First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Father’s Have a Right -not- to pay Child Support?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08 , edited 11/6/08
Honestly, I think there’s a major error in our laws concerning when and why a father:

A) Qualifies as a father
B) Must pay child-support as a father.

Let’s take one of the many cases presented on the episode of Dr. Phil that led me to create this thread. In this case a man donates sperm to his homosexual x-girlfriend. Later on, when she began to have financial troubles, she sued the sperm donor and demanded child support. After loosing the battle the donor appealed to the appellate courts, and then to the Supreme Court which refused to hear him.

This father is being forced to pay child support. So, that means he -is- considered the boy’s dad. So then, it -is- biological heredity that decides parenthood? Yet, in other cases a sperm donor or surrogate mother has attempted to sue for custody over their offspring and the court ruled the heredity was -not- the defining attribute of a parent and that sperm donors don’t have any parental rights.

So, essentially they legally bond to take responsibility for the child but have no lawful rights. The child is there’s only so far as it is convenient for the mother?

The next case on the show was argued out between a man and the woman he’d impregnated. Apparently he did consent to sexual relations with this woman. However, prior to the relations they agreed that neither one wanted kids and that the woman would take pregnancy pills. The mother did not take the pills but did admit to leading the man into believing she was on the pill. Both parties admitted that they’d agreed not to have children.

The fling was left alone after that and both parties moved on. It was essentially a one-night stand. The man goes off, straightens up, and becomes a good American citizen. He gets married and remains true to his wife. They have two kids together and buy a house. They’re middle-class so, through careful financing, they’re able to pay their bills and have a little left over for entertainment, and college funds. In short, they’re staying happily afloat but are constantly aware that something could drag them under.

Sure enough, the first mother runs into financial troubles and tracks the ‘father’ down. She tells him that he was her child’s father and that DNA tests confirmed. She then demands he start paying child-support in a large enough portion that his entire life-style is going to be changed.

His financial security is suddenly ruined. His marriage is in trouble, and he’s having trouble keeping a roof over his family’s head.

They go to court and the court rules that he -does- have to pay child support. The man is currently appealing to the supreme court.

According to him, he shouldn’t have to pay child support because the mother made the decision to get pregnant without his consent. She never bothered him until she wanted his money, and he didn’t get to choose rather or not she kept the fetus. He’s being forced into parenthood against his will even though he didn’t make such a decision.

In a third case the father told the mother to abort a fetus. She refused and left him, then demanding child-support. My question is that, if the woman is making the choice, why does the man suffer the consequences?

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but I am asking your opinion. As I see it, the courts are being hypocritical and walking all over their own rulings. This seems to me to be more of the ‘feministic’ attempt to give a position of superiority. They say that giving women 100% rights over their fetus while taking away a father’s right to even be heard on rather or not his child gets to live is promoting equality between the sexes.

To me this doesn’t seem to be true, because if it was equality then the men wouldn’t be paying for the women’s decisions.

I also think it’s silly that in the case of custody battles sperm donors aren’t fathers but that in the case of child support they are. The law needs to be more concrete. Either fatherhood is decided by biology or its not. Either abortion is a woman’s choice, the consequence thereby hers, or it’s a shared between mother and father.


13788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / In a recession
Offline
Posted 11/6/08 , edited 11/6/08
I do agree that men do not need to take financial responsibility for something a woman agreed not to do but thats why when you have sex they say be married, so things like this don't happen.

As for the father who gave his sperm to help impregnate his lesbian friend he should definitely not have to pay for some woman who was not responsible. The laws are too concrete and thats why judges rule in favor of the woman in that situation, we need to loosely interpret the law to accomodate people like sperm donors or surrogates so they won't be used as a financial support of a baby they didn't want.

The second case scenario is tricky, because for one since he did consent to sexual relations with her, he did NOT ACT RESPONSIBLY, apparently he was dumb enough to have relations without protection ! So yes we feel bad that he had started up his family and had a good job and etc....but he failed to excercise good personal responsibility. Even though she agreed to take birth control, it would have never hurt him to have a damn back-up via condom! BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT JUST THE WOMAN'S RESPONSIBILITY, it is a equal venture that people must participate in just like sex is not a one person activity both parties should take responsibility for their actions before and after relations.

And even if he did use protection, and maybe the condom broke, well I'm sure he noticed it was broken when he pulled out and instead of leaving the woman alone, make sure she went to the clinic to get the PLAN B pill which prevent pregnancy after a slip up like that.........in his case I believe he should pay because he made a bad choice and he has to live with the conseqeunces!

The last scenario is also tricky, it should never be a mans choice for what a woman should do with her body, once again I point to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY when it comes to sexual relations! If we must relate, please debate! Meaning think about the consequences of sex before jumping in because "caught in the moment" never happens! You still have a logical mind to think critically and assess that
A. If I have sex, she may get pregnant
B. Even if she says she's taking birth control, I should wear a condom
C. And if you really want to be anal, hell draw up a contract and have her sign it

All of these situations except one could have been avoided.........practice safe sex and good personal responsibility! And no the courts ruling this is not trying to establish feminime (spelled wrong i think) superiority, We created birth control methods for WOMAN AND MEN since women aren't the only one participating in the act, they should protect each other from STDS and pregnancy!

I would also add maybe a time limit on women trying to collect child support.........if 7 years have passed and you were able to take care of your child then NO the man should not have to pay unless she can prove that she was trying to find the man for 7 years. Also women should be held reponsible when they fail to contact the man during her knowledge of the pregnancy.

2066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 11/6/08
lol wut
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08
Women aren’t the only one’s participating in the act of sexual intercourse, but they are the only one’s participating in the act of making the decision of rather or not they want to be a parent. It is female superiority because women are being given a right that men do not receive even though men are also concerned. Either abortion should be illegal, men should have a say in abortion, or woman should have no right to demand child support unless the man agreed that he didn’t want her to have an abortion.

Your argument of personal responsibility is self-contradictory. Letting women have abortions is in fact allowing them to get out of the consequences of their actions. There is the exception of rape and incest, but statistics show that less than one percent of abortions attained result in either one of these. As for the other 99% of the time, those women are doing it for professional and social reasons which ultimately amount to the desire to escape dealing with the consequences of their actions.

So, if people should be required to live with the responsibility of their actions then we -should- be somebody else’s place (the government,) to decide what a woman does with ‘her’ body.

I’m not saying I believe that. I am saying that by your logic of personal responsibility only women who’ve been raped should be allowed to have abortions. A law such as this would actually resolve the whole issue anyway, because then men and women -would- have -truly- equal rights in the matter.

The woman in the second case lied. The man decided that he didn’t want a child and she agreed. She then changed her mind. He never changed his. Why should she have a right to make that decision for him when she admitted that they both agreed not to have children? She made the decision and he had nothing to do with her decision making process; therefore, the responsibility should be 100% hers. She lied, she had sex, she chose to have a kid.

She raised the child until it became inconvenient and then decided to abuse the law for her own personal gain.

A woman has the freedom to choose to abort her child. Fine, that’s her choice. But, since men have no say in the matter they should have no responsibility either.
13788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / In a recession
Offline
Posted 11/6/08 , edited 11/6/08
I'm agreeing with you that men shouldn't be forced to pay for someone they didn't ask for they should create a law for that..........But when it comes to decisions about the woman becoming pregnant, the man should be apart of the protection process.

If you lay down with a woman and don't want to have children with her, then he should take extreme precaution via, pulling out, wearing a condom, bringing your own condom in case the woman poked holes in it, if it breaks calling (or even going with her to the clinic) to make sure she took the Plan B pill.............all of these could have been done TO STOP a pregnancy on the man's end! He should have never trusted her especially if it was a one night stand and never believe people's words are their bonds......oral agreements RARELY close to never hold up in the court of law! ( Love Contract like on Dave Chapelle Show should be drafted instead lol)

I said nothing about abortion being an option I don't like abortions but I'm pro-chice because its a womans choice, if a woman truly wanted to not be pregnant she will definitely take precautions when it comes to sex. But like I said we should have at least a law the requires women to INFORM the men of their pregnancy before birth to the baby if they decide to keep it. Therefore if she kept it and did not inform the man he should not be allowed to pay child support! Either way these choices are between men and women if they really don't want to have a child they will do whatever it takes to make sure they don't have one.

P.S. I hope I didn't scare people away from this topic.........
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08
You’re pro-choice. So you believe that women have the right to escape the consequences of having sex. Yet, you’re still saying that men should not have that right because he took the risk of getting her pregnant. But, when she had sex she took the risk of getting pregnant too.

Why should she have the right to escape her responsibility but the man has no choice in the matter? That’s not equality, it’s superiority.
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08
Yes the law protects women ahead of men. The rhetoric however is that women are in a more vulnerable position and therefore needs to be protected more. Its not female superiority that allows this. Its male superiority. Or at least that is what the rhetoric says. My thoughts are that since women keep clamoring for equality these laws that specifically protect women should be done away with, because only when conditions are equal can we really start treating each other as equals. The world has a long way to go before something like that can happen though.

I think the first two cases presented are pretty clear cut. The men shouldn't have to pay because the wives had not intended for the men to be "fathers" at the time of impregnation and the men had understood that they were free from that responsibility. The women are just exploiting the legal system. The third however would be tricky. If the woman had been under the impression that the man would take care of their children during the intercourse, like if the man had been her husband, I think it would be reasonable to ask for child support. The man later backing out and asking her to abort the child isn't an excuse. Abortion should be a joint choice, but eventually it is the women who suffer more from the effects of abortion.
13788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / In a recession
Offline
Posted 11/6/08

SeraphAlford wrote:

You’re pro-choice. So you believe that women have the right to escape the consequences of having sex. Yet, you’re still saying that men should not have that right because he took the risk of getting her pregnant. But, when she had sex she took the risk of getting pregnant too.

Why should she have the right to escape her responsibility but the man has no choice in the matter? That’s not equality, it’s superiority.


He had a choice.......he could have took precautions........thats all to it. Like I said since abortion is such a tricky and moral subject, i believe that whaterver a woman chooses to do with the baby is her decision, I just don't agree that father should unknowingly suffer the consequences such as her just popping up out of the blue, I do believe there should be laws against that!

In reality, I just believe they are jointly accountable........the man may not want, but morally the woman may want.........most women do try to escape their responsibility through abortion, but abortion causes so much damage to her ability to have kids. The man has no right to tell a woman to abort and then expect her not to come and collect child support. That what I thinnk you are trying to get at, that the man should have the right to abort the baby.

But I've already agreed that the law should not be as concrete to making fathers pay for children they don't want.
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08 , edited 11/6/08

raja613 wrote:

He had a choice.......he could have took precautions........thats all to it. Like I said since abortion is such a tricky and moral subject, i believe that whaterver a woman chooses to do with the baby is her decision, I just don't agree that father should unknowingly suffer the consequences such as her just popping up out of the blue, I do believe there should be laws against that!

In reality, I just believe they are jointly accountable........the man may not want, but morally the woman may want.........most women do try to escape their responsibility through abortion, but abortion causes so much damage to her ability to have kids. The man has no right to tell a woman to abort and then expect her not to come and collect child support. That what I thinnk you are trying to get at, that the man should have the right to abort the baby.

But I've already agreed that the law should not be as concrete to making fathers pay for children they don't want.


According to Guttmacher Institute fewer than 0.3% of abortion patients experience -any- form of medical complication during the operation. Attaining an abortion is statistically safer than having a nose job, a breast reduction, or liposuction. You’re just as likely to have your reproductive organs hurt by attaining an enema as you are an abortion.

I am not suggesting that men have a say in rather or not a woman has an abortion and do not understand where you’re making such conclusions. I also feel that you’re letting adamants on the subject cloud your judgment. Let me put this in more basic terms.

You say that the man made the decision to be a parent by not taking precautions. He should have to live with the consequences of that action. However, the mother could’ve taken the precautions just as easily. She could’ve used a female condom, taking birth control pills, or asked him to wear a condom. Yet, you say that even if a woman decides to have unprotected sex she should have the right to attain an abortion.

So, women shouldn’t have to live with the consequences of having unprotected sex I they don’t want to but men should?

The man chose to have sex. He did not choose to be a parent. The mother chose to be a parent, so the father must be a parent. Yet, if the father had chosen to be a parent and the mother chose not to be then the father doesn’t get to be.

That’s so obviously sexist. How can you -not- recognize this?
10452 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08

cardmage wrote:

Yes the law protects women ahead of men. The rhetoric however is that women are in a more vulnerable position and therefore needs to be protected more. Its not female superiority that allows this. Its male superiority. Or at least that is what the rhetoric says. My thoughts are that since women keep clamoring for equality these laws that specifically protect women should be done away with, because only when conditions are equal can we really start treating each other as equals. The world has a long way to go before something like that can happen though.

I think the first two cases presented are pretty clear cut. The men shouldn't have to pay because the wives had not intended for the men to be "fathers" at the time of impregnation and the men had understood that they were free from that responsibility. The women are just exploiting the legal system. The third however would be tricky. If the woman had been under the impression that the man would take care of their children during the intercourse, like if the man had been her husband, I think it would be reasonable to ask for child support. The man later backing out and asking her to abort the child isn't an excuse. Abortion should be a joint choice, but eventually it is the women who suffer more from the effects of abortion.


Yes, abortion should be a joint decision but it’s not. Men have no legal right where abortion is concerned thanks to the Roe Vs Wade case. So, it’s the mother’s choice regardless of the father’s desires. The father doesn’t have parental rights so why does he have parental responsibilities even if he doesn’t want them?
397 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M
Offline
Posted 11/6/08 , edited 11/6/08
I said "it is the women who suffer more from the effects of abortion". Abortion had been proven to have a larger psychological impact on women than on men (I can't be bothered to find the article just to link it), so if the woman was unwilling to have an abortion then there's no way a man should "force" her. If the man had been in a sexual union with her in which the woman did not explicitly lie about not going to have a child (as did the woman in the second case did), then the man should take responsibility because he's trying to escape responsibility after the act (which he would have known may lead to pregnancy) by asking the woman to go for an abortion which she refused. In the third case he's shirking responsibility after the fact. In the second he was under false impression of his responsibility. If it was a business contract the third could be seen as breaching the contract whereas the second is being misled into the contract. The "contract" happens at the time of the intercourse.

I think men should be given protection of their babies if they want it though, ie., in an act of intercourse between two consenting adults both parties must give approval before the baby is being aborted other than in the case in which the woman's life is in danger (in which case the doctor should have the right to overrule either parent). This would also even the playing field between men and women so an opposite of case 3 could take place as well. Both parents would still have to take responsibility of the child in such a case. This would open another can of worms though so I'm not sure how feasible it would actually be.
5156 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F
Offline
Posted 11/7/08
so long. cant read entire thing. read partially.
my opinion- father HAS to pay child support. if the child is his flesh and blood then he needs to take responsibility, no matter what.
if u cant deal with the outcome, the OBVIOUS thing is use protection or dont have sex at all.
3066 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
76 / M
Offline
Posted 11/7/08 , edited 11/7/08
Holy shit, have people not heard about this amazing invention called the "condom"?

Fathers having to pay child support for one-night stands and unintended babies have the responsibility to pay for the child since he was so stupid enough to trust the woman.
1433 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / New York
Offline
Posted 11/7/08 , edited 11/7/08

Teresa_Yuuki wrote:

so long. cant read entire thing. read partially.
my opinion- father HAS to pay child support. if the child is his flesh and blood then he needs to take responsibility, no matter what.
if u cant deal with the outcome, the OBVIOUS thing is use protection or dont have sex at all.


Wow, no matter what? Even in cases of sperm donation? Even when there is dishonesty on the woman's part? Read the whole post before you respond.


makix wrote:

Holy shit, have people not heard about this amazing invention called the "condom"?

Fathers having to pay child support for one-night stands and unintended babies have the responsibility to pay for the child since he was so stupid enough to trust the woman.


What about the woman's responsibility to the man to be honest about actions that would unjustly burden him financially? She deceived him and got money for it. If you ask me, she's the irresponsible one. What is he supposed to do to make sure she has taken the pill, anyway? Would watching her swallow it be enough to trust her? But wait, what if it were a fake pill!? Do you see why you can't just call him stupid for trusting her and conclude that you've resolved the case?

The third case is, as cardmage says, tricky. It is not fair that the woman just gets whatever she wants (the baby AND money) when she herself acted irresponsibly. (It may also be significant, depending on the circumstances, that she left him.) Now that abortions are legal, I'm afraid excuses like "But I don't want to do it!" and "My religion forbids it!" in situations like these can't stand up to social justice. If she has neither assurance that the man will stay with her nor the means to support the child herself, she should not be engaging in risky sexual behavior. If she ignores these requirements and do it anyway, perhaps she should be forced to either have an abortion or give the baby up for adoption. This method prevents the woman from abusing the system while still allowing men to be held responsible if it was reasonable for the woman to believe that they would stay together.

I understand that it sounds cruel to some people and that women can have a very strong desire to have the child, but I'm afraid sympathy can't trump justice here.
13788 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / F / In a recession
Offline
Posted 11/7/08



I don't see it as sexist.....I see it as the woman making a choice......lol.....like i said before and many times these all could have been avoided if they would have simply just protected themselves from pregnancy..........The woman is equally responsible for being a dummy........hell both people have to live with the consequences, the man pays while the mother raises.....but seriously the second man deserved to pay if its a one night stand why even take a chance? And this should just be a lesson for eveyone to keep your genitals to yourself, thats all that can be done, sorry for the people who got taken advantage of but hey, I doubt there will be any legislative actions to correct this.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.