If women who decide to keep a child against the wishes of the father can claim child support from him if and if he doesn't pay he is not responsible...
How about women who decide to have an abortion against the wishes of the father stop being irresponsible and pay child support adjusted for their income/experience to the government for children whose mother is on welfare rather than child support?
2007-01-17 15:57:48 · 17 answers · asked by Happy Bullet 3 in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Imagine if people were to actually get married to a person before they copulated. Everything before getting married would include making sure you know each other well, know each other's family well...and were mature enough to plan your parenting. This would solve the problems of 'bastard' children, and abortions. Sounds boring and too calcualting...the Bible is full of planned marriages, and bastards...abortions were not mentioned, but there were people who offered their children to Molech. That was a metal god that would be super heated, then they would place their baby on the cradling arms of Molech...and watch their own flesh and blood burn. Abortion is taking a life...life is something we have no right to take.
2007-01-17 16:48:25 · answer #1 · answered by Jalapinomex 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Sounds plausible. I have an even better idea, if the father who got the woman pregnant wants her to have an abortion, they have to bite the head clean off the fetus. It would be no less barbaric, in nature the males eat their young if they feel they can't survive, and if you are going to be animals, why be sqeaumish. Yes, women use men to get pregnant, that's what they are PROGRAMMED to do by natural selection/Darwinism. That's why they are "turned on" by wealthy men, or men who at least appear wealthy or socially dominant, as the most likely to be good providers. (Yeah, I spoiled the romance, so sue me :P ). No one should be on welfare and not doing anything, they only thing they shouldn't be doing is drugs, if they fail a random drug test, lose a welfare check. Controlling what they can buy with teh food program was a step in the right direction. I have an even more drastic suggestion, give people on welfare amnesty during harvest season, for the brief week or two, if they are willing to work in the fields/orchards (I did and it didn't kill me, yes I wore a hat), it would give them cash in their pocket, they would have a work history/job reference, and maybe even a sense of pride in having earned it? And the owners would have no excuse about needing illegal immigrants to guarrantee a food supply. If people in this country went hungry, they would take an intrest in either growing their own food if possible, or paying the source of the food, not the middlemen, more money for it. In reality, illegal immigrants are the modern form of slavery, every bit as dispicable a practice as the last kind. And neither party has effectively lead on this issue yet. I don't like abortion, I do not support taxpayer-funding of birth control for lazy or ignorant people. I also believe that most people who have an abortion and then never have anymore kids turn into the crazy old cat lady who steals childrens toys from their yards after dark.
2007-01-17 16:12:23 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
I think equality is this:
It takes 2 to create it, it takes 2 to abort it, it takes 2 to put it up for adoption, it takes 2 to raise it, it takes 2 to support it.
How does that happen? Well, fist make it illegal to abort a child without consent of both parents - she has a pretty good idea who the daddy is, and paternity tests can be performed during pregnancy. He won't sign? - the baby doesn't die. (Women are using abortions as birth control...and we are paying for them. Medicaid will pay for abortions if it is a health issue to the woman - the abortionist uses "extreme mental stress" as the health issue that has gets welfare to pay.
maybe single men or single women should not be allowed to keep their "bastard" children without proper mental, physical and financial resources. I wonder how many single parents would pass strict tests that show them really capable of raising a child on their own.
Maybe assign joint physical custody and mandate that the parents live within so many miles of each other- with no child support - she pays for her time, he pays for his.
Used to be shameful to have a "bastard" out of wedlock. That was not such a bad thing. People were more careful.
It takes 2 - equal contributions from start to finish
2007-01-17 16:17:09 · answer #3 · answered by martiismyname 3 · 4⤊ 2⤋
Because a dead child does not cause costs. The father IS co-responsible for creating the child and has a social obligation to support the child. The woman in your example killed her child; she already pays taxes that support the welfare mother.
2007-01-17 16:17:04 · answer #4 · answered by kingstubborn 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
I don't believe in abortion first of all.
However, I think that abortion should be the choice between the mother and father. To put your baby up for adoption, both parents have to agree and sign. Men are sometimes just treated as the "sperm donor" these days. Most psychologists agree that both the mother and father roll is equally important in a child's life.
2007-01-17 16:02:32 · answer #5 · answered by Peanut Butter 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
it fairly is not approximately women's rights or adult males's rights. I accept as true with you that the two are the two in charge for beginning administration, and if slightly one is born, they have been the two in charge for being stupid and having unprotected intercourse. yet it isn't the element that new child help revolves around. the reason in the back of new child help is that the new child desires to consume. And it fairly is the accountability of the two between the human beings who helped make that infant to furnish for his/her desires. it is so trouble-free as that.
2016-10-31 10:10:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
What? What do you mean? That women who have abortions should pay the government child support payments? seriously, you are getting crazier every day.
With your previous postings, aren't you advocating women to have abortions so that they dont have to get child support from the father? now you are saying that abortions are irresponsible? which one do you really advocate here?
2007-01-17 16:15:24 · answer #7 · answered by Minerva 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Abortion is wrong and so neither a man nor a woman has a right to choose to end life. If the child is born, both parents need to provide for the child, that's why there is child support. If the child has been aborted, there is no need for child support when the child is deceased.
2007-01-17 16:06:33 · answer #8 · answered by Sarah C 2 · 3⤊ 4⤋
"...women who decide to have an abortion against the wishes of the father..."
The man who impregnated the woman NEEDN'T know ...why complicate things further? ESPECIALLY if he's some kind of Nazi...brrrrr....I wouldn't wish that one on my worst enemy!
TO REITERATE: Any man not desiring fatherhood and obcessed with this 'problem' MAY choose to:
1. Keep his pecker in his pants
2. Wear a condom. Paranoid men may wear several at once
3. Get a vasectomy; they're done right at the doc's office AND they're reversible!
2007-01-17 16:53:59 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 3⤋
Because men are not supposed to have sex outside a brothel or in a place where they can be traced back, unless they want children with that woman. Gee I dont get it if you want sex go to a brothel, go to Germany or Thailand W/E and date girls who want to wait with sex till marriage. The laws are the way they are. Act accordingly. If she has a problem with her man going to prostitutes, well, tough luck.
2007-01-18 02:28:23 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋