Jump to content

If someone who doesn’t want a child, has a child. Should they be forced to be a parent?


Birlow17

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, SithApprentice said:

@Perspektiv So... yes, with a lot of added sexist comments about "be a man" and all that?

Glad we're clear.

I disagree.

Let me rephrase, then. 

 

"Be a responsible man". You're right.  Be a man has sexist intonations. Not the intent. I was eluding to one not being a coward, and taking ownership of their mistakes in life. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Perspektiv I understand your wife was a shitty person too. Some women are really shitty, just like some men are. I'm glad we can agree that some people just suck, men or women, and that life is unfair.

 

We just fall on different sides of this argument. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Perspektiv said:

Let me rephrase, then. 

 

"Be a responsible man". You're right.  Be a man has sexist intonations. Not the intent. I was eluding to one not being a coward, and taking ownership of their mistakes in life. 

Okay that makes me feel better. Thank you for rephrasing it.

 

I can agree that I think people should be responsible for their actions. It's why I personally wouldn't want an abortion unless something seriously seriously fucked up along the way, since the only reason I'd be having unprotected sex would be to have a kid. And I think we should teach the next generation how to be responsible and not idiots about it all, leading to less unwanted children. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SithApprentice said:

Okay that makes me feel better. Thank you for rephrasing it.

No problem. Sorry, I'm an "unwanted child", so it's a personal subject for me. 

 

My dad's excuse was my mom was "crazy". Truth be told, he cheated on her with multiple women. They were married. I don't expect a non crazy response from anyone in finding this out. 

 

The fact that he still wanted her  back, and she had clearly moved on is far more telling if you can read between the lines. 

 

Which is why when I hear a guy dismiss a woman with those words, I see someone who has yet to grow up, or accept the responsibility that comes with being an adult. 

 

Otherwise, you would recognize why you didn't work out with each other, like any other normal adult. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Skycaptain said:

Three different questions have been raised. 

 

The sex bit. If you don't want the responsibility of being a parent, rubber up first, it's not that difficult. 

 

Father having nothing to do with the child. Difficult this. Normally I'd say yes, the father should be morally obliged to take some responsibility, but in some cases it may well be better for there to be no involvement. 

 

Financially. I don't know about in other countries, but in Britain absent fathers are legally required to contribute to the childs upbringing. Courts can, and do order that a percentage of the father's income is deducted at source and given to the mother. 

^^ Pretty much this. Especially the "rubber up first" bit, seriously. OK some people are unlucky and end up in the 2% where the condom fails, but if you don't use one at all be prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

However, financially, I think men should have the option to have a sort of metaphorical abortion where they have the right to legally disavow any responsibility for the child, before the stage where actual physical abortions are no longer legal, with a few weeks notice. This gives the mum the option to decide whether they still want to go ahead with the pregnancy without the financial support of the sperm donor, and if they decide not to they still have time to get an abortion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mackenzie Holiday
3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I was eluding to one not being a coward, and taking ownership of their mistakes in life. 

I do see where you're coming from, and I respect your values, but personally, I don't think these values should be legally mandated. I definitely prefer it if people take responsibility for their mistakes in life as well, but I disagree with its application here.

 

1) It's not always clear that the biological father did make a mistake. Maybe they wore a condom and it broke. Maybe they were one of the many, many people who were utterly failed by their country's sex education system and literally had no idea how to have safer sex and didn't know to look into it for themselves because they didn't know that their school lied by omission in the first place. In all of these cases, I don't see the resulting pregnancy as a personal failing, and I wouldn't feel right about holding the biological mother or father responsible for the resulting pregnancy.

 

But maybe they did know and were being irresponsible, which brings me to:

 

2) Legal responsibility is imbalanced. I grew up in a conservative family and I heard a lot of the same reasoning you've used, but it was also used to make a case for why the biological mother should not be allowed to get an abortion. But when we can agree that the biological mother should get a choice about whether or not to take on the responsibility that follows keeping an unintended pregnancy, then I don't see why the biological father does not get the same choice. If the mother can "avoid their responsibility" and get an abortion even if they knowingly didn't use protection, then I don't see why the father shouldn't have the same option.

 

So ultimately, my question is:

 

3) Why should there be a legal obligation for the biological father to take more responsibility for these events than the biological mother?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As sad as it is to admit, the ideal reality that a child has two parents, non-shit, doesn't always happen. Sometimes it's legitimately a better existence that a child have only one parent, or adopted parents because the alternative to having a dysfunctional parent or both is worse.

 

A rule that applies to every single facet of human beings is that you can't force a person to change unless they themselves want to change. Forcing some asshole parent(s) to take care of their kid won't make them do their job correctly. The primary issue with children should be the children and thier wellbeing. If that means an absence of a parent when the most likely alternative is worse, so be it.

 

Plus, there is also the possibility of reconcilliation later on in life. Most single parent kids grow up and eventually develop a curiosity about their missing parent. As adults, they have the option to track that parent down and see for themselves the truth about things, however unpleasnt or healing it might be.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2020 at 8:54 AM, Birlow17 said:

My friend told me this situation with a guy (20) she knows who has a kid but he’s not in the kids life. Apparently the mother of the child (she is 20 as well) was known for hooking up with guys and trying to get pregnant without telling them. Well this guy told her to get an an abortion and she said no. So now he has a child and is telling everyone the mother is crazy and only used him as a sperm bank. For this reason he is not in the child’s life and he doesn’t seem to care from what my friend told me.

Unless she lied to him and said she was on the pill, or put holes in the condom or something, then the kid is still absolutely his responsibility for choosing to put his penis into a vagina while knowing the possible outcome :o

 

On 7/28/2020 at 8:54 AM, Birlow17 said:

My question is, is someone who clearly doesn’t want to be a parent morally obligated to be in the child’s life? I feel I would rather not have a parent that didn’t care for me, was horrible and/or would just hurt my development than having one. But at the same time it’s pretty messed up that these people have kids and go on walking the earth like they don’t have a child. 

I didn't want the sex I was forced to have with my ex, and I was on the pill (he refused to use condoms though). I got pregnant twice during that time and ran away with my toddler during the second pregnancy, we hid at a shelter for a month before we could get a house where he couldn't find us and after that I had the second baby too :o

 

Anyway I never liked kids and didn't want kids, but also couldn't bring myself to have abortions or go through the adoption process. So I made the choice to have the kids and be the best parent I could be (oh and I like my own kids, I don't hate them or anything even though I never liked kids previously and never planned on having any). There are other options (abortion, adoption - heaps of couples want a little baby!!) so if you as the female CHOOSE to go through with it then you need to be the best parent you can be. The male is a bit more stuck in that he can't choose to get rid of the kid, but at the same time he shouldn't put his penis there unprotected unless he's willing to face the music! Only exception is when the father is too dangerous to care for the kids (like my ex) in which case the female is better off fending for the kids alone. Same would apply the other way around of course, if the mother is a bad parent then the father should have custody. If both parents don't want the child but have it anyway, I definitely think it would be best for it to be adopted as a baby. Heck I'd rather the parents are PAID for a well-balanced childless couple to adopt their kid than the parents raise the poor baby if they don't want.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly as someone with anti-natalist beliefs, if I were a man who had sex I hope I’d only be attracted to other AMABs, since if I got someone else pregnant I rightfully wouldn’t be able to make them have an abortion since it’s their body.
 

But yeah I agree men shouldn’t be forced to support their kids if women are allowed to make that choice too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given how things work I think you kind of have to take care of it. There is no really effective way to ensure that children are cared for ( in the US at least) other than parents assuming responsibility. And I include both parents in this and men should have the same right to sue women who abscond and leave a man to raise a child alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 10:54 PM, Birlow17 said:

My question is, is someone who clearly doesn’t want to be a parent morally obligated to be in the child’s life? I feel I would rather not have a parent that didn’t care for me, was horrible and/or would just hurt my development than having one. But at the same time it’s pretty messed up that these people have kids and go on walking the earth like they don’t have a child. 

This is a tough one because the situations vary a lot and you have to consider each part. Im struggling for an answer because mine would vary depending on the situation.  But Im going to answer from my side personally. I ever got pregnant, it is abortion full stop. He begs me to keep the kid so he can raise it? Hell no, couldnt even pay me to do that. Thinks a baby will fix the relationship so I should keep it? Hell no. If they want a kid so badly they can go find someone else. I refuse to be a parent and I will hate any child and what it has done to my body. There are no 'motherly' instincts in me so hell no. Someone tries to force me to have a kid I will throw myself down the stairs. Nobody should be forced to have a kid they dont want.

 

The situation you are hearing about sounds very dodge to me as there are many issues in itself so I cant really say because you dont know the facts since you dont really know these people. I dont really know what to comment cause people make her out to seem crazy while he sounds childish so who knows. I say nobody should be forced to have a kid they dont want but if he knew she was trying to get pregnant well thats on him and he should pay some responsibility because then he knew what she wanted and now hes just putting the blame on her. Takes two to tango here. Unless they had an agreement but who knows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Jade Cross

The thing is that what we are doing right now is basically what the courts do in such cases. It's all conjecture based on what we hear and in the cases of courts, what laws are in place at that particular moment. Both sides have their pros and cons so to speak and more often than not, those don't exactly fall into neat and perfect place with the reality of things, in which ideally none of the sides should be allowed to have kids if this is to ensure but "you shouldn't" is oftentimes ignored by people in varying degrees, some with unfortunately lifelong consequences as what this kid will probably face. I can hear the dysfunction already and it's just in the pregnancy stage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Arodash said:

if a woman can decide to or not to keep a baby

 

A man should be allowed to decide to or not to support said baby in any way

 

Fair is fair

Am I ever glad the laws focus on what is best for the child, vs fairness. Obviously the laws aren't perfect, but focusing on fairness to me, would be a grave mistake.

 

Don't want babies, don't fuck/wear protection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

From being raised by a struggling single mom (who was married to someone, no less) to growing up in city slums full of people who bail on their kids while in committed marriages or relationships, its rather disappointing to see so many feel the man never has a responsibility to stick around (or provide for the offspring they chose to create).

 

Honestly, disgusts me really, considering it gives a free pass to my dad who impregnated over 6 women and took care of none of his kids.

 

So the blame goes to the women who chose to marry him, and give their bodies to him as to them being stuck for their own idiotic choice to keep the baby?

 

Of course, some circumstances warrant the guy walking away, but to state that there isn't a responsibility there in most cases, is..wow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

If a father claims that the mother intended to get pregnant and the mother says it was unintentional, that is his word against hers. I'll bet he did not have any solid evidence to support his allegation. That he is the biological father, on the other hand, is easy to prove. It only makes sense for the law to focus on what can be proven.

 

The argument that a pregnant person is obligated to get an abortion if the person who impregnated them tells them to is very weak. There is no such thing as a legal right to require someone else to get an abortion. If anyone tried to pass such a law, outraged opposition would be the most bipartisan issue we have seen in a long time. Making that argument in court would make a bad impression both on those who oppose abortion and those who are revolted by the idea that one person can compel another to have an operation. Not a great strategy.

 

Whatever the parents did or did not intend, the child is not at fault. The child must be cared for and financially supported. Unless the mother has more savings than most twenty year olds, she probably can't afford childcare and can't afford to stay home with her baby. For the child's sake, someone must give her money. The only question is whether that someone should be the father or the taxpayers. And if you say the taxpayers should pay everything and the father should pay nothing, my follow up question is, do you think there should be any limit on the number of children he can father without penalty or responsibility?

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

If you are arguing that the father should be able to force the mother to have an abortion, we can continue that discussion after such a law makes it through Congress.

 

If you are arguing that taxpayers should cover child support to enable the father's responsibility-free lifestyle, do you think there should be any limit on the number of children he can father for free?

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

Okay, so since you are pro-life, I assume you are saying that the mother was right to go through the pregnancy and give birth. 

 

Please clarify what you are saying should happen now that the child is here.

 

Are you saying that the father has a right to walk away without paying child support or are you saying the father must accept joint custody of the child? 

 

In the event that the father is not willing to pay or to accept joint custody, then what? 

 

Should the legal system compel him to pay up or accept joint custody? 

 

Should the taxpayers pay child support instead of the father? 

 

Should the mother be forced to give the child up for adoption to save both the father and the taxpayers money? If the mother is a perfectly good mother in every way except that she's broke, is forced adoption in the child's best interests? Also, is there a time limit on that? Let's say the father chooses to stop paying child support when the child is three. Should the mother be forced to give the child up for adoption at age three for purely financial reasons?

 

What is the primary guiding principle behind your proposed solution? Is the most important thing the welfare of the child, or is something else more important?

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

This thread is about a case where the mother did not choose to get an abortion and the child is already here. Are you saying that since abortion is legal we should punish mothers who did not get abortions? Are you saying that since abortion is legal we should punish children who were not aborted? 

 

I'm still waiting to hear what you think should happen to the child if the father refuses both joint custody and child support. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

I am sorry that that happened to you and your father.

 

Do you think that what happened to you and your father was just and right? Did your mother have every right to walk away with no consequences? Would it have been unjust for the courts to compel your mother to pay child support?

 

Or do you think what happened to you and your father was an injustice? In that case, should other innocent children suffer as you have, or should we try to prevent further injustice and suffering?

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

It sounds like what happened to you was neither fair, just, nor right. Nevertheless, I think family law should make the welfare of the child the top priority. For the welfare of the child, single parents who can't cover child care and all other living expenses on their own must receive financial support, period. Since that covers the welfare of the child, we can consider principles of justice or the greater good when deciding who should be obligated to pay the child support. I think the noncustodial parent should pay to the extent that they are financially capable. As long as they pay the agreed upon amount on time, great, no need for the government to get all up in everyone's business. If they miss a payment, I think the government should cover the payment first and attempt to collect from the noncustodial parent afterwards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

There is no logical connection between abortion law and family law. They are not even tried in the same courts. If you stand up in family court and try to claim that they can't make rulings on custody and child support for specific children until abortion is outlawed, that won't go the way you want it to. It would take a Supreme Court ruling to outlaw abortion. Both before and after any such hypothetical Supreme Court ruling, family law should prioritize the welfare of children.

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

If someone wants to force someone to get an abortion or prevent them from getting one, they need to take that up with the Supreme Court. 

 

If the abortion happens, there is no child and therefore no case in family court. Family law is completely irrelevant in that case.

 

If a case involving a child is brought up in family court, obviously there was no abortion. The legality or not of abortion is completely irrelevant to that case. Family law should continue to make rulings that prioritize the welfare of children. I see no reason why family law would need to change one bit even if the Supreme Court reversed Roe vs. Wade. By the time you get to family court the child exists and there's no reason to go off on hypothetical tangents about whether the child should exist or could hypothetically have been prevented from existing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brbdogsonfire
28 minutes ago, Arodash said:

the post asks if they should have to be forced to be a parent, not the current laws or supreme court rulings. And there are plenty of laws in the US that currently go against supreme court rulings

People always uphold current laws when they have at best flimsy evidence for their beliefs when discussing if something is right. Legal does not make right. Right does not make legal.

 

Every time I have seen someone point out that father's have 0 say and are 100% at the mercy of the woman when it comes to procreation the person replying ignores that during their answer. It's a dishonest way to debate someone.

 

If women have the right to not become a parent then men should have the right to not become a parent. If you disagree with this you cannot claim to support equality. If you disagree with this you cannot claim to be a feminist. 

 

When a man doesn't want to be a parent he is lazy, a coward, a deadbeat.

 

When a woman doesn't everyone looks for excuses that are never applied to men. I always see knee jerk assumptions of; She could have been abused, he forced her to get pregnant, it's not fair to force her to be a mother before she is ready. In these situations it's very telling that with absolutely no background information these people paint the man as an evil selfish pig, and the woman as doing no wrong.

 

It's just more anti man sexism from the site that claims to fight for equality. One group is more equal than the other here.

 

Edited to say there areany on this site who are calling this stuff out. To you all thank you for fighting for actual equality and for my rights.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

In the case described in the original post, noone was forced to become a parent. It sounds like the father accidentally became a parent. His parental status was a predictable result of his voluntary if ill-considered actions. Saying "Oopsie!" does not normally absolve a person of financial responsibility. The question is whether he should be held legally responsible for child support. I would argue yes, unless he chooses to take care of the child half of the time and the court does not find him to be an unfit parent. 

 

Abortion law is a separate issue with no relevance whatsoever to this particular case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brbdogsonfire
3 minutes ago, nanogretchen4 said:

In the case described in the original post, noone was forced to become a parent. It sounds like the father accidentally became a parent. His parental status was a predictable result of his voluntary if ill-considered actions. Saying "Oopsie!" does not normally absolve a person of financial responsibility. The question is whether he should be held legally responsible for child support. I would argue yes, unless he chooses to take care of the child half of the time and the court does not find him to be an unfit parent. 

 

Abortion law is a separate issue with no relevance whatsoever to this particular case.

Yet again you are saying the laws separate the two while ignoring we are discussing if it's right. We are not discussing if it's legal we are discussing if it's right. Stop trying to deflect the argument.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
nanogretchen4

The OP does not mention abortion at all. The OP does ask if the father should be forced to be part of the child's life. No, unwilling or unfit parents should not be forced to accept custody, but noncustodial parents do owe child support.

Link to post
Share on other sites
brbdogsonfire
3 hours ago, nanogretchen4 said:

They can, and I can also disagree with their reasoning. 

We were discussing if it's right, and you pull out it's the law which is not how you determine what is right while then ignoring that after. It's sexist to give women the choice in a financial concern while refusing to give men the same choice in the financial concern. Women have a way to opt out through abortion while men are stuck with the situation. We could give men the same financial choice as women through legislation. Citing they shouldn't have had sex without applying it as an excuse to both the woman and the man here is sexist. It is already considered extremely sexist to tell a woman to keep it between their legs so why is it a valid argument against men?

 

Iagree we cannot give rights to men that women won't receive and I think we should make men as equal as possible here. Since women have the choice to remove themselves from the financial responsibility via an abortion we should give men the option to opt out of financial responsibility as well.

 

I hope people that respond to me make actual responses to what I am saying instead of what they are trying to make my argument against.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...