The Instigator
rukata
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
puns
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Should a man sign away his custodial/financial rights if the woman wants a child but he doesn't?

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/27/2016 Category: Health
Updated: 1 week ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 151 times Debate No: 97390
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (0)

 

rukata

Pro

If a man wants the child from his partner (partner referring to a sexual partner), but a woman doesn't, she can have an abortion. It is her body, and she has every right to not go through 9 months of growing a fetus (the same as a parasite if it's unwanted) and labor. There's no reason why the woman's life and health should be less important than a clump of cells growing in her body.

That being said, if a woman wants a child and a man does not, he will have to pay child support until that unwanted child is 18. No exceptions. I believe a man should have the right to sign away his custodial rights and child support. He never wanted the child; why should he be punished for the woman choosing to give birth?

However, I believe that the ability to fully sign your rights away should be completed before the child is born - otherwise, you'd have men who want to get out of child support after the fact because they don't want to pay. If the man cannot be contacted by the mother to alert him to the pregnancy, the woman can take him to court and contest child support, as usual. If the man can prove that he has received no contact from the mother (via phone records and possibly the internet), he should not be obligated to pay for the child.
puns

Con

For starters you have to recognize the fact that (as long as the sex was consensual) both sides understood and accepted the risks thus they have the obligation to go through with the pregnancy, the mother and father. Neither side should be allowed to revoke their responsibility. If the man didn't want a child he should not have been sexuality active, although my statement is short and quite bland, it's straightforward and true. The child should not be restricted by only having one parent because the other does not feel obligated to support the child not only financially but morally also.
Debate Round No. 1
rukata

Pro

This planet is overpopulated already - we should not force anyone to have children they don't want. The idea that by having sex, you automatically accept to have a child is broken logic. People usually have sex for pleasure, not pregnancy. Even with condoms and hormonal birth control, people have accidents; these people should never be punished for sex, because they actively tried to avoid pregnancy.

That being said, the reason for this law would be to protect a man's individual rights as a woman's individual rights are protected through abortion. If a man has a child he doesn't want, the woman WILL take child support and force him to have custody despite his clear wishes against the fact. It is unfair that a man can lose a child that he wants because the woman wants to abort (although she is 100% allowed to do so), but a woman can "rope" a man in and he has absolutely no choice and it will unbalance his life for 18 years. We know that children who lack fathers tend to have worse lives, especially those who are minorities; but those men who want to run away from a child as fast as possible aren't going to be good fathers anyway, regardless of child support. If the mother wanted the child to have a father, she should have chosen a better partner - if you believe that by having sex they 'consent' to raise a child automatically. Or, she can find a stepfather/godfather.

This is mostly a preventative measure against the women who have "baby daddies" in order to rope in money to party and neglect their children. By not incentivizing them with "free" money if they pump out children, you will significantly reduce the amount of neglected, unwanted, and sometimes abused, children. This is not to say that there are a large percentage of women in the world that do this; I know for a fact that they exist though, as I know three of them personally. They go out and select men who have money or stable income (particularly military I've noticed), intentionally get knocked up either by lying about hormonal birth control or putting holes in condoms, and then force them to pay child support because it's easier than working and the court will let them have it with no fight. Once they have enough children, they have a lump sum of cash to spend dancing on tables in bars and finding the next victim every month, and they typically leave the oldest child to take care of the rest. These children will likely lack a relationship with their father anyway, because anyone who doesn't want a kid isn't going to be a good parent. They may also hate the woman because she abused her power and simply avoid the child.

This also protects men who accidentally father with a pro-lifer, when they are pro-choice.

I am aware that conservatives usually spout about women having sex with many men and taking all that money for themselves, and they make it out to be a much more prevalent problem than it is. I'm fully aware that the women who abuse the system likely make up less than 1% of the population. My issue is not with having sex; I do not care what you do in your bedroom or how many people are in it. I just don't believe that you should be be punished because the woman decides that she HAS to have the child, for whatever reason.
puns

Con

Sex and child birth go hand and hand. Child birth is the result of sex, it's a cause-effect relationship. Its like saying you want to go swimming but you don't want to get swimmers ear. When you go swimming, you understand and accept the risk of getting swimmers ear just like when you have sex you accept the risk of pregnancy. In addition, if a man is having sex with a woman who would do something like lie about birth control or put holes in condoms, he should choose a better partner. If people are having sex, they should know each other well enough that it wouldn't be an issue.

In terms of the question; Should a man sign away his custodial/financial rights if the woman wants a child but he doesn't?
The couple should have discussed this before having sex. If the woman wanted a child but the man didn't, she could have gotten a sperm donor. Your argument seems to be fueled by emotions on this topic, so lets say a woman tried to get pregnant to get money from the father of the child. The father had just as much a say in the choice to have sex as the woman did (this all only applies to consensual sex).

A woman cannot simply sign away from her custodial/financial rights. She has to go through childbirth and is required to stick it out so why should a man be able to? Females are locked in, it's not sensible that a man can simply "sign away". If the woman doesn't want the child she either has to give birth or get an abortion which could lead to serious mental and physical side effects. Getting an abortion is not just an escape rout.
Debate Round No. 2
rukata

Pro

If a man is having sex with a woman who lies about birth control, he wouldn't know until she's pregnant. A woman who is willing to do that is going to succeed, unless the man realizes what she's doing. Casual sex is prominent in the United States, especially now that Tinder is popular. The simple fact is that you could have a random hookup and have a mistake for the rest of your life, through no fault of your own. If you're in a relationship and having sex, yes, it's likely the partners have talked about these opinions prior. Or, at least, we can hope they have.

My argument is hardly fueled by emotions; I'm a woman, and therefore have no dog in this fight. I have no reason to care whether a man can sign away his rights or not, because I will never have children. I also don't believe your basis for your argument is reasonable - "sex = MEN should be punished even though they didn't want to procreate (assuming the partners have differing opinions on this matter)". This is the argument you are using to justify unwanted child support. Do you not see a problem with this line of reasoning? If you said the opposite, which is that women should be punished even if they didn't want a child, that's a horrible idea. It should be no different.

A woman who doesn't want a child would have an abortion, or put them up for adoption. They would not go through 9 months of a parasite and painful labor, and then sign away their rights to the man (I think this what you're saying, but I'm confused on this point). No woman would ever do something like that. They aren't locked in, because they can choose well in advance to not have the child - without any input or decision on the man's part. If she can terminate the pregnancy, why can't he sign away his rights during the pregnancy? The only problem with her getting an abortion it is psychologically and physically difficult - this is true, and obviously there is no way to get around it. But if you get an early abortion, you will have little to no physical symptoms; what appears to be a heavier period for 1-2 weeks, cramps/pain, depression or other feelings due to hormones and the idea of removing a life inside of you, and the rare symptoms if you get some sort of infection or hemorrhage that can be fatal (but uncommon now). If you need a D&C, you need to go have surgery and the previous symptoms are worse and you're more likely to have serious side effects. However, these symptoms are a cake-walk compared to raising a child, not to mention the difference in costs.

This results in the same outcome for each party: she doesn't want the kid, she doesn't have it at all/puts it up for adoption and doesn't have any rights at all. He doesn't want the kid, he doesn't have any rights to it at all. If women want true equal rights we have to be equal with these topics as well.
puns

Con

The man question still isn't answered clearly. Should a man be able to take away his rights during the pregnancy? No. The woman have more at streak than the man, if everything was equal the male would be giving birth, I havent slept in 2 days so Im actually far too tired to complete my argument but the man and woman are not equal in this situation.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.