As long as abortion is legal, then child support laws are inherently sexist and unconstitutional. What do I mean? Well, according to the pro-abortionist argument, the woman has the entire say in whether or not the child is born. The fact that the man was 50% responsible for conceiving that life makes no difference. He has zero legal say in whether or not his own child is brought into this world or killed by the mother. Because her body always makes it exclusively her decision. Now, Ive heard some pro-aborts say that they agree that if a woman decides to keep a child that the man should not be required to pay child support because the decision was hers. But these people are usually referring to unplanned pregnancies. My point is that, if were going to be logically consistent here, it shouldnt matter whether the pregnancy was planned or unplanned. If a couple has been married for 12 years and has a child together and then they decide to get divorced, there is still no logical argument for why the man should pay any kind of child support. Because technically, according to the pro-abort argument, they never decided to have a child in the first place. Only she did. So she should not be able to collect any money from him whatsoever after their divorce. Because he never really had any say in the matter.
Which proves once again that Anti-Choicers care nothing for actual living children. If they did they would expect men to take personal responsibility and support their children instead of giving them an excuse to crawl away on their cowardly irresponsible bellies.... Anti-Choicers don't know "child support" is about the care of children...the young children not the "father" who acts like a child....
In law child support is vested in the child... its not about punishing anyone... In fact the truth is that some women pay child support. The reason that child support is vested in the child is because the state doesn't want to pay to raise your children.
Sorry, you can't play this card. If the law was concerned with the child, abortion wouldn't be legal in the first place. Try again. Nice try. You're trying to cover up your own sexism here. You want the men to sit back and have no say in whether or not their own child lives or dies but still be legally required to pay money to raise that child that the woman had sole choice over whether it was even born. This is pure misandry. Or if you're not familiar with that word, it means anti-male sexism. I thought "women's rights" was supposed to be about equality, not preferential treatment.
"""You want the men to sit back and have no say in whether or not their own child lives or dies but still be legally required to pay money to raise that child that the woman had sole choice over whether it was even born.""" YUPPERS! Although men can obviously have a say, it isn't their decision. Why should they get a chance to decide when they don't want to pay for the support of the kid??? Which proves once again that Anti-Choicers care nothing for actual living children. If they did they would expect men to take personal responsibility and support their children instead of giving them an excuse to crawl away on their cowardly irresponsible bellies.... Anti-Choicers don't know "child support" is about the care of children...the young children not the "father" who acts like a child.... Uterus envy is so pathetic.....
they shoudnt in fact since a man owns his sperm a woman should have to have him sign off b4 its become a baby
He may be 50% responsible for the conception, but just how much responsibility does he have for the pregnancy? Once there is a live birth there is an independent sentient person which is recognized by your constitution, this is not the case prior to the birth. A fathers rights in pregnancy are directly proportional to the extent of his physical involvement, which is zero. You are trying to make apples into oranges. simple really once a pregnancy comes to term and there is a live birth, the born baby is a person under the USA constitution, prior to that birth, no matter how much you wish it wasn't true, it is not recognized as a person and falls under the sole guardianship of the woman. Once born the state has a vested interest in ensuring both parents pay towards the upbringing of the BORN child, unless of course you want to see the welfare budget rise sharply .. would that make you happy?
are you implying that abortionist or anti abortionist are the only ones who make the laws regarding abortion?
That's fine with me, if he wants to sign away all parental rights and be barred from seeing the child (so long as they are a minor and still in the custody of the other parent) then by all means, let it happen. I can't see many men giving up their parental rights to their child after so many years of fathering them though.
That's incorrect. If this was the case, because abortion is legal, there would be no laws regarding children at all. Since that's obviously not true, and since abortion being legal does not equal a lack of interest in children by the state, the error in logic here is yours.
Men should never have to pay any child support. The notion that they should is a silly tradition. It is unfair, ignorant, stupid, and defies logic and common sense. Only females produce kids. Men do not. Therefore it is a female problem.
Unifier is correct. The law is discriminatory, requiring men to be responsible for their sexual activity, but not requiring the same from women. Women get to "opt out" after the fact, but men do not. Just another example of how "equality" actually means "reverse discrimination".
Agreed. If the female elects to have a child and the male wanted an abortion, the male should be absolved of fiscal responsibility. I don't see this all the way to removing the right to an abortion for a female.
Well, they had to make it some way, so they made it that way. There would be too much disputation if each one was a case by case basis.
