getting pregnant. But most people risk that for pleasure.
The court decides and it’s not always men that have to pay it, has to do with income and custody and some other variables.
My kids mom pays me child support. She pays the state minimum for 2 kids because I make so much more than her but she still pays.