Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
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.
Incorrect, I talk of the choices before birth and the responsibilities that are to be changed before birth. I totally agree with the need for child
welfare but throttling the living for the sake of someone yet to live is not fair.
I believe that women should show greater judgement in their decision to bear children by respecting the rights of the father "after" procreation.
Today, advances in contraceptives allow for this to happen, antediluvian ideals aside.
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.
Again Incorrect, a penalty would be to first pay the man for emotional trauma and the rights to use his sperm for a child and then bear the cost of
the child’s welfare on her own. That would be a 'penalty'. But it still wouldn’t force her into abortion as she would still be able to put the
baby up for adoption and breakeven financially. While it wouldn’t be the same for men, who one fine day would be informed of their responsibilities
without any choice in the matter all the while allowing the woman to sponge off the man's commitment towards the child for her selfishness in
satisfying her womanhood.
So by asking the man to pay for the child, the legal system would in effect be condoning the woman’s selfishness and punishing the man.
Let us also not be under some delusion that the woman takes no pleasure out of sex. As in most cases the woman, as has an equal if not greater share
of the pleasure.
Nature does not; reasonable human response to natural conditions does. It was those natural conditions I was referring to.
Doesn’t reasonable human response to natural condition cover respecting the wishes of the father? OR is reasonable response only expected from men?
Let us not delude ourselves any longer by claiming that a woman would be little more than a silent spectator to the events of sexual union or she
would in someway unaware of what she is getting into. Let us come to admit that today, sex is not mainly about procreation as nature would want it but
rather a sensuous act that seeks to satisfy lust/love (call it what you will!) Than any other sanctimonious precept that we would like to believe.
Though this is not to say that ultimately procreation is not desirable after a certain stage but to brand that all sex is simply meant for procreation
would not only be naive but also exhibit that some of us would have only a selective equity that helps compensate for our disadvantages while giving
up none of our advantages.
These are the natural conditions that we should be 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.
What bigger stake ? Again I pose the question; Does 9 months of gestation entitle a woman a greater claim over the child ? If so, will having an IVF
on a surrogate mother make the woman give up her dominant claim ?
The reality of the situation is that women can give birth and being able to do so cannot take their partners hostage financially just so that they may
be able to give into their womanly vanity.
Just as the law provides adequate safegaurd for women who have been 'deserted' by their partners, so too should the law take into account the
potential of women to 'throttle' their partners into a 'forced' commitment through deception and misinformation.
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.
Cruel to whom? To the child, who was in the first place a mere pawn of a woman’s subterfuge to extort money/commitment from the father in the first
place? Or is it cruel to the father who is thrust with the burden of providing a ridiculous sum as financial support and more importantly the
emotional burden of having a child they will hardly get to see; while he knows he can never pay the support that is desired of him, forcing him
steadily into penury and debt and ending abruptly with bankruptcy and finally with suicide?
Isn’t it cruel that the woman gets rewarded for destroying 2 lives for the sake of her own vanity?
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.
True, the child is affected by single parenting. Isn’t this all the more reason for the not to be a child in the first place without a firm family
set up? Isn’t it the duty of the woman to ensure that her child will have a father who is there for the child? Or does getting checks in the mail
compensate for a father?
Because of this problem, I feel that a woman should be persuaded against pregnancy until she is fully sure of the child’s emotional and financial
security. But as they seem to be incapable of doing so and respecting their partner’s wishes, I feel that legal guarantees should be enforced to
deter woman from getting pregnant without the support of their partners.
And you think that would decrease if you placed sole responsibility for support on the mother? It would not. It would increase.
I would disagree. Women would refrain from getting pregnant unilaterally, i.e. without the support of their partners, as they would realize that if
they go through with it, the onus to look after the child would lie with them alone and thus unless they were fully prepared to care for the child,
they wouldn’t be too eager to get pregnant. It would discourage single parenting and promote the number of family units.
You could argue that men could then shirk responsibility but responsibility goes both ways and today with contraceptives and modern medicine pregnancy
is always optional.
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.
Again, women wouldnt need to get an abortion if they were disinclined to do so. They can always give the child up for adoption if they are unable to
care for it themselves, thereby giving the child a better chance and future.
This is traumatic I agree but as the interest of the child comes first, it would only be proper to let the child have a good home rather than one
where the child lives with a single parent and lives of child support.
That's because there is nothing in the biological nature of women that prevents them from being able to vote intelligently,................ to serve
in the military,..........., etc.
Vote intelligently yes but how would you explain women in the military if they were prone to menstruational cramps and such? Can you postpone war
because all your pilots are on maternity leave? Or how would you explain women construction workers who though physically weaker still get work there
despite there being better qualified men to do this?
It is because of legislation and the understanding of society to integrate women into the workplace despite their shortcomings that such things are
allowed. Similarly we must not ignore their advantages and today, with the emphasis on total equity of the sexes, I would think the inequity with
respect to men couldn’t be ignored.