I'm not saying the father has to pay it. Indeed, I think that there is indeed variations between cases that should be acknowledged. What I'm saying is, the physical act of abortion can be put behind you (emphasis on physical, we aren't going into potential emotional complications), but once a child has been born into the world, it's going to stay there for a while. That's where the abortion comparison falls apart.

So, you have no issue with the subject at hand other than the nomenclature?

Haha. Well, it's hard to say, you see. I think specific cases might arouse different feelings in me. I could go the whole "it takes two to tango" route, but I'm not invested enough in the argument actually to do so. I just feel that abortion is a charged word, and shouldn't be used so unscrupulously.

Originally Posted by una

An abortion is a decision a woman makes about her body- will she abort or will she carry the baby full term and give both.

I would take a bet that the percent of abortions done for health reasons is fairly small.

While a small proportion of women
who have abortions do so because of health concerns or fetal
anomalies, the large majority choose termination in response
to an unintended pregnancy.

Link
Though the justification is that a women can abort because it is her body – it is hardly a decision based on health reasons alone. There are personal, familial, social and economic reasons behind many abortions. [I believed they are looked into in that article]

Originally Posted by Feral Fantom

I would support this, as long as it is also given as an option in the case that a woman does not want an abortion but doesn't want the child either and the male does.

I agree with this completely. If one party wants to keep the child and the other does not the later should have the opportunity to ‘financially abort’ the child. This also includes giving up all rights to the child.

Originally Posted by una

That would be assuming that the mother tricked the father into pregnancy which isn't always the case. By releasing the unwillingly father of any legal obligation then all responsibility is automatically shifted onto the woman so she has to bare the brunt of the consequences alone for the choice they both made. Absolving him on the basis she could hypothetical have an abortion is unfair. Realistically he has no legal obligation to visit the child or take care of the child or even have a vague interest in his child. He can relinquish his parental rights to the child if he chooses to, but he still has to pay child support- which boils back down to money.
I don't see how a man's control over his financial security is equal to a woman's control over her bodily integrity.

@glitter- unexpected pregnancy is unexpected. Unless the woman tricked the man into getting her pregnant, then they are both forced into pregnancy. I don't believe the woman should be blamed for forcing the man into parenthood based on the premise she did not have an abortion.

Abortion isn’t the only option – a woman can give a child up for adoption. Why, after she adopts the baby out, is she free from financial obligation?
I’m not saying we should blame woman for anything – I’m simply saying there should be an option for the men who do not want a child.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

If a man wants a "fiscal abortion," I feel that then mother must agree to it.
I do not think that he should be able to go "Okay well I don't want a kid so too bad sucks to be you I'm not helping."
Especially if he had previously promised to help with a baby.

So, people are not allowed to change their mind? Having a child is a big decision. I would probably second guess myself many times over on an issue like this.
Besides, a woman shouldn’t have any say in the man’s choices to have the baby or not.

Originally Posted by Deviant

The only reason why I'd resent this is because:
#1 How would the welfare of the child be affected?
#2 If a man can withdraw his financial responsibilities anytime, then wouldn't that make null child support and divorce settlements over children?
#3 What if the man had originally agreed to have a child, but then later chickened out of the responsibility and would use this?
#4 I just find there to be a difference between a physical abortion, and a man's financial priorities.

1. How would the welfare of the man being forced to pay child support be affected?
2. A man should not be allowed to withdraw his financial responsibilities at anytime – like an abortion it should be done before the child is born. Also – I don’t believe a man should be forced to pay child support if he wasn’t aware of having a child. “Hello, this is your two year old daughter... give me money”
3. Like I said before – a man should have the right to ‘financially abort’ before the child is born. If he changes his mind last minute... well sucks to be him.
4. There is a literal difference yes, but it boils down to the right to decide if you wish to be a parent or not and a right to financial security.

-_-_-_-_-

Basically, I think this is a great idea. BUT it needs to have limitations.
• The man must make the choice BEFORE the child is born.
• There should be a FEE – essentially enough to cover the first year of the child life. [So, 12 child support payments, enough money to cover half of the adoption fee, or enough to cover half of an abortion depending on the woman’s choice as to what she wants to do with the baby... I assume choices would change is there isn’t going to be a cheque coming in every month.]
• The man should have to provide evidence as to why he cannot financially support the child. I hate to divide the rich and the poor... But if you can’t afford to pay it – you shouldn’t have to. ESPECIALLY if you didn’t want the child.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

So, people are not allowed to change their mind? Having a child is a big decision. I would probably second guess myself many times over on an issue like this.
Besides, a woman shouldn’t have any say in the man’s choices to have the baby or not.

Um, no. :? I'm just saying that the mother and father should come to an agreement of sorts.
And that it shouldn't be as simple as "go fuck yourself, I'm not paying for that."
But also sometimes people promise to help with a child, so a mother might opt not to abort (or alternatively set up for an adoption at birth...when adoption is the EASIEST to find a parent for, everyone loves cute little babies), but later on, after the time for a legal (medical/surgical) abortion, they might opt out...and that's not fair. Because now not only does the mother have a child, she doesn't have the help she thought she was getting, and may not be able to support said child.

If a woman can't have a say in the man's choices, the man shouldn't have a say in a woman's choices....And frankly I disagree with that on a moral level. It takes two to tango. But again, I also feel that if a mother is considering a medical/surgical abortion, she should also talk to the father about it. But I do feel the end choice is up to her, as the fetus is going to be inside of her for 9 months.

Parenthood usually affects the mother on a deeper level...It lives in her body for 9 months, afterwards many women breastfeed, many woman lose their jobs because they are pregnant, and a woman's life changes dramatically at the start of motherhood, both physically (she now has to buy food/shelter/clothes for TWO) and emotionally (have YOU ever stayed up all night consoling a screaming baby, and then tried to go to work in the morning?), especially if she is alone and has no one to help her.

I'm just saying, that life choices like having a child are hard, and if possible, people should work on them together.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Um, no. :? I'm just saying that the mother and father should come to an agreement of sorts.
And that it shouldn't be as simple as "go fuck yourself, I'm not paying for that."
But also sometimes people promise to help with a child, so a mother might opt not to abort (or alternatively set up for an adoption at birth...when adoption is the EASIEST to find a parent for, everyone loves cute little babies), but later on, after the time for a legal (medical/surgical) abortion, they might opt out...and that's not fair. Because now not only does the mother have a child, she doesn't have the help she thought she was getting, and may not be able to support said child.

If a woman can't have a say in the man's choices, the man shouldn't have a say in a woman's choices....And frankly I disagree with that on a moral level. It takes two to tango. But again, I also feel that if a mother is considering a medical/surgical abortion, she should also talk to the father about it. But I do feel the end choice is up to her, as the fetus is going to be inside of her for 9 months.

Parenthood usually affects the mother on a deeper level...It lives in her body for 9 months, afterwards many women breastfeed, many woman lose their jobs because they are pregnant, and a woman's life changes dramatically at the start of motherhood, both physically (she now has to buy food/shelter/clothes for TWO) and emotionally (have YOU ever stayed up all night consoling a screaming baby, and then tried to go to work in the morning?), especially if she is alone and has no one to help her.

I'm just saying, that life choices like having a child are hard, and if possible, people should work on them together.

That is why I said one of the limits should be that the man cannot opt out after the baby is born/after the time for legal abortion is over.
This leaves the mother with more than her fair share of time to figure things out.

I never said the man should be able to dictate the woman or vice versa.

And like I said - if the woman wants to keep it, it ultimately is her decision. I just don't think someone who doesn't want to be a parent should be forced to pay for a child they never wanted.

And yes, yes I have. My new born baby brother is just over a month old - and I do spend quite some time helping out and caring for him. The thing is, I WANT to help out. If someone isn't ready for it, it's bad for everyone involved.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

I would take a bet that the percent of abortions done for health reasons is fairly small.
Link
Though the justification is that a women can abort because it is her body – it is hardly a decision based on health reasons alone. There are personal, familial, social and economic reasons behind many abortions. [I believed they are looked into in that article]

I think you have misinterpreted my post. I am not speculating why the woman has an abortion. My assertion is that a woman has the right to decide what she puts her body through. Whatever her reasoning for her actions is entirely at her discretion. :)

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

I agree with this completely. If one party wants to keep the child and the other does not the later should have the opportunity to ‘financially abort’ the child. This also includes giving up all rights to the child.

I address this in my final response :)

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

Abortion isn’t the only option – a woman can give a child up for adoption. Why, after she adopts the baby out, is she free from financial obligation?
I’m not saying we should blame woman for anything – I’m simply saying there should be an option for the men who do not want a child.

To adopt both parents have to sign a voluntary termination of parental rights. The mother can't sign her baby over to someone without the father's signature as well. Both parents are therefore exempt from child support obligations.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

So, people are not allowed to change their mind? Having a child is a big decision. I would probably second guess myself many times over on an issue like this.
Besides, a woman shouldn’t have any say in the man’s choices to have the baby or not.

In short no. Egalitarianism is not achieved by allowing people to act irresponsibly or letting them be unaccountable for their actions. Unfortunately the majority of men who are for financial abortion see child support payments as a form of forced parenting which I always take with a pinch of salt because it is like equating parenthood to my mobile phone contract- fixed monthly payments. The man has the choice not to have a father- son/daughter relationship with his child. That there is his autonomy not to be a father.

((:oops: I answered this post even though it wasn't directed at me- sorry I'm being a doughnut head tonight :cry:))

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

That is why I said one of the limits should be that the man cannot opt out after the baby is born/after the time for legal abortion is over.
This leaves the mother with more than her fair share of time to figure things out.

I never said the man should be able to dictate the woman or vice versa.

And like I said - if the woman wants to keep it, it ultimately is her decision. I just don't think someone who doesn't want to be a parent should be forced to pay for a child they never wanted.

And yes, yes I have. My new born baby brother is just over a month old - and I do spend quite some time helping out and caring for him. The thing is, I WANT to help out. If someone isn't ready for it, it's bad for everyone involved.

Okay? You were questioning my position so I felt like I should explain it further.
But I'm glad we agree on that though.

No, but you suggested that the woman should not have to listen to the man's input, and the man shouldn't listen to the woman's, which I flat out disagree with, morally.
We do agree that the woman should have the final say, however.

The question was rhetorical supposed to pose as an example of how draining and stressful it can be.
In short; being a single parent sucks sometimes, and sometimes they can't do it on their own, which is why child support is an important consideration.

I'm all for a standard contract, drawn up prior to a pregnancy, that absolves the paternal parent of any financial obligation regardless of whether a pregnancy is carried to term or not.

I can't support a right to terminate financial responsibility after a pregnancy is established. If women laid eggs, I'd be all for it. But we don't. A pregnancy has physical outcomes for the woman who hosts it - regardless of the choice she makes. Terminating generally requires surgery - the later the surgery, the greater the risks. Giving birth is associated with even higher risks for detrimental conditions. The ability to withdraw financial support would provide for a lot of coercive tactics.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Okay? You were questioning my position so I felt like I should explain it further.
But I'm glad we agree on that though.

No, but you suggested that the woman should not have to listen to the man's input, and the man shouldn't listen to the woman's, which I flat out disagree with, morally.
We do agree that the woman should have the final say, however.

The question was rhetorical supposed to pose as an example of how draining and stressful it can be.
In short; being a single parent sucks sometimes, and sometimes they can't do it on their own, which is why child support is an important consideration.

Yes, but the government should step in in this case, not the father [Who is likely in the same financial boat.]

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

I'm all for a standard contract, drawn up prior to a pregnancy, that absolves the paternal parent of any financial obligation regardless of whether a pregnancy is carried to term or not.

This is a great idea!
Though, I still think men should have the opportunity to fight against it. I doubt every time you have sex you're gonna want to sign a piece of paper - or perhaps that legal document wasn't available to you.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

Yes, but the government should step in in this case, not the father [Who is likely in the same financial boat.]

Which is why I think there should be a legal binding agreement involved. XP

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Which is why I think there should be a legal binding agreement involved. XP

So we agree?
Ahha.
Talking in circles is fun.

Originally Posted by x_cannibalisticcows

So we agree?
Ahha.
Talking in circles is fun.

Roughly. lol

That's an interesting idea, however I'm not quite sure where I stand.

On one hand, if the man wants to abort but the mother wants to go ahead and have the baby, then the mother is basically saying that his opinion as a possible father doesn't matter. Therefore the women is (kind of) saying that she doesn't need him. And if that's the case then the father shouldn't be forced to give financial aid when he isn't wanted or needed. And like the original idea posted states, if women are able to have abortions then men should have their own kind as well.

Yet despite this I don't like the idea of a man running out on a woman he impregnated. Both adults are held accountable for the pregnancy and should follow through. The woman is doing that by going ahead to give birth to the child, and the man should follow through by giving financial and emotional aid.

I think that birth and money should not be compared like that. A man should not be absolved just because he doesn't want it. By implementing this essentially it is forcing a woman to either give up the baby for adoption or have an aborting which is just shifting all of power over to the man. The woman is carrying the child which is why she has more choice on the matter. There are heavy risks involved with it. Many women don't believe in abortion or adoption and many women who end up pregnant don't have the financial means of doing this themselves. Giving men an option will just ensure more poverty births. Also with the new budget, it is cutting programs that give help to women such as Planned Parenthood and WIC. I can't support this with the cutting of those programs. If we are giving men an opt-out there needs to be more financial options for women who genuinely need it. In many areas it is nearly impossible to support a baby on one income alone unless you rich. I feel it is unfair to the baby for the man to be able to opt-out.

I do believe that child support needs to be re-worked. I envision some sort of checks similar to that of WIC. It could buy certain toys, school supplies, clothes and such depending on the amount and the time of year. This to prevent women from using the money on themselves.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

I think that birth and money should not be compared like that. A man should not be absolved just because he doesn't want it. By implementing this essentially it is forcing a woman to either give up the baby for adoption or have an aborting which is just shifting all of power over to the man. The woman is carrying the child which is why she has more choice on the matter. There are heavy risks involved with it. Many women don't believe in abortion or adoption and many women who end up pregnant don't have the financial means of doing this themselves. Giving men an option will just ensure more poverty births. Also with the new budget, it is cutting programs that give help to women such as Planned Parenthood and WIC. I can't support this with the cutting of those programs. If we are giving men an opt-out there needs to be more financial options for women who genuinely need it. In many areas it is nearly impossible to support a baby on one income alone unless you rich. I feel it is unfair to the baby for the man to be able to opt-out.

I do believe that child support needs to be re-worked. I envision some sort of checks similar to that of WIC. It could buy certain toys, school supplies, clothes and such depending on the amount and the time of year. This to prevent women from using the money on themselves.

Oh god, the bolded part is just what I feel lately!

mmm, that's a complicated one. Honestly, I'd say I'm against it. I can't think of many situations where there was a child made without the man having some of the 'blame'. I'm of the mind that if a child is brought full term, then it's the responsibility of both parties to make an informed decision that is best for that child's physical and mental well being. While I am pro-choice, my reasoning for being so is that if it wasn't readily available, there would be more girls throwing them selves down the stairs, so to speak, and more neglected children. Having the man have a choice of not 'manning up' and taking responsibility for his actions is going to hurt that kid, most of the time. I'd rather see a reform of the system that evaluates the couple's financial situation and requires the mother to create expense reports as to how the money is spent, then give the guy a chance to run away.

Originally Posted by monstahh`

Oh god, the bolded part is just what I feel lately!

Yeah. It would be totally different if there would be some sort of help available for women whose spouses left them in place of child support based on the income they make. However, there isn't and WIC usually isn't enough to cover things.

Originally Posted by PixieSunBelle

Yeah. It would be totally different if there would be some sort of help available for women whose spouses left them in place of child support based on the income they make. However, there isn't and WIC usually isn't enough to cover things.

Hm, what if the man had the option of paying 1.5x the amount to the state to protect single mothers in general, and the woman could then get a payout from the state? That would 'protect' guys who just didn't want to deal with the mother and/or drama.

::edit:: or a 'Leaving the other person involved in making the child alone with the kid tax'

Originally Posted by raine dragon

Hm, what if the man had the option of paying 1.5x the amount to the state to protect single mothers in general, and the woman could then get a payout from the state? That would 'protect' guys who just didn't want to deal with the mother and/or drama.

::edit:: or a 'Leaving the other person involved in making the child alone with the kid tax'

The problem with that is the government would take some of that money, and probably only a fraction of it would actually go to the mothers...:(
Most of it would probably end up funding other things.
But the argument is also sometimes the man doesn't have the money to pay the child support.
So how would paying even more, protect them?

Originally Posted by monstahh`

The problem with that is the government would take some of that money, and probably only a fraction of it would actually go to the mothers...:(
Most of it would probably end up funding other things.
But the argument is also sometimes the man doesn't have the money to pay the child support.
So how would paying even more, protect them?

The other problem is qualifying for such assistance. A mother could be just borderline of where she needs to be and still have the obvious hardships involved.

However my main problem with this system is that opting out will force a woman to make a choice she does not want to. It barricades her into only choosing between abortion and adoption. Most women have to quit their jobs to raise a child... especially if they don't have the assistance of their parents or the father. Child support could help with things like daycare so that a single mother would not have to quit. Not all mothers get their maternity leave paid for... What is a mother to do then for rent? Alot of single moms probably live paycheck to paycheck since there is no father in the picture anymore.

Giving the father an option to opt out will ensure more abortions, more homeless families, more kids into the system, and more single mothers between the ages of 13-25.

As for a man being unable to afford it; he should be exempt but I think that should automatically qualify a woman for assistance.

I love how a man is expected to have no power in deciding what happens to his child before birth, and then is also expected to have no power in deciding what happens afterwards as well. Ostensibly, you're both saying that the decision as to what to do with the child is singularly the woman's, and the man simply has to be led around by the nose.

Yet there is no corollary to this. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not, then he has no say in what happens. The mother has all of the power to ruin a man based purely on her judgment, which the family court, society, and the legislature simply automatically assumes is good.

Is that directed at me, Sai?

I actually feel that it should be a joint decision, but, because of recent pushes in congress and such if they get passed, I'm wary about "allowing" even that (I hope that makes sense, I can't think of the right way to phrase it, sorry, I haven't slept properly in a few weeks, and it's starting to affect my thinking-mostly word recall), because there may be a lot less abortions happening, simply because it's not legal, or not affordable for most women.
Which means all these women will be forced to have children even they don't want.
Which isn't quite what this topic is about, because it's based off the premise that women are allowed abortions.

xp

Originally Posted by Saisei

I love how a man is expected to have no power in deciding what happens to his child before birth, and then is also expected to have no power in deciding what happens afterwards as well. Ostensibly, you're both saying that the decision as to what to do with the child is singularly the woman's, and the man simply has to be led around by the nose.

Yet there is no corollary to this. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not, then he has no say in what happens. The mother has all of the power to ruin a man based purely on her judgment, which the family court, society, and the legislature simply automatically assumes is good.

But isn't that really biological complaint then an equality complaint. Women carry the child and women breast feed the baby. That's just the way we are designed. Plus a man has the choice not to be the father. If he walks away and decides not to help raise the child whose life is it really going to ruin? A single mother and fatherless kid isn't exactly conjuring up an easy life style. Pregnancy is not elective, and what I mean by that is biologically we can not decide when we get pregnant. Contraception merely reduces the risk of pregnancy but does not entirely eliminate it, accidents happens ect. I really don't think it is fair when guys demonize mothers for choosing to keep their babies. When a girl falls pregnant unexpectedly, it is scenario where both the man and woman stumble in accidentally and it has to be dealt with. Abortion shouldn't be the automatic default choice because for many women it is not a choice at all. I'm pro-choice, but if I got pregnant, I couldn't have an abortion because I would equate that bundle of cells as my baby.

Originally Posted by una

But isn't that really biological complaint then an equality complaint. Women carry the child and women breast feed the baby. That's just the way we are designed. Plus a man has the choice not to be the father. If he walks away and decides not to help raise the child whose life is it really going to ruin? A single mother and fatherless kid isn't exactly conjuring up an easy life style. Pregnancy is not elective, and what I mean by that is biologically we can not decide when we get pregnant. Contraception merely reduces the risk of pregnancy but does not entirely eliminate it, accidents happens ect. I really don't think it is fair when guys demonize mothers for choosing to keep their babies. When a girl falls pregnant unexpectedly, it is scenario where both the man and woman stumble in accidentally and it has to be dealt with. Abortion shouldn't be the automatic default choice because for many women it is not a choice at all. I'm pro-choice, but if I got pregnant, I couldn't have an abortion because I would equate that bundle of cells as my baby.

I agree. Ultimately what would happen when a a boy gets a teen pregnant and the girls tells him is that he'll opt out. Most of them will either by their choice or the encouragement of their parents. Then the girl is left to ultimately choose between abortion or adoption. At that point she had NO choice- its already been made for her since her partner opted out supporting her.