Originally posted by IAF101
If you have read my previous posts then you should be well aware that I have no qualms against the fathers responsibility to support the child.
Then you have nothing to say on this thread. But it's clear from what you said after this, that this statement is untrue; when the father did not
choose to father the child, then you do not believe he should be responsible for its support.
I am not in support of forcing a mother into any medical procedure that is against her wishes but instead say that if the mother were to have the
child disregarding the fathers wishes . . . then she should be the sole responsibilty for the childs financial welfare.
That would in effect place a penalty on refusing to abort a child. Since placing a penalty on not doing something is exactly the definition of
"forcing" a person to do them, you ARE in support of forcing a mother into a medical procedure against her wishes.
What is to say that nature forces men to take responsibility over the child.
Nature does not; reasonable human response to natural conditions does. It was those natural conditions I was referring to. By the nature of things,
a woman has a bigger stake and so, by law, a bigger say in whether a child is born than a man does. That's reality. Can't help it. Our laws
shouldn't try to deny it.
As for your assertion that it would be unwise to allow men to father children irresponsibly, what is to say that it is very responsible to have women
mother a child individually?
What I'm saying is that the results of requiring fathers to support their children, whether they wanted to father children or not, are less cruel and
inhumane than allowing them to deny such responsibility. It is much harder to support a child alone, than to provide a share in child support. And
requiring that a person support a child alone, hurts the child. That's wrong, and should not be done.
Do we not find women leaving their babies in trash cans and dumpsters across the US?
And you think that would decrease if you placed sole responsibility for support on the mother? It would not. It would increase. Abortions would
also increase, and while I am certainly in favor of abortion rights
, anything that increases pressure on pregnant women to actually have an
abortion is a bad idea.
About your statement that it is nature and thats the way the system works, I would like to remind you that this argument didnt stand in the way of
equality for women.
That's because there is nothing in the biological nature of women that prevents them from being able to vote intelligently, to do "men's work," to
hold government office, to serve in the military, to head corporations, etc., etc. But in matters of reproduction, obviously there ARE significant
biological differences. And there are a few other areas, too. We generally segregate sports competition, please note.
It's not that there are no biological differences between the sexes, but rather that many inequities existed in society that were in no way justified
by those differences.
I want to ask you a personal question here, and I will preface it with an answer as if the question were directed to me. I am paying child support
for two children.
Are you paying child support? Is this personal, or is it just theory?