In the following situation. 1) a couple is not married but having sex 2) both have agreed that they do not want children 3) the woman has agreed that if an accidental pregnancy occurs she will abort. If an accidental pregnancy occurs and the woman decides to continue the pregnancy against the wishes of the man - should the man be punished by being made legally responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral decision of the woman and have to pay child support. Please justify your response with reasons why you think what you do.
the man can control his sperm while it's in his body, when it's on the women's body, she control it if a child is born, it's still his child, if he raises it, she pays support and visa versa what I would like to see is more men getting custody of the children, shoudl be about 50\50
I believe a male in the situation you’ve described should be allowed the right to a financial abortion with the understanding that he gives up any parental rights to the child.
How is genetic relationship justification for child support ? The same could be said of a sperm donor or the genetic parents of an adopted child ? How do we deal with violations of the rule of law - 1) one person is not to be responsible for the actions of another 2) equality under the law. The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of an unintended pregnancy - the man does not. How is this "equality". Why should the man be made responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral actions of another person ? Sure it is genetically his child - but he did not want the child. The woman obtained the mans sperm by trickery and lying. If you were a man - and someone got some of your sperm via trickery and lying - and used that sperm to create a child - would you like to be held responsible for the financial consequences of that trickery ?
do not disagree, same with adoption, why if both parents do not want to care for the child do neither pay child support, but if only one doesn't want to they have to pay child support child support was really created so well off people cared for their children, it was never meant to punish poor people
This is not a direct answer but some form of alternative. It is no secret that a great many on the far right oppose the reasoning in Roe even though it is consistent with the Common Law. Yet, few bother to adopt homeless or unwanted children. If they had any principle at all, they would adopt thereby significantly reducing abortions in our society. Since they won't do it, as an alternative I suggest that they contribute to a sort of "Super Fund" which could be used by impoverished petitioners who did not give up their children for adoption. This will reduce poverty and may possibly reduce abortion in our society. It is doubtful that abortions will be ended by this but it is a start.
If the man does not have to pay, at the very least the woman should have had to have signed a contract, in the presence of some official witnesses.
Just to point out, statistically, the majority of children given up for adoption because the woman wanted to choose life are wanted, and quickly placed with loving families. It's usually African American children, retarded, or crack babies they have more trouble placing. Allowing White women to abort when there are no abnormalities is not going to help the situation. Let's just straight up be honest about that. Now, as for "homeless children", that's just a gigantic red herring. This isn't a Third World country. There are not little homeless children running around the streets with no mother. Also, just to point out, there are thousands of cases of Christian women who have chosen to adopt large families of the less desirable kids no one else wants to adopt.
Paying to support your child is not a punishment. its called responsibility. The burden should not fall on the child or the tax payer.
1) Forcing a one person to pay for the financial consequences of the actions of another is a punishment. 2) Taking responsibility for one's decisions is "responsibility". It was the woman who chose to carry the unintended pregnancy to term - despite telling the man that this was not her intention. It is the woman who is responsible for the consequences of her unilateral action. 3) No one said the burden should fall on the child. Obviously the burden falls to the one who is responsible for bringing a child into the world. 4) Your "genetic" argument fails on the basis that a sperm donor and the genetic parents of an adopted child are not responsible. 5) Making the man responsible violates the rule of law on a number of counts. A) One person is not to be punished for the actions of another B) Equal Justice under the law. The woman has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of an unintended pregnancy - the man does not. 6) The State is not forced to be responsible but, if the State takes it upon itself to be responsible for the poor - it should not discriminate and/or violate the rule of law in taking up this responsibility. You blaming the man for the actions of the State is absurd.
The laws of the state will decide the outcome of financial support for such a pregnancy: the most likely scenario, the parent holding custody of the baby will receive child support from the non-custodial parent. Guys and Gals: if you don't want to pay child support, avoid the possibility. Don't bonk. Or get the snip.
Interesting that once that child is born it is half is whether he wanted it or not. How could someone turn his back on his own child that he created?
Since more black women get abortions, you should be grateful since few want to adopt black babies as you point out
How does a woman have the ability to avoid the financial consequences of an unintended pregnancy? I know the man does not unless he has a uterus
My point was, the fault for not adopting isn't on pro-lifers. As a group, numerically, pro-lifers adopt all their own and then some.
She has the ability to avoid the financial consequences of continuing an unintended pregnancy = creation of a child. She can avoid these consequences by abortion or adoption.
Even if she agreed to these terms, can you guarantee the mother will be financially stable for 26 years? If not, should society allow the child to live under a bridge? That means that you want tax payers on the hook for up to 26 years of support, punishing me for him boinking the mother. Your own argument supports my position.
Nothing in my argument supports your position. All you are doing is avoiding the questions being raised by talking over them. You have completely failed to address the Rule of Law issues. Your inferred claim that Society is forced to pay is completely false. I agree with social welfare - taking care of the poor. In does not follow from this that we should violate the rule of law by forcing one individual to be responsible for the financial consequences of the unilateral decision of another individual and throw out equal justice under the law. Your claim that you are punished for people deciding to have sex is complete nonsense - and this was addressed previously (an unintended pregnancy is not a child - it is the decision to carry that pregnancy to term that creates a child - you are punishing the man for the actions of the woman) I addressed all of your arguments - all you have done so far is talk over mine - mostly with fallacious gibberish.
Your argument appears to oppose punishing one person for the actions of another. Lets start where we agree: It is never acceptable for a child to be denied support. Our discussion is only about who should take responsibility. Lets go with an extreme scenario: The man has her sign a contract stating she will abort and uses a condom. After he leaves, she breaks out the turkey baster and becomes pregnant. Your argument appears to support punishing the tax payer for the actions of these two people. My position is that those two people should be held accountable. If you want to talk about the rule of law, currently, the court will place a wage assignment on the bio father in this example.
My argument punishes no one for the actions of another. It is you that wants to punish the man for the actions of the woman - that is a fact and it is this which you fail to recognize and comment on. Your Utilitarian "Collective Harm" argument is something you do not even agree with .. and on this basis this is disingenuously obtuse. That society might end up footing the bill - is not justification for extreme punishment of the man for something he was 1) not responsible and 2) objected to 3) was done by someone else. Further - do you accept Utilitarian Justification for law to begin with ? Do you even know what this is the argument you are making ? Utilitarianism only considers "what will increase happiness for the collective". It completely ignores the rights of the individual (as you are doing). For example - "If it saves one life" or "Harm Reduction" as justification for law. If this is valid justification for law - as you seem to wish for - should we not ban skiing tomorrow .. would this not save one life ? How about boating - that is really dangerous - one could drown. Driving a car ? forget it. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. In fact one should probably not rise from bed in the morning as one might fall and break neck. If someone engages in any activity that increases the risk of harm - society is on the hook for the costs - so lets ban all these activities .. right ? Is this what you wish for ? We can go on an on. Population growth is ruining the environment - and this carries a heavy cost to society - should we ban having children so you don't have to pay this cost. The lists of stupidities on the basis of this justification for law are endless - but this is exactly the ideology that you are trying to use to justify violation of the rule of law - violation of individual liberty - which is exactly the problem with Utilitarianism - it has no regard for individual liberty. I get that this ideology is at plague proportions in our current society. That this plague exists does not justify this ideology. These are not the actions of two people. You are conflating having sex with carrying an unintended pregnancy to term. This is logical fallacy. An unintended pregnancy does not necessarily result in a child being brought into this world. An unintended pregnancy does not necessarily result in costs to the tax payer. Just as driving a car does not necessarily result in someone having an accident. With a car - one could claim -well the probability of an accident is increased = increased cost to the tax payer. (as justification for banning cars - punishing people for the actions of others - a favorite ploy of Utilitarianism)- and a bad argument. In this case - you can't even claim increased probability with a straight face as on can abort an unintended pregnancy. There is no aborting an accident (other than to ban driving). Regardless of whether or not you understand the above analogy - the fact of the matter is that an unintended pregnancy does not necessarily result in an increased cost to the tax payer. It is the act/decision to carry that pregnancy to term that results in the cost. It is the breaking of the contract that results in the cost. You want to punish the man for the woman breaking the contract. Our laws are so obscene that you have cases where a woman commits adultery - the husband of the adulterer is forced to be responsible for the financial consequences of the actions of the woman. This convoluted rational is once again brought to us by Utilitarian justification for law. I get that people seem to be in love with this "collectivist" justification for law - That so many people (including yourself) have developed such a hate for individual liberty, the founding principles and the rule of law is sad commentary IMO.
Yet current law agrees with me. If you can't explain it simply,you don't understand it well enough. -Einstein
I did explain it. It is you that completely failed to justify your position...lacking any ability to rebut my comments you are now grasping at straws hoping that an appeal to authority fallacy will help you. Fallacious gibberish is not an argument for much. As stated previously - the plague of Utilitarianism is real. We have many laws based on Utilitarian justification. An ideology you obviously agree with - and you are welcome to your opinion. I just do not share it. The difference is that you can not back up your opinion with a valid = non fallacious - argument. Question though. Why is it that you hate individual liberty, the founding principles, and the rule of law so much ?
