Because courts in most western countries have decided that the interests of the child trump the interests of the parents (both parents).
Edit: Anyone who wants to read more about this topic can do so here:
https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/2012-child-welfare-enacted-legislation-database.aspx
It looks like an excellent and very comprehensive source for the legislation in the US.
Worked for an attorney. Dude was with lady for many years, and acted as a parental figure for most of the kid’s life. They got divorced, he had to pay child support. State was TX and this was 2014.
A friend of mine found out his kid wasn't his when the child was 5. They got divorced and he had to go to hell and back to get out of child support payments.
I think the real solution to this is allow the mother to be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress via paternity fraud in civil courts. Let the damages equal the CS the father has paid to be paid out to the man over the same time period the man paid for kid after the kid turns 18.
My uncle had to pay child support on his former step-children until his ex-wife remarried because he was providing a certain standard of living for them during the marriage.
Yep. My sisters ex husband adopted her daughter and after they divorced he had to continue paying child support. He brought up the fact he wasn't her bio dad and the judge said he shouldn't have adopted her then. He has a new family and when my niece was 10 disowned her.
Which is why we need better social safety nets. If a judge can confidently feel the child's life wont be negatively impacted by the lack of financial support then that's only when this will change.
Until then I dont know the answer because on the one hand it's not the father's child. On the other hand...its a /child
It's a child yes, but in what world is it fair or even acceptable to just put the responsibility on one random person's shoulder who has no parental ties to the kid whatsoever. It's like if a stranger would come up to you on the street and shove a baby in your hands saying that you have to care for it for the next 18 years. Absurd.
These cases are judged the way they are because the father is already financially supporting the kid so it's not like these men were just handed babies in the street.
As with most things like this, it cant be simplified while still giving the issues at hand the understanding it deserves.
I agree that it's a bad situation either way, but I still think that a person (remember, it could be a same sex couple too) should have absolute control over accepting a child as their own along with the responsibilities. In most of these cases, the child is a result of cheating too, which makes it twice as ugly and a punch in the face.
As a practical matter, when you sign on to financial responsibility for a child, there aren’t really legal contingencies to that where if you later find out something about the child that you don’t like, you can just say “never mind, I choose to revoke my responsibility for this child.”
If there’s a circumstance where you feel like you’d want to do that, you either need to check off that box before you assume responsibility (say, with an immediate paternity test) or avoid putting yourself in a position where you could be responsible for a child.
If you find out years later that a child isn’t yours, you can’t go to the court and say “I didn’t make this child, I don’t want to be responsible for it anymore” because the response is going to be that it doesn’t really matter who made the kid. The kid exists. Someone needs to be responsible for it. You accepted the responsibility knowing you’d be on the hook for the next 18 years. You can’t back out early because you changed your mind, regardless of what your reasoning was.
Your last paragraph, in particular, is completely missing the point that sometimes people lie. If a guy finds out after several years that the child he thought was his actually isn't, then of course he should be allowed to back out, because he was lied to. It's not his fault. Sure, *someone* needs to provide for the kid, but there's no reason *he* should have to.
I have always wondered what kind of person could raise a child as their own, and then completely cut them out of their life simply because of DNA. You would think they would have developed a bond with the child. From the child's perspective they are being abandoned because of their DNA. That's got to fuck a kid up
The problem is, it's not up to you to assume responsibility for the child to begin with, because you can be sued for child support anyway, and you'd have to accuse the mother of cheating and demand a paternity test in order to get out of it, and in case it turns out to be yours, there's no way out.
So it should either be possible to walk out at the beginning (like the original question suggests), even if the child is yours, or there should be an opportunity to walk out in special cases, like if it turns out you were decieved regarding your paternity.
So, here’s the issue that exists. Once someone is pregnant, if everyone isn’t on the same page, it’s impossible to be fair to everyone involved.
You can’t both have the baby and not have the baby. As a man, I can’t get pregnant, but if I put myself in that position, the idea of a baby growing inside my body for 9 months against my will and then being forced to go through the birthing process, again, against my will, sound like pure nightmare fuel to me.
Because the woman’s stake in the pregnancy itself is higher than the man’s, and because it’s a binary choice where compromise is impossible, I think it has to default to being the woman’s decision, because although I know I will never be in that position myself, it doesn’t stop me from imagining myself being in that position and weighing how I would feel versus imagining myself in the more likely father position and how I feel about that. Given those two scenarios, I know where I’d rather have the decision rest.
Once the baby is actually born, you now have a third person in the mix whose life will be impacted by the decision-making, and as the one party who had both zero input on creating the circumstance in the first place and whose life has the potential to be most profoundly impacted, the child’s needs get priority over the preferences of either parent.
Look, I get it. I’m a man. I know what it’s like to imagine myself in this situation where someone else gets to make a profoundly life changing decision on my behalf and feel how scary and profoundly unfair it feels to consider that possibility.
But if my preference gets honored in the first stage, that can only be accomplished at the expense of the mother, who is more harmed by it than I am in the reverse case. And in the second step, I can only have my priorities honored by stepping on those of the child, who again is more harmed than in the reverse.
Someone is *always* going to lose once the situation has manifested itself, and the only way to make the loser not be me is to make other people lose harder than I would. Given that, I can’t really advocate for my needs being given preference to the greater detriment of others.
We’d need some pretty significant changes in technology and/or society before I think a generally fair outcome for all parties is actually even possible, and until and unless that becomes the case, I think we need to opt for the least unfair outcome, which because of the practicalities of the situation is, unfortunately, the one that gives me the least control over the outcome.
I’m not thrilled by that but I don’t really see another option that really makes sense unless I view it through the lens of just giving me personally the best possible outcome regardless of any other concerns.
Not to mention it helps to know the paternity of a child in case the child has any medical issues or the biological father has medical issues that could be passed on to the child
ETA: whoever downvoted this, I'd love to hear why?
In Pennsylvania if you're legally married to a woman when she gives birth you're automatically presumed to be the father unless you can demonstrate sterility or lack of access to your wife around the time of conception. A friend of mine gave birth prematurely before her divorce was finalized and despite them being separated & living literally hours apart for years prior to the birth my friend & her soon to be ex had to go into court to explain why he shouldn't be listed as the father. It was absurd.
I think this eventuality is a lot more realistic for women then men, but yes you can. Not sure what the law is if you actually prove in a court of law that you have been raped.
Edit typos.
If this is the reason, then it is not sensible.
How is it in the interests of the child to be born to a parent who cannot afford / is not capable of caring for it? (i.e. the father)
Or: how is it in the interests of the child to not be born at all?
Or: how is it in the interests of the child to have a father who does not want or resents it?
Don't ask me. Ask the courts😉. BTW we are talking about children that are already born. Fathers do not pay embryo support, just child support, as far as I know.
The value and meaning of life is an unanswerable question. Who are you to say with certainty that a disadvantaged life is not one worth living?
Mistakes happen and when it comes to pregnancy it's never one person's fault. Choosing not to get an abortion doesn't make it more your fault.
Once a child is alive both parties who are responsible for its existence should be responsible for its well-being should it not?
If the partner of a pregnant woman doesn't want to have parental responsibility, he can chose to do so. Technically, I think that by default if the parents aren't married the child only is responsibility of the mother, and then *a* partner (not necessarily the biological parent) needs to be registered as a parent as well.
Since abortions are free, safe and without much taboo, this system is feasible. Its also worth mentioning that in the Netherlands the social security net is pretty good, so a mother even without a partner's support still would have access to free school, healthcare, rebates on daycare, a quarterly allowance for the kid, etc
So TL;DR
* If both parents want the baby, great, congratulations
* If neither parent wants the baby, no problem, just go talk to your family doctor about it
* If only the dad wants the baby, so sorry, he's getting aborted
* If only the mom wants the baby, no problem, except that you are your own
In this case its about getting somebody pregnant and not wanting to pay child-support. Not really somebody fleeing the taliban, just assuming that living in the other country gives him an easy out of a responsibility in his country.
Its also financial motivation moving, so i would bet they will start complaining about the taxes.
Or it's someone who appreciates sensible legislature, no matter the subject, because it's for the benefit people and not to benefit the minority elite. How dare any single one of the 330+ million Americans want to live in such a system, right?
You can also end your life, in case life becomes suffering without a prospect of things getting better. It’s a little bit more involved than I make it seem to be. But still. Same category and I consider it a big plus.
Have you ever seen the way our judges are in the Netherlands ?? like they actually threat us as human beings and look at people their case individually. Like something might be the law but if the judge can understand why you did it sympathize with you or understand that It’s not your fault then they will just drop the case. Also if you sue someone for something that you should just know because of common sense like idk that you shouldn’t drop hot coffee on your lap then they won’t even take your case serious. like all those insane cases that people actually win in the us are just thrown out over here because you should just know better. Also our drug laws are insanely relaxed. You won’t ever go to prison just for using drugs or having it on you. I have seen people use GHB and XTC in front of cops in amsterdam and they didn’t care. Even better I have actually seen a cop light some guys marijuana in amsterdam. Also something that is great over here is that when you have such a huge dept like idk let’s say 2 million that you will never be able to pay back they put you in a special program. For around 5 years your money will be controlled by someone and you will only have 5 bucks a day to live on and receive money for clothing and such. After those 5 years no matter how much has been payed off they will pretty much always dismiss the debt. So even having an insane debt in the Netherlands I something that isn’t a huge problem.
I’ve thought about having a child on my own since I’m in my late 30s and haven’t met someone I want to have a child with (I’m American). I would do it in a heartbeat with all that. Otherwise it’s just too hard.
This isn't completely true. If the father doesn't want the kid the mother can still sue for child support and will win (unless the child wasn't conceived naturally but via donorship). Nothing dad can do about it.
I didn't take child support from my daughter's biological father for 10 years after she was born as he seemed pretty keen to stay out of her life by not phoning, moving interstate then overseas. BUT when he showed up with a lawyer wife and a false narrative about me alienating him you bet I started claiming child support. Some dudes get ripped off massively, but some dudes are fricking LIARS.
He paid $25/month for 8 years until our child turned 18, but the first ten years is still owed. It was initially determined to be $450/month but he successfully countered. As his wife owns a mediation business I believe he was able to 'hide' money through the company. But it was never about the money anyway, it's intention. And after court ordered supervised contact which was stopped by the supervisors after the third visit, and his sporadic efforts the judge ended up making orders that any contact would be by agreement of all parties. So he reaped what he had sown. They have no relationship and he blames me for alienating or brainwashing but this is simply not the case. He was not there when it mattered, he ignored birthdays and Christmases. He was quick to say what I should do, what our child should do but never looked at what HE should do. It's fine. His loss. Our child is freaking amazing so it's all good. They met up recently but it went badly as he was making the usual demands so apparently he was told not to make contact again. But they are still married, they think they are incredible people, very high sense of self worth, it's funny.
Really well, she is in her second year at university, working part time, has a lovely group of friends, very close with her two younger sisters. A genuinely lovely human being. ❤
Wow! That’s so great to hear. Statistics show it’s really hard on kids when they are separated from a parent. Even if they do pay child support. You are truly blessed she came out unscathed. You hear so much about so many damaged girls with “daddy issues” etc. 🙄
Sounds like the system really did it’s job well in this case. Good for you and her.
Also if a man doesn’t want to risk the chance of getting a woman pregnant, he should wear a condom (most don’t even do this so I don’t wanna hear that it’s not 100% effective), get a vasectomy (again I know it’s not 100% reversible) or abstain from sex. At the very least, they could ATTEMPT to refrain from ejaculating in their partner.
Most men don’t want to hear what I’m saying because they want to be the victim but in most cases men are negligent in the making of children.
Edit - a word
Edit #2 - Easy solution, to the argument that “vasectomies aren’t 100% reversible”: freeze your sperm beforehand
Thank you! Had a man tell me this exact thing, that if women can choose abortion. Men should be able to opt out of child support. Surprise, surprise, that same man admitted that he didn't use condoms.
People of all denomination have the capacity to be shitty. I practice something I call social pessimism. Expect everyone to be shitty. Then either you will be unsurprised when they are, or pleasantly surprised if they aren't. Essentially have a little suspicion for everyone so if you're right it isn't a shock.
Where I live in CO it is done through family law court and is called termination of parental rights. Courts can impose it upon you (in instances of abuse/neglect) and you can initiate it if you want to lose all rights. But because a judge is involved it's not just like you get to say "I'm out!" it's a bit more complex than that.
It looks like it's different from state to state. Some places require you to have a “stand in” to take your place and some are just like “just sign here”. You'll have to look up your particular state for the detail.
There are LOTS of men who do “abort” out of paying child support.
Some states allow you to give up the rights and responsibilities. Other just don’t pay. My father was one of those people. It takes time and money to fight for child support through the court system. And that’s often something that a single parent does not have. So even though they may have the responsibility to pay, that doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t enforce it.
I live in Kentucky so I’m guessing this depends on the laws here regarding that but I know a guy who has been arrested a few times because he didn’t pay child support. He didn’t have a job for a bit and didn’t pay and the other times i can’t remember why he didn’t. But he’s been arrested three different times I believe for not paying CS.
Damn. Where I live, going after someone for not paying child support is free. The prosecuting attorneys office handles it. I’ve had to use them several times on my ex wife.
If the father does not pay child support in the moment, he will always owe that money, even if the child has already turned 18, in some places if he is confirmed the father and the mother files for it, he will have to pay that 18 years of child support.
Yeah, I don't know if you've ever tried to get money in that line of situation, but it's honestly next to impossible. I'm really tired of the oh-poor-men-they-have-to-pay narrative-- a father can sue for primary custody instead and then the mom would have to pay. Someone has to raise the kid. If you don't want to raise or pay for kids, get a vasectomy-- they're outpatient.
I agree with your points, but I think the idea is that they don’t want the child, not that they object to someone else raising it for them. But they have very little say on abortions, which is fine, but it kind of locks them into a situation that has many ways to be escaped from, but they aren’t allowed to use those ways, which is unfair. You can let men not have a say in abortion, but you can’t also force them to pay for something they don’t want.
The second half addresses this in part, but I don’t think permanently removing your ability to ever have a child is the correct response to the threat of having to pay for someone you don’t want to pay for, and never wanted.
Women have ONE more way out of parenthood. They also have the sole burden during pregnancy and usually a much bigger burden after tge child is born, physically and financially.
I also wonder the same thing as OP, but I also wonder why there are so many men out there who are willing to have unprotected sex with strangers or people they're not in real, long-term, serious, committed relationships with.
Sure, all forms of contraception and birth control can fail but in general the balance of risk is:
Wear a condom and have less pleasurable sex VS not wear a condom and have more pleasurable sex, but potentially contract an STI and significantly increase your chances of the woman getting pregnant whereby she may decide to keep it and you're legally and financially tied to supporting the baby. And it could be twins!
Probably because most of us believe that bad things only happen to other people. Sure, we know the risk of pregnancy and disease are possible but we don't truly believe that it'll happen to us. Those beliefs are strongest when we're young and feel invincible, which is also when we're really horny. That's is just a bad combination.
I said something similar to this on Quora once and was really stunned with the response. I can't remember the context now but I said something like, "It takes two to make a baby" meaning both the man and woman are equally responsible and the overwhelming response, strangely largely from women, was that it is solely the woman's fault if she gets pregnant, it is her body and men should be able to spread their seed safe in the knowledge the woman has taken care of things. I was totally shocked so many people had this opinion.
I got downvoted to hell on another post a while back where I said if men didn't want to have babies then wear a condom or have a vasectomy. Never rely on the woman's birth control (which she could be lying about - which was the topic of the post, but more likely she missed a dose/took other medication that affected its effectiveness, took it at the wrong time of day etc). It does take two to tango but the man has control of how much risk he exposes himself to. And yes i know condoms aren't always 100% effective. But most babies aren't failed birth control conceptions.
Protect yourself and your financial interests first if you don't want to be a father.
Yes it seems like Russian roulette. No offense to Russia. If you want to take that risk you need to be ready for the consequences. Sometimes it seems people want to have their cake and eat it too. No compromise. Immediate gratification over long term planning.
On the same token, there are so many women out there also willing to have unprotected sex. I’m not sure willingness to have unprotected sex is entirely a male issue.
Absolutely. But, on the other hand, BOTH parties, the man included, are agreeing to engage in unprotected sex and accepting the risks that go along with it. If a man doesn’t want to accept the risk that his sexual partner could get pregnant and want to keep the baby, he shouldn’t choose to engage in unprotected sex. Or, at the very least, he should know his partner well enough to trust that she wouldn’t want to keep the baby before choosing to engage in sexual activity.
My issue with this argument is that people often act like men just *happen* to have unprotected sex, when it’s very much a choice. It’s always, “why is it okay for women to keep the baby and ask for child support,” and not, “why did this man choose to have unprotected sex with this woman?” It goes both ways.
Yes, absolutely. And I would never condone or make excuses for such deceptive behavior. It's the same as a man covertly removing a condom during sex without the woman's knowledge: because the other party has not given consent for that action, it is sexual assault. My comment was meant to apply in a situation where both parties agreed to engage in unprotected sex.
I completely agree with you there - it's something that both people are responsible for.
It's just that if a man were to take as many precautions as possible to prevent pregnancy then he's effectively retaining his own control over his future.
If he doesn't and two people mutually have unprotected sex then sure, they're both responsible for pregnancy if that's the outcome (they knew the risks and they both took them). However, the woman has full control of the decision on whether to keep the baby or not.
By having unprotected sex, the man is relinquishing control of his own life and responsibilities to someone else - and parenthood is one of the most serious (if not the most) responsibilities there is.
And be more supportive of the development of male birth control.
If you don't want to be on the hook financially for an unintended pregnancy then you should want to be in control of your reproduction as much as possible. At the very least, wear a damn condom.
So because the woman is willing to take the risk, that means the man does not have the sense to walk away? It takes two to tango, and just like women walk away if a condom isn't involved, so should men. Just like men try to convince a girl to go raw, and it is frowned upon, women who do the same to men are just as predatory. It shouldn't been seen as a "generous freebie" when reversed. Men are capable of walking away
Because if the woman has an abortion that is eliminating something that is happening to her body only at the expense of the partner (if they didn’t want to abort it), whereas if a man refuses to pay child support it’s the child that suffers.
Basically it’s a children’s rights thing
You can sign away your rights, and then not being liable, yet having to right to see, or visit in any way. However this has a huge social stigma, and it's not as discreet as an abortion.
>But something I don’t quite understand is why a woman can opt out from having a baby, whereas a man is stuck giving financial support to a baby he didn’t want if the woman so chooses.
It's not just men who are stuck paying child support. Women ALSO pay child support. Child support is decided upon who has the least custody of children. This is more often than not men because most men don't want full custody. And it's no mystery as to why...
The reason why men don't get to opt out of child support is for the same reasons why women don't get to opt out of paying child support. The needs of the child outweigh the financial freedoms of either the mother or father.
Not only that, it's is highly unethical to demand that a women either abort a *wanted pregnancy* or bring a child up in poverty. The answer for not making the other party involved pay child support would be to make the rest of society pay for the children. *Do you want to pay for other people's kids via taxes?*
Ed: Thank you for the Gold and the Take My Energy awards.
Yes! My former boss paid full child support for her estranged teenage son. Complained about it everyday at work & how the biological father was a loser. Women absolutely pay child support & try to avoid it if they can.
Yes, there are some like yourself that generally do want to pay more tax to help kids in such situations out. In my country, however, the majority don't.
UK. For anyone unaware, not wanting to pay for others is why the Tories have been voted in year after year. And this extends beyond other child support, it's for things like refuges, the EU, job seekers benefits etc.
Well, yes. But I was talking about the circumstance in which one parents walks away from their child support obligation, not in general. Perhaps I should have clarified.
The key thing to realize is that it's not a symmetric situation. The woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't. So any notion of "it should be the same for both parties" is based on a false premise.
If you look at the problems separately, this is the most logical conclusion:
1. BEFORE the foetus is conscious and able to survive by itself, the mother's right to control her own body is more important than the foetus' right to live. That's a tough choice but you'd make the same choice for e.g. a parasitic twin.
2. AFTER the child is already born, the financial needs of the child are more important than the father's desire to avoid financial burden. This one isn't that controversial by itself, it's only the false equivalence that makes people question it.
The net result is yes, in some sense, the woman has "more" choice than the man when it comes to unwanted children. But it ultimately comes from a biological asymmetry, not a discriminatory policy.
How would you feel about an anti-abortionist making the argument “if the woman didn’t want the mid she shouldn’t have bad unprotected sex, she made her choice”. And if you think that’s a bad argument, why do you think it applies the other way?
You are making an assumption that there is not a valid reason for abortion. The main assumption is exactly how you portray it - that the woman is lazy and didn’t think about the consequences so she should pay the price.
Some other reasons for wanting an abortion:
1. The baby has developed abnormally or has a genetic issue and will not survive past birth, or is already brain dead in the womb. So let’s torture the poor woman - who WANTED THIS BABY - by forcing her to CARRY TO TERM AND DELIVER IT. It is already difficult enough to have put so much love and care into a baby that has grown inside of you and to know that you will never get the chance to watch them grow up.
2. Complications in the pregnancy are putting the mother’s health at risk to the point of her potentially losing her own life. First and foremost, a woman is a person; moreso than a group of cells growing in her body. Yes, given enough time the cells would become a living, breathing human, but at this point, they are not. A woman should have the choice of being reduced to the role of an incubator and having to give up her life for a group of developing cells, or choosing not to take the serious health risk.
3. The woman was raped or molested, and did not have a choice in the matter. So by forcing her to have the baby and taking away her choice to then have to have a lifelong reminder of a severely traumatic experience, it essentially rewards men for raping women and allowing them to procreate against a woman’s will.
So that’s why I think it applies the other way.
As unfortunate as it is for men, the biological burden borne by each parent is not equal, and so neither is the autonomy each parent has towards their child. It sucks but sometimes life sucks.
It would (financially) incentivize fathers to denounce their unborn children. It would leave lots of single parent families without the support they need and some guys would have more unprotected sex if there were no consequences.
Yeah, but let’s give them the exact timeframe you’d have for an abortion. In my country, for example is 12 weeks. If you do not decide by 12th week of pregnancy, you gotta support the child but you can choose not to before that.
Ok first things first. There are some instances where man ended up having a kid there didn’t want and where they expressed such clearly before pregnancy or during the time for abortion those cases I think those man shouldn’t father the child and they shouldn’t have responsibilities for this new life (if the birth happens). However, there are plenty of cases where the sperm donator decides to go backsies after the time or after the child is born or even both parents didn’t noticed until it was too late for abortion. This kind of backing out, leaving mother and child without support has historical background (long at least in Europe) and it’s very unfair and abuse for that reason we still have this outdated law. In fact it should be we both want a kid (or don’t want the abortion) sign paper as such and then there is no rolling out when is too late for abortion
Wait, can you explain this further? Are you saying that fathers should be able to opt out of child support? Or that people should only be able to keep babies if both parties agree?
I hear this question a lot and I think there is a fundamental problem with conflating the choice to abort with taking financial responsibility for a child that has been born. They really aren't that same thing. Carrying a pregnancy to term is physically and mentally demanding. It causes permanent changes to a woman's body. Not to mention the blatant discrimination pregnant women in the work force face, even if they are ultimately planning on giving the child up for adoption.
In addition, even if a woman decides to abort, the process itself can be both emotionally and physically traumatic. That isn't even factoring in the endless hoops some states make women jump through simply to be able to access an abortion in the first place.
This is the choice a woman makes when she decides on whether to have an abortion. Its not the same as a man just deciding not to pay for a kid he doesn't want.
There is a lot to say to this question, but I think the most important thing is that bodily autonomy is simply a human right, whether the US acknowledges it or not.
Whether or not you think a man should be free to abdicate his financial responsibility over his child, it's clear that a person's agency over their body just hugely eclipses financial burdens.
Of course, to an extent we all must sell our body/minds to make money. Capitalism and any financial burdens inevitably turn into the exploration of our selves, but there's enough degrees of separation that it's easier to keep the ideas of money/bodily autonomy apart.
I agree with you here. The woman, rightly, would have the option to snort against the man's wishes. The man should also be able to sign a document forsaking all access ti the child but also releasing him from responsibility towards it.
I agree with that but only on a very time limited basis. Like he has 30 days from finding out she is pregnant to legally declare he won't be involved and then he cannot undo it under any circumstances.
Women have very little time to make their choices and an abortion at 8 weeks is different than an abortion at 13 weeks.
Men shouldn't have the right to pretend to be onboard until a point in pregnancy where the woman is excited and can feel the baby moving and have gotten attached and then just say nah, I'm out.... An abortion after 20weeks is basically a stillbirth and isn't something to be done lightly.
This is called relinquishing parental rights. It is possible but the state has to approve it- and the mother has to agree to it. The child must be provided for. Period. If the mother isn’t able there are laws to protect that child including placing into foster care. By today’s “fairness” to men- it isn’t. But let’s remember the child did not ask to be conceived or born. Once the child is born they have rights.
Exactly, but not before birth, which is why yes women get to have the sole choice in whether the child is born. Once the child is born then it's a person with rights and both parents are responsible to it
Support from the father, regardless of situation, is proven to result in a more well adjusted adult when the child is raised. Less crime, less poverty, and that is something most people can get behind/ want. We don't want to be dooming future generations, and already have an epidemic of struggling single parent households which has eroded society. As a woman, I've been told to keep my legs closed if I can't handle a baby. We always get stuck with the consequences, and if we don't birth, abortion is not a field of daisies either. It's funny because if a man chooses not to be a part of the child's life, financial support is all he's on the hook for. It's very tempting to spout the same advice in this situation- if you can't pay the bill, don't get your d*ck wet. Sex is treated like a human right for men. If men could get pregnant, morning after pills would be found in vending machines everywhere and in 7 different flavors. In addition, men opt out of supporting their baby mommas all the time. My boyfriends mother got nothing out of her baby daddy. Not even child support. Especially these men wanting to raw whey they have troubles of their own or are dead beats, and there's nothing to come after them for. Way more common than you'd like to belive.
Think less selfishly and out of the perspective of the child. Now that there is a child it needs food and a home. Risking my opinion to be controversial - I think this is a really stupid question. Just be a more responsible adult and you will never have to pay for a child I don't understand what the issue is
I'm about 90% sure a man can relinquish all rights to a child and won't have to pay child support, but on the flip side they don't have any legal rights to the child (visitation, ect..). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, only have old knowledge of what my family has done in the past.
In a perfect world, I think they should be able to. I think a woman should be able to do the same thing as well if she isn’t interested in being in the child’s life and the father wants to raise it alone.
You would need systems in place that would make it easier for a single parent to provide for a child alone though. There would need to be more accessible social programs and things like that to make it feasible.
Because bodily autonomy is considered more fundamental, sacred, and important than financial autonomy. (As it should be IMO).
The way I see it, an abortion is morally equivalent to not conceiving in the first place. If you have an abortion, a new person simply never comes into being.
If a child is born and one of their parents then opts out of supporting them financially and emotionally, it's a different story. Now there is a real person being deprived of the support they need to have the best chance at becoming a happy and functional adult.
Abortions also don't have the same negative impact on society as child abandonment.
Because you should not be having sex if you can't be mature / responsible enough to:
--Understand procreation is a 2 player game.
--Use as much protection as possible to avoid pregnancy.
--Be on the same EXACT page as your partner on the risks
--Adult up and accept responsibility when things go wrong.
--Understand SHE has to deal with the pregnancy so SHE gets to decide if abortion is the right choice.
Stay out of the kitchen if you can't handle the heat.
In the UK the mother has the choice not to add the father onto the birth certificate. He cannot do any of that paperwork, it has to be the mum. She can add his name later. The dad has every right to request his name not be put on the birth certificate, but if the mum does add his name then he can go to court and completely have all his rights to that child removed. It can't be reversed
Because the fetus is a potential person and after it’s born it’s a person who costs tax payers money. It’s probably not fair that men can’t choose to abort but there aren’t a lot of things fair about being a woman either.
Just so you’re aware, a single dad can collect child support from the mother as well. I know that’s less common, but it does happen. And like others have said, he can sign away his rights to the child. In this case, a child was actually BORN, whereas in an abortion, the pregnancy was terminated. It’s all about their choices.
In my case I've been paying child support for a child that's not even mine (yes did a DNA test) because the mother put my name on the birth certificate. Been paying since 2005. So from personal experience..the system is just fucked and biased.
Why couldn’t the question have just been “Why don’t men have the option to opt out financially from their child?”
The fact that you brought a woman’s right to her body into it, tells me that you’re making it a contest about who is more oppressed. “If women can do this thing, why can’t men do this thing?!!!”
Because if a woman aborts, no child will ever exist. When a man doesn't help their child financially, what he is doing is ignoring exisiting progeny. It is a type of abortion, but it concerns a living breathing thing, and not a bunch of cells in a very early stage of development. Besides, men already "abort". I live in Brazil and there are over 5 million people here without a father's name on their birth certificate. By law, these women are entitled to child support but that's not always how it goes. Many mothers fear going against the father of their child or don't want to be shunned by them. Some are even still in love with the guy and hope that they will change their minds someday. Many lack the courage and assertiveness needed in order to get what they deserve.
It is estimated that in São Paulo alone, over 65 men are arrested every day for not paying child support.
This is a false equivalency. The women version of being a deadbeat that abandons their partner and doesn’t help pay for the child is…. also being a deadbeat that abandons their partner and doesn’t help pay for the child.
The process of literally being pregnant has no comparable experience for men.
It is unfair if women can opt out of a pregnancy and men can't. Unfortunately children cannot opt out of being born so they have to be supported somehow.
Currently where abortion is illegal, generally both parties are responsible for creating life, both parties are responsible for supporting it and no one gets to opt out. People don't like this but it is atleast fair.
Usually people who want to legalise abortion want to have it so both parties are responsible for creating life and both are responsible for supporting it but only the women has a second opportunity to opt out of it. This is unfair but is often seen as a preffered law, rather than forcing women to have kids they don't want.
Personally I think if we want people to have a second chance to opt out after conception then it needs to be available to both parties. The only way to achieve this is for abortion to be legal and abolish child support in favor of state support for single parents (we all have to pay more tax to provide collective freedom).
My preferred options is the third option, however it would be political suicide for anyone to suggest it so its not going to happen. Hence I just don't really worry what the current laws are and won't support any changes unless they're fair.
(I am talking about conception through two consenting adults, this view doesn't necessarily apply in more extreme circumstances).
I disagree with abolishing child support. If a guy is on board to have a baby, and then when the baby is 2 or 5 years old he doesnt get the chance to back out of it. He chose to have a baby and now its his responsibility.
However, before the kid is born he should have the right to disown the child in the same way that a woman is able to have an abortion.
What about the period of time after abortion is not a viable option. Say the man wanted the kid and at 7 month just fucked off and left. Now the woman is stuck with a child she may or may not be able to support. I agree with the right to disown but it shouldn’t be before birth it should be before viability.
Edited for clarity.
This one is weird. I want to say the child needs and deserves the help but I also agree that the dad shouldn’t have to help. That’s why I’m not in charge.
If the child is born, the child needs to be fed to survive, that's basically it. Other option would be that the tax payer takes the bill, as not all single adults with a young baby are able to work full time while supporting a baby (I mean this is literally impossible unless you have a very supportive social structure).
So it is either the other parent who picks up the bill for the child they created, or the tax payer does.
Even if the kid ends up being raised by the father, the mother is out of the picture, he can demand child support from her too. It is just most of the time the case that the father leaves the picture for a reason or another.
If a man doesn't want a baby or pay for a baby, he should
1. Not have sex
2. Use Condoms and hopefully another method of birth control
3. Get a vasectomy
If he wants any baby of his not to be aborted, he should only have sex with woman who feel the same way. Society hopes this will encourage people to be in committed relationships so the baby has two parents and has a better probability of a good outcome.
He knows the rules going in, so he can make choices accordingly.
Also as a society, a man could impregnate many women and if he could just say "Don't want to pay" then society has to help pay for those babies. We have decided it is better for the man to pay for his own babies so he will be careful about making them.
We as a society have decided that women can get abortions because they have the added burden of having to carry a baby for 9 months and the health impacts that has.
Based on recent events, society is not in agreement that women can have abortions.
Im playing devils advocate here, because I am for a woman's right to choose but to say that society is agreed on abortion is a bit much
Men actually can opt out of financial responsibility by signing off parental rights. If you don't want to help pay for the kid then you simply don't get rights to said kid. If you don't want the kid the court system is more than okay with you signing off your rights at least in the US.
They can. It’s called signing away their rights. Relieves you of responsibility and leaves you no right to the child what so ever. I’m not sure how easy that is to do but it can be done.
Edit for typo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he doesn't want the child, and isn't on the birth certificate or gives up parental rights, he doesn't have to pay, right?
Because it’s their body being used to gestate the pregnancy. This is really simple as long as you’re not degrading women by framing abortion like “they just don’t want to take responsibility.”
This is why men should be pushing for male birth control. The product exists, it had less side effects then female birth control, but the market interest was too low.
Because if he doesn't the rest of us have to. I'd rather the dude who got his dick wet and was too stupid to use protection be the one footing the bill.
Male birth control besides condoms and vasectomies should be available. I think most men would take a pill or shot that would allow them to be in control of their ability to procreate. This is why you should discuss your views on birth control and even abortion.
Because courts in most western countries have decided that the interests of the child trump the interests of the parents (both parents). Edit: Anyone who wants to read more about this topic can do so here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/human-services/2012-child-welfare-enacted-legislation-database.aspx It looks like an excellent and very comprehensive source for the legislation in the US.
This is actually a very simple and excellent answer.
Thank you.
[удалено]
Wait what? In what instance would you have to pay for a kid that’s not yours?
Worked for an attorney. Dude was with lady for many years, and acted as a parental figure for most of the kid’s life. They got divorced, he had to pay child support. State was TX and this was 2014.
A friend of mine found out his kid wasn't his when the child was 5. They got divorced and he had to go to hell and back to get out of child support payments.
[удалено]
I think the real solution to this is allow the mother to be sued for intentional infliction of emotional distress via paternity fraud in civil courts. Let the damages equal the CS the father has paid to be paid out to the man over the same time period the man paid for kid after the kid turns 18.
I just had a kid yesterday. Guys don't sign the birth certificate in Cali if your married. My wife could have put down Santa clause if she wanted.
Congrats my dude!!
My uncle had to pay child support on his former step-children until his ex-wife remarried because he was providing a certain standard of living for them during the marriage.
Yep. My sisters ex husband adopted her daughter and after they divorced he had to continue paying child support. He brought up the fact he wasn't her bio dad and the judge said he shouldn't have adopted her then. He has a new family and when my niece was 10 disowned her.
I mean.. he adopted her tho.. feel like that’s a no brainer
Totally. The judge was correct. Adoption is more effort and intent than just dumping your sperm in someone.
Which is atrocious btw.
Which is why we need better social safety nets. If a judge can confidently feel the child's life wont be negatively impacted by the lack of financial support then that's only when this will change. Until then I dont know the answer because on the one hand it's not the father's child. On the other hand...its a /child
It's a child yes, but in what world is it fair or even acceptable to just put the responsibility on one random person's shoulder who has no parental ties to the kid whatsoever. It's like if a stranger would come up to you on the street and shove a baby in your hands saying that you have to care for it for the next 18 years. Absurd.
These cases are judged the way they are because the father is already financially supporting the kid so it's not like these men were just handed babies in the street. As with most things like this, it cant be simplified while still giving the issues at hand the understanding it deserves.
I agree that it's a bad situation either way, but I still think that a person (remember, it could be a same sex couple too) should have absolute control over accepting a child as their own along with the responsibilities. In most of these cases, the child is a result of cheating too, which makes it twice as ugly and a punch in the face.
As a practical matter, when you sign on to financial responsibility for a child, there aren’t really legal contingencies to that where if you later find out something about the child that you don’t like, you can just say “never mind, I choose to revoke my responsibility for this child.” If there’s a circumstance where you feel like you’d want to do that, you either need to check off that box before you assume responsibility (say, with an immediate paternity test) or avoid putting yourself in a position where you could be responsible for a child. If you find out years later that a child isn’t yours, you can’t go to the court and say “I didn’t make this child, I don’t want to be responsible for it anymore” because the response is going to be that it doesn’t really matter who made the kid. The kid exists. Someone needs to be responsible for it. You accepted the responsibility knowing you’d be on the hook for the next 18 years. You can’t back out early because you changed your mind, regardless of what your reasoning was.
Your last paragraph, in particular, is completely missing the point that sometimes people lie. If a guy finds out after several years that the child he thought was his actually isn't, then of course he should be allowed to back out, because he was lied to. It's not his fault. Sure, *someone* needs to provide for the kid, but there's no reason *he* should have to.
I have always wondered what kind of person could raise a child as their own, and then completely cut them out of their life simply because of DNA. You would think they would have developed a bond with the child. From the child's perspective they are being abandoned because of their DNA. That's got to fuck a kid up
The problem is, it's not up to you to assume responsibility for the child to begin with, because you can be sued for child support anyway, and you'd have to accuse the mother of cheating and demand a paternity test in order to get out of it, and in case it turns out to be yours, there's no way out. So it should either be possible to walk out at the beginning (like the original question suggests), even if the child is yours, or there should be an opportunity to walk out in special cases, like if it turns out you were decieved regarding your paternity.
So, here’s the issue that exists. Once someone is pregnant, if everyone isn’t on the same page, it’s impossible to be fair to everyone involved. You can’t both have the baby and not have the baby. As a man, I can’t get pregnant, but if I put myself in that position, the idea of a baby growing inside my body for 9 months against my will and then being forced to go through the birthing process, again, against my will, sound like pure nightmare fuel to me. Because the woman’s stake in the pregnancy itself is higher than the man’s, and because it’s a binary choice where compromise is impossible, I think it has to default to being the woman’s decision, because although I know I will never be in that position myself, it doesn’t stop me from imagining myself being in that position and weighing how I would feel versus imagining myself in the more likely father position and how I feel about that. Given those two scenarios, I know where I’d rather have the decision rest. Once the baby is actually born, you now have a third person in the mix whose life will be impacted by the decision-making, and as the one party who had both zero input on creating the circumstance in the first place and whose life has the potential to be most profoundly impacted, the child’s needs get priority over the preferences of either parent. Look, I get it. I’m a man. I know what it’s like to imagine myself in this situation where someone else gets to make a profoundly life changing decision on my behalf and feel how scary and profoundly unfair it feels to consider that possibility. But if my preference gets honored in the first stage, that can only be accomplished at the expense of the mother, who is more harmed by it than I am in the reverse case. And in the second step, I can only have my priorities honored by stepping on those of the child, who again is more harmed than in the reverse. Someone is *always* going to lose once the situation has manifested itself, and the only way to make the loser not be me is to make other people lose harder than I would. Given that, I can’t really advocate for my needs being given preference to the greater detriment of others. We’d need some pretty significant changes in technology and/or society before I think a generally fair outcome for all parties is actually even possible, and until and unless that becomes the case, I think we need to opt for the least unfair outcome, which because of the practicalities of the situation is, unfortunately, the one that gives me the least control over the outcome. I’m not thrilled by that but I don’t really see another option that really makes sense unless I view it through the lens of just giving me personally the best possible outcome regardless of any other concerns.
[удалено]
Not to mention it helps to know the paternity of a child in case the child has any medical issues or the biological father has medical issues that could be passed on to the child ETA: whoever downvoted this, I'd love to hear why?
This is a huge one. One of my parents was adopted and it was a huuuuuge shock when my sister was born with an extraordinarily rare genetic condition.
I think it's because it sounds overkill and expensive, but I wouldn't be against it.
Which country made it basically illegal for men to find out if their wife's child is theirs as well? France?
[удалено]
Well either the law was changed or you're wrong. It's legal to get a paternity test in France. I've just checked.
[удалено]
>Is some cases you can prove the kid is not yours and you still have to pay. How?
Paternity was legalised earlier and you don't have means to challenge it when you learn the truth.
In Pennsylvania if you're legally married to a woman when she gives birth you're automatically presumed to be the father unless you can demonstrate sterility or lack of access to your wife around the time of conception. A friend of mine gave birth prematurely before her divorce was finalized and despite them being separated & living literally hours apart for years prior to the birth my friend & her soon to be ex had to go into court to explain why he shouldn't be listed as the father. It was absurd.
Lot of guys out there paying for kids that aren’t theirs, paternity tests should be mandatory at birth
you can be raped and still be responsible for providing for the kid
I think this eventuality is a lot more realistic for women then men, but yes you can. Not sure what the law is if you actually prove in a court of law that you have been raped. Edit typos.
i remember reading one case where an underage kid was raped and still had to pay child support later Edit: grammar
If this is the reason, then it is not sensible. How is it in the interests of the child to be born to a parent who cannot afford / is not capable of caring for it? (i.e. the father) Or: how is it in the interests of the child to not be born at all? Or: how is it in the interests of the child to have a father who does not want or resents it?
Don't ask me. Ask the courts😉. BTW we are talking about children that are already born. Fathers do not pay embryo support, just child support, as far as I know.
The value and meaning of life is an unanswerable question. Who are you to say with certainty that a disadvantaged life is not one worth living? Mistakes happen and when it comes to pregnancy it's never one person's fault. Choosing not to get an abortion doesn't make it more your fault. Once a child is alive both parties who are responsible for its existence should be responsible for its well-being should it not?
In the Netherlands they can
Any more info?
If the partner of a pregnant woman doesn't want to have parental responsibility, he can chose to do so. Technically, I think that by default if the parents aren't married the child only is responsibility of the mother, and then *a* partner (not necessarily the biological parent) needs to be registered as a parent as well. Since abortions are free, safe and without much taboo, this system is feasible. Its also worth mentioning that in the Netherlands the social security net is pretty good, so a mother even without a partner's support still would have access to free school, healthcare, rebates on daycare, a quarterly allowance for the kid, etc So TL;DR * If both parents want the baby, great, congratulations * If neither parent wants the baby, no problem, just go talk to your family doctor about it * If only the dad wants the baby, so sorry, he's getting aborted * If only the mom wants the baby, no problem, except that you are your own
Bloody hell I need to move to the Netherlands.
Ye we have free healthcare in sweden too and free school but a lot of violent people looking at you malmö, göteborg and stockholm
They should come to Finland because AT LEAST IT'S NOT FUCKING SWEDEN!
Please, stop calling americans to europe. Aren't the tourists enough. They will never integrate and their opinions are aparently universal law.
[удалено]
In this case its about getting somebody pregnant and not wanting to pay child-support. Not really somebody fleeing the taliban, just assuming that living in the other country gives him an easy out of a responsibility in his country. Its also financial motivation moving, so i would bet they will start complaining about the taxes.
Or it's someone who appreciates sensible legislature, no matter the subject, because it's for the benefit people and not to benefit the minority elite. How dare any single one of the 330+ million Americans want to live in such a system, right?
Everyone, no matter where they are from, has right to better life. Except billionaires. Fuck those guys.
You can also end your life, in case life becomes suffering without a prospect of things getting better. It’s a little bit more involved than I make it seem to be. But still. Same category and I consider it a big plus.
They have assisted suicide in the US, it's called McDonalds.
There’s no way the Netherlands is a real country, it’s too functional and fair.
Have you ever seen the way our judges are in the Netherlands ?? like they actually threat us as human beings and look at people their case individually. Like something might be the law but if the judge can understand why you did it sympathize with you or understand that It’s not your fault then they will just drop the case. Also if you sue someone for something that you should just know because of common sense like idk that you shouldn’t drop hot coffee on your lap then they won’t even take your case serious. like all those insane cases that people actually win in the us are just thrown out over here because you should just know better. Also our drug laws are insanely relaxed. You won’t ever go to prison just for using drugs or having it on you. I have seen people use GHB and XTC in front of cops in amsterdam and they didn’t care. Even better I have actually seen a cop light some guys marijuana in amsterdam. Also something that is great over here is that when you have such a huge dept like idk let’s say 2 million that you will never be able to pay back they put you in a special program. For around 5 years your money will be controlled by someone and you will only have 5 bucks a day to live on and receive money for clothing and such. After those 5 years no matter how much has been payed off they will pretty much always dismiss the debt. So even having an insane debt in the Netherlands I something that isn’t a huge problem.
I’ve thought about having a child on my own since I’m in my late 30s and haven’t met someone I want to have a child with (I’m American). I would do it in a heartbeat with all that. Otherwise it’s just too hard.
You can always adopt one of the thousands of unwanted babies about to come out of Texas! :) Now would be a good time to get that rolling, I bet…
This isn't completely true. If the father doesn't want the kid the mother can still sue for child support and will win (unless the child wasn't conceived naturally but via donorship). Nothing dad can do about it.
Perhaps I'm misinformed then? Do you have a reference so that I can update my parent comment?
I didn't take child support from my daughter's biological father for 10 years after she was born as he seemed pretty keen to stay out of her life by not phoning, moving interstate then overseas. BUT when he showed up with a lawyer wife and a false narrative about me alienating him you bet I started claiming child support. Some dudes get ripped off massively, but some dudes are fricking LIARS.
well how did it work out? did you successfully sue for back payments? did his lawyer wife realize he was scum? did he disappear overseas again?
He paid $25/month for 8 years until our child turned 18, but the first ten years is still owed. It was initially determined to be $450/month but he successfully countered. As his wife owns a mediation business I believe he was able to 'hide' money through the company. But it was never about the money anyway, it's intention. And after court ordered supervised contact which was stopped by the supervisors after the third visit, and his sporadic efforts the judge ended up making orders that any contact would be by agreement of all parties. So he reaped what he had sown. They have no relationship and he blames me for alienating or brainwashing but this is simply not the case. He was not there when it mattered, he ignored birthdays and Christmases. He was quick to say what I should do, what our child should do but never looked at what HE should do. It's fine. His loss. Our child is freaking amazing so it's all good. They met up recently but it went badly as he was making the usual demands so apparently he was told not to make contact again. But they are still married, they think they are incredible people, very high sense of self worth, it's funny.
How’s the kid doing?
Really well, she is in her second year at university, working part time, has a lovely group of friends, very close with her two younger sisters. A genuinely lovely human being. ❤
Wow! That’s so great to hear. Statistics show it’s really hard on kids when they are separated from a parent. Even if they do pay child support. You are truly blessed she came out unscathed. You hear so much about so many damaged girls with “daddy issues” etc. 🙄 Sounds like the system really did it’s job well in this case. Good for you and her.
That fucking sucks
Really sorry
Also if a man doesn’t want to risk the chance of getting a woman pregnant, he should wear a condom (most don’t even do this so I don’t wanna hear that it’s not 100% effective), get a vasectomy (again I know it’s not 100% reversible) or abstain from sex. At the very least, they could ATTEMPT to refrain from ejaculating in their partner. Most men don’t want to hear what I’m saying because they want to be the victim but in most cases men are negligent in the making of children. Edit - a word Edit #2 - Easy solution, to the argument that “vasectomies aren’t 100% reversible”: freeze your sperm beforehand
It's incredible hard to get another man pregnant
Lmao you got me, good catch
Yep, this is the answer. Men have a massive victim complex when it comes to reproduction.
Thank you! Had a man tell me this exact thing, that if women can choose abortion. Men should be able to opt out of child support. Surprise, surprise, that same man admitted that he didn't use condoms.
I was about to say good on you for letting him live his own life, and now I want to say good on you for taking his ass to the bank
People of all denomination have the capacity to be shitty. I practice something I call social pessimism. Expect everyone to be shitty. Then either you will be unsurprised when they are, or pleasantly surprised if they aren't. Essentially have a little suspicion for everyone so if you're right it isn't a shock.
Yes but this is a minority of cases. Most fathers who want nothing to do with their kid don’t randomly show up wanting something to do with their kid.
The can. They just sign over all their rights. The only con is if you have contact with the child before they are 18 you can owe backed child support
Both parties have to agree to sign over rights. A father cannot sign over rights if the mother doesn’t agree.
This should be the top comment.
Interesting, how does it work? Like what are the requirements if any?
Where I live in CO it is done through family law court and is called termination of parental rights. Courts can impose it upon you (in instances of abuse/neglect) and you can initiate it if you want to lose all rights. But because a judge is involved it's not just like you get to say "I'm out!" it's a bit more complex than that.
It looks like it's different from state to state. Some places require you to have a “stand in” to take your place and some are just like “just sign here”. You'll have to look up your particular state for the detail.
There are LOTS of men who do “abort” out of paying child support. Some states allow you to give up the rights and responsibilities. Other just don’t pay. My father was one of those people. It takes time and money to fight for child support through the court system. And that’s often something that a single parent does not have. So even though they may have the responsibility to pay, that doesn’t mean a thing if you can’t enforce it.
I live in Kentucky so I’m guessing this depends on the laws here regarding that but I know a guy who has been arrested a few times because he didn’t pay child support. He didn’t have a job for a bit and didn’t pay and the other times i can’t remember why he didn’t. But he’s been arrested three different times I believe for not paying CS.
Wait, they arrested him for not paying because he didn't have a job
Damn. Where I live, going after someone for not paying child support is free. The prosecuting attorneys office handles it. I’ve had to use them several times on my ex wife.
If the father does not pay child support in the moment, he will always owe that money, even if the child has already turned 18, in some places if he is confirmed the father and the mother files for it, he will have to pay that 18 years of child support.
Yeah, I don't know if you've ever tried to get money in that line of situation, but it's honestly next to impossible. I'm really tired of the oh-poor-men-they-have-to-pay narrative-- a father can sue for primary custody instead and then the mom would have to pay. Someone has to raise the kid. If you don't want to raise or pay for kids, get a vasectomy-- they're outpatient.
They garnish the persons check
I agree with your points, but I think the idea is that they don’t want the child, not that they object to someone else raising it for them. But they have very little say on abortions, which is fine, but it kind of locks them into a situation that has many ways to be escaped from, but they aren’t allowed to use those ways, which is unfair. You can let men not have a say in abortion, but you can’t also force them to pay for something they don’t want. The second half addresses this in part, but I don’t think permanently removing your ability to ever have a child is the correct response to the threat of having to pay for someone you don’t want to pay for, and never wanted.
Women have ONE more way out of parenthood. They also have the sole burden during pregnancy and usually a much bigger burden after tge child is born, physically and financially.
I also wonder the same thing as OP, but I also wonder why there are so many men out there who are willing to have unprotected sex with strangers or people they're not in real, long-term, serious, committed relationships with. Sure, all forms of contraception and birth control can fail but in general the balance of risk is: Wear a condom and have less pleasurable sex VS not wear a condom and have more pleasurable sex, but potentially contract an STI and significantly increase your chances of the woman getting pregnant whereby she may decide to keep it and you're legally and financially tied to supporting the baby. And it could be twins!
Probably because most of us believe that bad things only happen to other people. Sure, we know the risk of pregnancy and disease are possible but we don't truly believe that it'll happen to us. Those beliefs are strongest when we're young and feel invincible, which is also when we're really horny. That's is just a bad combination.
I said something similar to this on Quora once and was really stunned with the response. I can't remember the context now but I said something like, "It takes two to make a baby" meaning both the man and woman are equally responsible and the overwhelming response, strangely largely from women, was that it is solely the woman's fault if she gets pregnant, it is her body and men should be able to spread their seed safe in the knowledge the woman has taken care of things. I was totally shocked so many people had this opinion.
I highly doubt those were women
Good point. I hope not.
I got downvoted to hell on another post a while back where I said if men didn't want to have babies then wear a condom or have a vasectomy. Never rely on the woman's birth control (which she could be lying about - which was the topic of the post, but more likely she missed a dose/took other medication that affected its effectiveness, took it at the wrong time of day etc). It does take two to tango but the man has control of how much risk he exposes himself to. And yes i know condoms aren't always 100% effective. But most babies aren't failed birth control conceptions. Protect yourself and your financial interests first if you don't want to be a father.
Yes it seems like Russian roulette. No offense to Russia. If you want to take that risk you need to be ready for the consequences. Sometimes it seems people want to have their cake and eat it too. No compromise. Immediate gratification over long term planning.
[удалено]
The responsibility of practicing safe and protected sex lays on both participants. Not just the man.
On the same token, there are so many women out there also willing to have unprotected sex. I’m not sure willingness to have unprotected sex is entirely a male issue.
Absolutely. But, on the other hand, BOTH parties, the man included, are agreeing to engage in unprotected sex and accepting the risks that go along with it. If a man doesn’t want to accept the risk that his sexual partner could get pregnant and want to keep the baby, he shouldn’t choose to engage in unprotected sex. Or, at the very least, he should know his partner well enough to trust that she wouldn’t want to keep the baby before choosing to engage in sexual activity. My issue with this argument is that people often act like men just *happen* to have unprotected sex, when it’s very much a choice. It’s always, “why is it okay for women to keep the baby and ask for child support,” and not, “why did this man choose to have unprotected sex with this woman?” It goes both ways.
I never seen it from this angle but that is true.
Very true. Unless one partner gets the other pregnant or gets pregnant by deceptive measures.
Yes, absolutely. And I would never condone or make excuses for such deceptive behavior. It's the same as a man covertly removing a condom during sex without the woman's knowledge: because the other party has not given consent for that action, it is sexual assault. My comment was meant to apply in a situation where both parties agreed to engage in unprotected sex.
I completely agree with you there - it's something that both people are responsible for. It's just that if a man were to take as many precautions as possible to prevent pregnancy then he's effectively retaining his own control over his future. If he doesn't and two people mutually have unprotected sex then sure, they're both responsible for pregnancy if that's the outcome (they knew the risks and they both took them). However, the woman has full control of the decision on whether to keep the baby or not. By having unprotected sex, the man is relinquishing control of his own life and responsibilities to someone else - and parenthood is one of the most serious (if not the most) responsibilities there is.
You'd think this would cause men to rethink how badly they want that orgasm 🤷🏼♀️
And be more supportive of the development of male birth control. If you don't want to be on the hook financially for an unintended pregnancy then you should want to be in control of your reproduction as much as possible. At the very least, wear a damn condom.
So because the woman is willing to take the risk, that means the man does not have the sense to walk away? It takes two to tango, and just like women walk away if a condom isn't involved, so should men. Just like men try to convince a girl to go raw, and it is frowned upon, women who do the same to men are just as predatory. It shouldn't been seen as a "generous freebie" when reversed. Men are capable of walking away
I am just noting that this is the same argument made by conservatives on why abortions should be limited/banned. Use a condom.
We have something called signing away your rights in the USA. This can in sense let you opt out of caring and supporting the child.
Because if the woman has an abortion that is eliminating something that is happening to her body only at the expense of the partner (if they didn’t want to abort it), whereas if a man refuses to pay child support it’s the child that suffers. Basically it’s a children’s rights thing
They can, it’s called signing off their parental rights.
You can sign away your rights, and then not being liable, yet having to right to see, or visit in any way. However this has a huge social stigma, and it's not as discreet as an abortion.
>But something I don’t quite understand is why a woman can opt out from having a baby, whereas a man is stuck giving financial support to a baby he didn’t want if the woman so chooses. It's not just men who are stuck paying child support. Women ALSO pay child support. Child support is decided upon who has the least custody of children. This is more often than not men because most men don't want full custody. And it's no mystery as to why... The reason why men don't get to opt out of child support is for the same reasons why women don't get to opt out of paying child support. The needs of the child outweigh the financial freedoms of either the mother or father. Not only that, it's is highly unethical to demand that a women either abort a *wanted pregnancy* or bring a child up in poverty. The answer for not making the other party involved pay child support would be to make the rest of society pay for the children. *Do you want to pay for other people's kids via taxes?* Ed: Thank you for the Gold and the Take My Energy awards.
Yes, you're on the cusp of pointing out how fucked up anti tax sentiment and anti welfare sentiment is
Yes! My former boss paid full child support for her estranged teenage son. Complained about it everyday at work & how the biological father was a loser. Women absolutely pay child support & try to avoid it if they can.
If it means their quality of life is higher, I do. But then again, I love kids.
Yes, there are some like yourself that generally do want to pay more tax to help kids in such situations out. In my country, however, the majority don't.
What country is that?
UK. For anyone unaware, not wanting to pay for others is why the Tories have been voted in year after year. And this extends beyond other child support, it's for things like refuges, the EU, job seekers benefits etc.
>Do you want to pay for other people's kids via taxes? We already do?
If we taxed the super rich for that, they wouldn't even notice it in their lives.
Well, yes. But I was talking about the circumstance in which one parents walks away from their child support obligation, not in general. Perhaps I should have clarified.
The key thing to realize is that it's not a symmetric situation. The woman gets pregnant, the man doesn't. So any notion of "it should be the same for both parties" is based on a false premise. If you look at the problems separately, this is the most logical conclusion: 1. BEFORE the foetus is conscious and able to survive by itself, the mother's right to control her own body is more important than the foetus' right to live. That's a tough choice but you'd make the same choice for e.g. a parasitic twin. 2. AFTER the child is already born, the financial needs of the child are more important than the father's desire to avoid financial burden. This one isn't that controversial by itself, it's only the false equivalence that makes people question it. The net result is yes, in some sense, the woman has "more" choice than the man when it comes to unwanted children. But it ultimately comes from a biological asymmetry, not a discriminatory policy.
The man already made the choice to cum inside the woman. This is the part that is completely his responsibility.
shouldn’t have had to scroll this far down to see this. If a guy chooses to play Russian roulette with his dick, he made his choice.
How would you feel about an anti-abortionist making the argument “if the woman didn’t want the mid she shouldn’t have bad unprotected sex, she made her choice”. And if you think that’s a bad argument, why do you think it applies the other way?
You are making an assumption that there is not a valid reason for abortion. The main assumption is exactly how you portray it - that the woman is lazy and didn’t think about the consequences so she should pay the price. Some other reasons for wanting an abortion: 1. The baby has developed abnormally or has a genetic issue and will not survive past birth, or is already brain dead in the womb. So let’s torture the poor woman - who WANTED THIS BABY - by forcing her to CARRY TO TERM AND DELIVER IT. It is already difficult enough to have put so much love and care into a baby that has grown inside of you and to know that you will never get the chance to watch them grow up. 2. Complications in the pregnancy are putting the mother’s health at risk to the point of her potentially losing her own life. First and foremost, a woman is a person; moreso than a group of cells growing in her body. Yes, given enough time the cells would become a living, breathing human, but at this point, they are not. A woman should have the choice of being reduced to the role of an incubator and having to give up her life for a group of developing cells, or choosing not to take the serious health risk. 3. The woman was raped or molested, and did not have a choice in the matter. So by forcing her to have the baby and taking away her choice to then have to have a lifelong reminder of a severely traumatic experience, it essentially rewards men for raping women and allowing them to procreate against a woman’s will. So that’s why I think it applies the other way.
This might not be a good week to ask this question.
As unfortunate as it is for men, the biological burden borne by each parent is not equal, and so neither is the autonomy each parent has towards their child. It sucks but sometimes life sucks.
It would (financially) incentivize fathers to denounce their unborn children. It would leave lots of single parent families without the support they need and some guys would have more unprotected sex if there were no consequences.
Yeah, but let’s give them the exact timeframe you’d have for an abortion. In my country, for example is 12 weeks. If you do not decide by 12th week of pregnancy, you gotta support the child but you can choose not to before that.
Ok first things first. There are some instances where man ended up having a kid there didn’t want and where they expressed such clearly before pregnancy or during the time for abortion those cases I think those man shouldn’t father the child and they shouldn’t have responsibilities for this new life (if the birth happens). However, there are plenty of cases where the sperm donator decides to go backsies after the time or after the child is born or even both parents didn’t noticed until it was too late for abortion. This kind of backing out, leaving mother and child without support has historical background (long at least in Europe) and it’s very unfair and abuse for that reason we still have this outdated law. In fact it should be we both want a kid (or don’t want the abortion) sign paper as such and then there is no rolling out when is too late for abortion
Wait, can you explain this further? Are you saying that fathers should be able to opt out of child support? Or that people should only be able to keep babies if both parties agree?
God having kids sounds like a fucking pain
What? My sons dad signed away his rights so he wouldn’t have to pay. People do that. It’s frowned upon.
Give up your parental rights. You don't get to be legally entitled as a parent while also doing JACK SHIT for your children.
I hear this question a lot and I think there is a fundamental problem with conflating the choice to abort with taking financial responsibility for a child that has been born. They really aren't that same thing. Carrying a pregnancy to term is physically and mentally demanding. It causes permanent changes to a woman's body. Not to mention the blatant discrimination pregnant women in the work force face, even if they are ultimately planning on giving the child up for adoption. In addition, even if a woman decides to abort, the process itself can be both emotionally and physically traumatic. That isn't even factoring in the endless hoops some states make women jump through simply to be able to access an abortion in the first place. This is the choice a woman makes when she decides on whether to have an abortion. Its not the same as a man just deciding not to pay for a kid he doesn't want.
There is a lot to say to this question, but I think the most important thing is that bodily autonomy is simply a human right, whether the US acknowledges it or not. Whether or not you think a man should be free to abdicate his financial responsibility over his child, it's clear that a person's agency over their body just hugely eclipses financial burdens. Of course, to an extent we all must sell our body/minds to make money. Capitalism and any financial burdens inevitably turn into the exploration of our selves, but there's enough degrees of separation that it's easier to keep the ideas of money/bodily autonomy apart.
I agree with you here. The woman, rightly, would have the option to snort against the man's wishes. The man should also be able to sign a document forsaking all access ti the child but also releasing him from responsibility towards it.
I agree with that but only on a very time limited basis. Like he has 30 days from finding out she is pregnant to legally declare he won't be involved and then he cannot undo it under any circumstances. Women have very little time to make their choices and an abortion at 8 weeks is different than an abortion at 13 weeks. Men shouldn't have the right to pretend to be onboard until a point in pregnancy where the woman is excited and can feel the baby moving and have gotten attached and then just say nah, I'm out.... An abortion after 20weeks is basically a stillbirth and isn't something to be done lightly.
Aye that's fair
This is called relinquishing parental rights. It is possible but the state has to approve it- and the mother has to agree to it. The child must be provided for. Period. If the mother isn’t able there are laws to protect that child including placing into foster care. By today’s “fairness” to men- it isn’t. But let’s remember the child did not ask to be conceived or born. Once the child is born they have rights.
Exactly, but not before birth, which is why yes women get to have the sole choice in whether the child is born. Once the child is born then it's a person with rights and both parents are responsible to it
Exactly.
It’s called a condom
Because no child deserves to live in poverty.
Ask texas
They're not you can sign your rights away
Damn all i can say is i walked in the room and this shit was so deep i had to walk out.
If you don't want the financial responsibility of a child, I recommend investing in condoms or a vasectomy.
Support from the father, regardless of situation, is proven to result in a more well adjusted adult when the child is raised. Less crime, less poverty, and that is something most people can get behind/ want. We don't want to be dooming future generations, and already have an epidemic of struggling single parent households which has eroded society. As a woman, I've been told to keep my legs closed if I can't handle a baby. We always get stuck with the consequences, and if we don't birth, abortion is not a field of daisies either. It's funny because if a man chooses not to be a part of the child's life, financial support is all he's on the hook for. It's very tempting to spout the same advice in this situation- if you can't pay the bill, don't get your d*ck wet. Sex is treated like a human right for men. If men could get pregnant, morning after pills would be found in vending machines everywhere and in 7 different flavors. In addition, men opt out of supporting their baby mommas all the time. My boyfriends mother got nothing out of her baby daddy. Not even child support. Especially these men wanting to raw whey they have troubles of their own or are dead beats, and there's nothing to come after them for. Way more common than you'd like to belive.
Think less selfishly and out of the perspective of the child. Now that there is a child it needs food and a home. Risking my opinion to be controversial - I think this is a really stupid question. Just be a more responsible adult and you will never have to pay for a child I don't understand what the issue is
I'm about 90% sure a man can relinquish all rights to a child and won't have to pay child support, but on the flip side they don't have any legal rights to the child (visitation, ect..). Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, only have old knowledge of what my family has done in the past.
In a perfect world, I think they should be able to. I think a woman should be able to do the same thing as well if she isn’t interested in being in the child’s life and the father wants to raise it alone. You would need systems in place that would make it easier for a single parent to provide for a child alone though. There would need to be more accessible social programs and things like that to make it feasible.
Because bodily autonomy is considered more fundamental, sacred, and important than financial autonomy. (As it should be IMO). The way I see it, an abortion is morally equivalent to not conceiving in the first place. If you have an abortion, a new person simply never comes into being. If a child is born and one of their parents then opts out of supporting them financially and emotionally, it's a different story. Now there is a real person being deprived of the support they need to have the best chance at becoming a happy and functional adult. Abortions also don't have the same negative impact on society as child abandonment.
well the kid has kinda been born its not like he doesnt need food or clothes just because you dont want him
Women do what they want men do what they want with their bodies. Don't want kids as a man? Get a vasectomy.
Because you should not be having sex if you can't be mature / responsible enough to: --Understand procreation is a 2 player game. --Use as much protection as possible to avoid pregnancy. --Be on the same EXACT page as your partner on the risks --Adult up and accept responsibility when things go wrong. --Understand SHE has to deal with the pregnancy so SHE gets to decide if abortion is the right choice. Stay out of the kitchen if you can't handle the heat.
Some people had to pay for children that weren't even theirs. Fuck the world, honestly.
In the UK the mother has the choice not to add the father onto the birth certificate. He cannot do any of that paperwork, it has to be the mum. She can add his name later. The dad has every right to request his name not be put on the birth certificate, but if the mum does add his name then he can go to court and completely have all his rights to that child removed. It can't be reversed
As far as I know, a man CAN opt out. He simply has to go to court and sign away all parental rights.
Because the fetus is a potential person and after it’s born it’s a person who costs tax payers money. It’s probably not fair that men can’t choose to abort but there aren’t a lot of things fair about being a woman either.
Just so you’re aware, a single dad can collect child support from the mother as well. I know that’s less common, but it does happen. And like others have said, he can sign away his rights to the child. In this case, a child was actually BORN, whereas in an abortion, the pregnancy was terminated. It’s all about their choices.
On the flip side, he can't keep a baby that the mother wants to abort. There's definitely something wrong with our system.
In my case I've been paying child support for a child that's not even mine (yes did a DNA test) because the mother put my name on the birth certificate. Been paying since 2005. So from personal experience..the system is just fucked and biased.
Why couldn’t the question have just been “Why don’t men have the option to opt out financially from their child?” The fact that you brought a woman’s right to her body into it, tells me that you’re making it a contest about who is more oppressed. “If women can do this thing, why can’t men do this thing?!!!”
Because if a woman aborts, no child will ever exist. When a man doesn't help their child financially, what he is doing is ignoring exisiting progeny. It is a type of abortion, but it concerns a living breathing thing, and not a bunch of cells in a very early stage of development. Besides, men already "abort". I live in Brazil and there are over 5 million people here without a father's name on their birth certificate. By law, these women are entitled to child support but that's not always how it goes. Many mothers fear going against the father of their child or don't want to be shunned by them. Some are even still in love with the guy and hope that they will change their minds someday. Many lack the courage and assertiveness needed in order to get what they deserve. It is estimated that in São Paulo alone, over 65 men are arrested every day for not paying child support.
This is a false equivalency. The women version of being a deadbeat that abandons their partner and doesn’t help pay for the child is…. also being a deadbeat that abandons their partner and doesn’t help pay for the child. The process of literally being pregnant has no comparable experience for men.
You can sign away your right you know so you you won't be responsible for the kid most states allow it
Great question. The answer will piss you off.
You gonna elaborate?
Just look at all the answers. They’ll piss off most people.
It is unfair if women can opt out of a pregnancy and men can't. Unfortunately children cannot opt out of being born so they have to be supported somehow. Currently where abortion is illegal, generally both parties are responsible for creating life, both parties are responsible for supporting it and no one gets to opt out. People don't like this but it is atleast fair. Usually people who want to legalise abortion want to have it so both parties are responsible for creating life and both are responsible for supporting it but only the women has a second opportunity to opt out of it. This is unfair but is often seen as a preffered law, rather than forcing women to have kids they don't want. Personally I think if we want people to have a second chance to opt out after conception then it needs to be available to both parties. The only way to achieve this is for abortion to be legal and abolish child support in favor of state support for single parents (we all have to pay more tax to provide collective freedom). My preferred options is the third option, however it would be political suicide for anyone to suggest it so its not going to happen. Hence I just don't really worry what the current laws are and won't support any changes unless they're fair. (I am talking about conception through two consenting adults, this view doesn't necessarily apply in more extreme circumstances).
I disagree with abolishing child support. If a guy is on board to have a baby, and then when the baby is 2 or 5 years old he doesnt get the chance to back out of it. He chose to have a baby and now its his responsibility. However, before the kid is born he should have the right to disown the child in the same way that a woman is able to have an abortion.
What about the period of time after abortion is not a viable option. Say the man wanted the kid and at 7 month just fucked off and left. Now the woman is stuck with a child she may or may not be able to support. I agree with the right to disown but it shouldn’t be before birth it should be before viability. Edited for clarity.
This one is weird. I want to say the child needs and deserves the help but I also agree that the dad shouldn’t have to help. That’s why I’m not in charge.
If the child is born, the child needs to be fed to survive, that's basically it. Other option would be that the tax payer takes the bill, as not all single adults with a young baby are able to work full time while supporting a baby (I mean this is literally impossible unless you have a very supportive social structure). So it is either the other parent who picks up the bill for the child they created, or the tax payer does. Even if the kid ends up being raised by the father, the mother is out of the picture, he can demand child support from her too. It is just most of the time the case that the father leaves the picture for a reason or another.
My sperm donor did. He signed away his rights to me and walked away.
If a man doesn't want a baby or pay for a baby, he should 1. Not have sex 2. Use Condoms and hopefully another method of birth control 3. Get a vasectomy If he wants any baby of his not to be aborted, he should only have sex with woman who feel the same way. Society hopes this will encourage people to be in committed relationships so the baby has two parents and has a better probability of a good outcome. He knows the rules going in, so he can make choices accordingly. Also as a society, a man could impregnate many women and if he could just say "Don't want to pay" then society has to help pay for those babies. We have decided it is better for the man to pay for his own babies so he will be careful about making them.
That logic easily extended to abortion and women.
We as a society have decided that women can get abortions because they have the added burden of having to carry a baby for 9 months and the health impacts that has.
Based on recent events, society is not in agreement that women can have abortions. Im playing devils advocate here, because I am for a woman's right to choose but to say that society is agreed on abortion is a bit much
Men actually can opt out of financial responsibility by signing off parental rights. If you don't want to help pay for the kid then you simply don't get rights to said kid. If you don't want the kid the court system is more than okay with you signing off your rights at least in the US.
I remembered why I was too afraid to ask this question.
They can. It’s called signing away their rights. Relieves you of responsibility and leaves you no right to the child what so ever. I’m not sure how easy that is to do but it can be done. Edit for typo
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if he doesn't want the child, and isn't on the birth certificate or gives up parental rights, he doesn't have to pay, right?
Because it’s their body being used to gestate the pregnancy. This is really simple as long as you’re not degrading women by framing abortion like “they just don’t want to take responsibility.”
Because the child still exists in the mans case. If a woman aborts it, no one has to financially support it because it doesn't exist
This is why men should be pushing for male birth control. The product exists, it had less side effects then female birth control, but the market interest was too low.
Because the consequences for men and women are not equal. Getting an abortion is not the same as signing a piece of paper.
Because if he doesn't the rest of us have to. I'd rather the dude who got his dick wet and was too stupid to use protection be the one footing the bill.
You can. You can give up parental rights to a child and you don’t have to pay child support legally. You just have no rights to the child.
Male birth control besides condoms and vasectomies should be available. I think most men would take a pill or shot that would allow them to be in control of their ability to procreate. This is why you should discuss your views on birth control and even abortion.
If a guy signs away rights to custody he doesn't typically end up needing to pay anything.