Total Posts:8|Showing Posts:1-8
Jump to topic:

Abortion vs. Child Support

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:49:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I had a debate on this recently and wanted some more input.
If women are legally allowed to have an abortion, why should unwed, reluctant fathers be coerced to pay child support?

The thought process goes like this:

1. Before birth at conception the fetus is not legally considered to be a a human.
2. Women are given sole rights to deciding if a fetus becomes a child through birth.
3. People are solely responsible for their choices.
4. A woman should be solely responsible for her choice to have the child.
5. A man should not be held responsible for the woman's choice to have the child.

As the only thing the man agreed to was intercourse, there is no contractual obligation for him to be responsible for that which occurs after birth. This seems to follow legally and it seems unjust to force an unwed, reluctant father to pay child support because of the mother's decision to have the child.

Now, this is a strictly legal argument. I'm not debating ethics or morality. Only equality. Thoughts? Agree or disagree?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:52:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 12:49:53 AM, Axiom wrote:
I had a debate on this recently and wanted some more input.
If women are legally allowed to have an abortion, why should unwed, reluctant fathers be coerced to pay child support?

The thought process goes like this:

1. Before birth at conception the fetus is not legally considered to be a a human.
2. Women are given sole rights to deciding if a fetus becomes a child through birth.
3. People are solely responsible for their choices.
4. A woman should be solely responsible for her choice to have the child.
5. A man should not be held responsible for the woman's choice to have the child.

As the only thing the man agreed to was intercourse, there is no contractual obligation for him to be responsible for that which occurs after birth. This seems to follow legally and it seems unjust to force an unwed, reluctant father to pay child support because of the mother's decision to have the child.

Now, this is a strictly legal argument. I'm not debating ethics or morality. Only equality. Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

How about we go for true equality: the man has the first trimester of the female's pregnancy to say he doesn't want to be a father, and after that he has no choice whatsoever.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:43:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 12:52:45 AM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/20/2012 12:49:53 AM, Axiom wrote:
I had a debate on this recently and wanted some more input.
If women are legally allowed to have an abortion, why should unwed, reluctant fathers be coerced to pay child support?

The thought process goes like this:

1. Before birth at conception the fetus is not legally considered to be a a human.
2. Women are given sole rights to deciding if a fetus becomes a child through birth.
3. People are solely responsible for their choices.
4. A woman should be solely responsible for her choice to have the child.
5. A man should not be held responsible for the woman's choice to have the child.

As the only thing the man agreed to was intercourse, there is no contractual obligation for him to be responsible for that which occurs after birth. This seems to follow legally and it seems unjust to force an unwed, reluctant father to pay child support because of the mother's decision to have the child.

Now, this is a strictly legal argument. I'm not debating ethics or morality. Only equality. Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

How about we go for true equality: the man has the first trimester of the female's pregnancy to say he doesn't want to be a father, and after that he has no choice whatsoever.

So you agree?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 4:05:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't see why the man has to pay forced child support until after birth. After birth, it's just easiest to lay down the law straight away and say "pay child support" rather than anything else, but child support should occur just then.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Chaos88
Posts: 247
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 4:24:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I have thought this for years.
My thought process is this:

If a woman wants to have abort and the father does not, he has no recourse.
If she carries to term and gives the child for adoption, I don't know if the father can stop this or not.
However, if the man wants to abort, and the woman does not, he is on the hook.

The woman gets the outcome she wants, and the man must suffer the consequences (no baby, baby with no child support from adoption, pay child support).

I like to call it a "paternal abortion", the father walks away from the child, but has no rights to the child at all. The father is not next of kin, he is not allowed visitation rights, and he is not entitled to any income the child makes (like a child actor). The mother (or guardian) can allow the father to be a part of the child's life, but there is no legal recourse. In exchange, the father is not responsible for the child's upbringing in any way. The father would still be on the birth certificate (for records of genealogy and family medical history), but there is no legal recourse for the mother to get child support.

The father could be liable for medical bills for the mother, however. Be it abortion costs or hospital bills.

Out of curiosity, if a mother gives the child up for adoption, is the father the first in line to adopt it? If so, is the mother then responsible for support? I doubt it...
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:37:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 4:24:46 AM, Chaos88 wrote:
I have thought this for years.
My thought process is this:

If a woman wants to have abort and the father does not, he has no recourse.
If she carries to term and gives the child for adoption, I don't know if the father can stop this or not.
However, if the man wants to abort, and the woman does not, he is on the hook.

The woman gets the outcome she wants, and the man must suffer the consequences (no baby, baby with no child support from adoption, pay child support).

I like to call it a "paternal abortion", the father walks away from the child, but has no rights to the child at all. The father is not next of kin, he is not allowed visitation rights, and he is not entitled to any income the child makes (like a child actor). The mother (or guardian) can allow the father to be a part of the child's life, but there is no legal recourse. In exchange, the father is not responsible for the child's upbringing in any way. The father would still be on the birth certificate (for records of genealogy and family medical history), but there is no legal recourse for the mother to get child support.

The father could be liable for medical bills for the mother, however. Be it abortion costs or hospital bills.

Out of curiosity, if a mother gives the child up for adoption, is the father the first in line to adopt it? If so, is the mother then responsible for support? I doubt it...

I agree. I don't think it logically follows that men should be coerced to pay child support. Sure, we can all appeal to pathos like so many people enjoy doing, but that doesn't make it fair.
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:44:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 4:05:17 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I don't see why the man has to pay forced child support until after birth. After birth, it's just easiest to lay down the law straight away and say "pay child support" rather than anything else, but child support should occur just then.

The man's rights are nonexistent until birth?
YYW
Posts: 36,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 12:50:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 12:49:53 AM, Axiom wrote:
I had a debate on this recently and wanted some more input.
If women are legally allowed to have an abortion, why should unwed, reluctant fathers be coerced to pay child support?

The argument is that the risk of childbirth is assumed when heterosexual sex is engaged in. The theory among social conservatives is that requiring unwed fathers to pay child support, that holding -ostensibly otherwise irresponsible- males accountable for their actions may make them less prone to philander. Personally, I think that's bullsh!t because it is in fact the woman who carries a child/fetus to term, has sovereign control of the fate of that fetus until the point of viability and is wholly responsible for prenatal care.

(Perhaps among my more controversial opinions: requiring unwed fathers to pay child support is tantamount to suing McDonalds because you ate their food and got fat.)

The thought process goes like this:

1. Before birth at conception the fetus is not legally considered to be a a human.
2. Women are given sole rights to deciding if a fetus becomes a child through birth.
3. People are solely responsible for their choices.
4. A woman should be solely responsible for her choice to have the child.
5. A man should not be held responsible for the woman's choice to have the child.

Basically, yeah. You practically read my mind. If women have the the full right to control their bodies, it follows that they necessarily bear the full responsibility of the decisions they make with their bodies. Men have the same responsibility, but are in a biologically distinct position in that while they can facilitate pregnancy, they cannot give birth.

As the only thing the man agreed to was intercourse, there is no contractual obligation for him to be responsible for that which occurs after birth. This seems to follow legally and it seems unjust to force an unwed, reluctant father to pay child support because of the mother's decision to have the child.

Now, this is a strictly legal argument. I'm not debating ethics or morality. Only equality. Thoughts? Agree or disagree?

I agree. And it irritates me when socially conservative agendas are rationalized with Supreme Court rulings....Because it's bullsh!t like this that comes from doing so.
Tsar of DDO