have you considered that if the man doesn’t want the child then he has the option to abstain long before she gets 26 weeks to decide?
in the case of an accident…well, I’m sure that neither person would have “planned” for that to happen so they then have to make decisions based on unfortunate circumstances…(keep in mind that he also has the “risk of accident” information available to him long before she has 26 weeks to decide so if he makes a conscious decision to overlook that risk then there is nothing wrong with him being held responsible for his decision)…so then we have to consider who is at greater risk…for the man, he is risking having to pay for his child for a maximum of 18 years…for the woman, the pregnancy could cost her her life…
CPS has nothing to do with this. Attorney’s General’s office handles it. Most of what you wrote is correct. And even if you don’t get the notice and court assumes you are the father, as soon as you find out this has happened…you can contest is. If DNA test proves court/mother was wrong and you are not the father, you are off the hook (at least in Texas). So bottom line is that the only man paying child support in the scenario described by OP in this thread is the BIOLOGICAL FATHER.
Rest of your post is ridiculous and doesn’t even warrant a response. I understand that it sounds great on paper (or online?) but in the real world, your idea is not even an option.
One real aspect of child support is to help lessen burden on taxpayers. Forget about how things “should” be. If a woman chooses to have a baby but does not have enough money to raise that baby, where do you guys think that come is going to come from? In the U.S., these women will end up on welfare, food stamps, WICC programs etc. Where do you think money for these programs come from? This is one major reason why states go after biological parents for “child support”. I get all this talk of this being “unfair” for men but does anyone have a practical solution for this? If a biological father is not forced to help pay partly for that child’s needs, who should take that burden if the mother is not able to for whatever reason? And please no mention of “well woman should not have a baby she can’t afford”. I get that. Since we all agree that as of right now, law does not allow us to force a woman who cannot afford a child to have an abortion…what is a practical alternative?
You’re the one making the assumptions. I never said that one is more “important” than other. I’m pointing out that there is absolutely no comparison between the two. The “mental angst” may be difficult but it is pales compares to the PHYSICAL risks a woman faces during pregnancy/birth. Even abortion carries its risks. No doctor out there can guarantee that a mother will not suffer ANY physical harm when she has an abortion…no matter how small the risks may be. “Mental angst” may cause you depression/sadness but a abortion/pregnancy/birth gone wrong can do major permanent change/damage to a woman’s body. Again, this is not about which is more “important”. They are both very different and its ridiculous to compare them.
I’ve already taught you enough facts about how the child support system works…you should be able to figure this out on your own.
The cdc.gov website says 18%. I read on it some more and another place says 2% over a period of one year with proper use by experienced users. It’s still not zero.
The second part is like saying if a woman does not want to get raped she should stay home in a burqa, which is a view I do not agree with.
:smack2: No it’s not. Again, there is no comparison between the two. A man not having sex guarantees that he will not father a child. A woman staying inside her house does not guarantee that she will not be raped.
The poor sob who got a woman pregnant isn’t he only one benefiting from the sexual liberties afforded by the country. So why should he be the only one to pay incase something goes wrong?
I get what you’re saying though. The government does not want to tax the rich, the middle class is already overtaxed, the poor don’t pay taxes. We have wars to fight and that takes money also. The government won’t pay for people’s kids unless we start running low on people. And thy won’t happen. Immigration Zindabad.
My idea seems silly right now but doesn’t everything until somebody actually fights for it and gets it approved.
In the mean time if you’re considering killing yourself because of a situation of this sort just run off to Pakistan. They won’t come after you there, at least not for child support.
Men are not being used! They are paying support for children that they gathered. Why should a child suffer because the adult was feckless and irresponsible. Men are not some pathetic gullible creatures and women are not looking to get pregnant. Conception needs both participants. It’s not like women are going around stealing sperm from men in their sleep. IF men have consciously had sex one of the main consequence is having a baby.
That wouldn’t be bad as long as it doesn’t have any major permanent side effects. Vasectomy is too permanent a procedure for young men who might wanna father kids in the future.
The govt. (or rather…taxpayers) already does pay for people’s kids b/c plenty of them are on govt. assisted programs. But again, there is a limited number of funds. Its not like govt. can just print more money and pass it around. So either EVERYONE pays for taxes or govt. can go after biological parents.
Your idea is silly b/c it does not provide a solution for people who are not married. And for people who do fall under your “idea”, all its going to do is clog up the court system b/c litigation will go through the roof. Instead of saving money, it’ll cost more for EVERYONE…the biological father trying to defend himself in court…and taxpayer money spend on processing it all.
It’s a woman’s world out there brothers. Just be careful who sleep with. I do feel sorry for the poor saps stuck in these kind of situations.
I have another idea. Accidental pregnancy insurance for sexually active men. Not sure if anyone’s gonna buy it though. Guys who need it can’t afford it. Guys who can afford it have access to woman who are pragmatic in general.
We dont hear cases of mothers claiming child support in courts for children who were born out of wedlock, guys suing their girlfiends or wives for aborting the child. Such cases are unheard of.
Is it because children are not born out of wedlock in the East? And/or because girlfriends don’t abort the child? Or because even if they do, the guys don’t sue their girlfriends?
Quite a few one way generalizations here. The onus should be on **both **parties to abstain from sex if financial and medical repercussions of pregnancy are an issue. Of course the reality is that people will ignore this and have sex. In that case, both parties should have to opt in for financial obligations. If the father is deemed untrustworthy then women should be more careful when selecting their partners. Women should be granted the right to terminate a pregnancy, no questions about that. But socially, women have always been the gatekeepers for sex, and as such, should weigh the loyalty of Christian Grey wannabe when considering sleeping with him.
Could this leave a woman high and dry if a man decides to opt out? Absolutely. But that’s why, since it’s her body, it’s rightfully her decision now to weigh both the medical and financial realities of having a child alone before engaging in sexual activities. You can’t have both the right to terminate a pregnancy and the right to hold a father accountable because in the reverse scenario (i.e. if she doesn’t want the baby for personal reasons, no medical issues, and he does) the father has no say. If women want to own it all, then really, own it all.
