Should men be legally obligated to support a child ..?

Question

that they did not want to have? if a woman is given reproductive rights , shouldn't a man also have these same rights? I know some people feel he should ave thought of that before he had sex, but then shouldnt a women have to think of the consequences before she has sex also. why is it fair that the woman determines whether the man will be a father or not. and for those that say its because the woman caries the child, then do you think it would be fair to have the fact that women carry children be held against them?

Personally I think any man that doesnt support a child he created is not a man at all, but my question is should he be LEGALLY responsible when he has no reproductive rights.

Rio, I never imploed the women acted iresponsilbly.

for those that mentioned condoms..they can break.
what Im getting at is that both men and woman should both be responsible for their actions, as it is now a woman has an out if she gets pregnant and is not ready to be a parent, but a man has no out. and yes i know a man can just chose not to have sex, but then so can a woman. and for those that said the child should not have to suffer I agree. the child shoudnt have to suffer because either parent was irresponsible.
thanks you for the answers so far.

Answer 1

I can't believe the sexism so obvious from the posts in this question.
So many claim to be in favor of equality but deny men the same legal rights as women have. Both can practice abstinence or contraception. Other than that, women have 4 additional options that are legally denied men (abortion, abandonment, adopting the baby out to others and keeping the child while demanding the father pay her).
Many seem to feel that if a man doesn't want to be a father he can 1) keep it in his pants while women who do not want to become parents can 1) abort; 2) adopt it out or; 3) abandon it.
Telling men to "keep it in their pants", when viewed with an eye toward equality, is tantamount to telling women they cannot abort a pregnancy because they should have "kept their legs closed".
Both parties should have equal ability to accept or deny becoming a parent. Without that, equality in reproduction is not possible (no surprise that feminists do not want equality).
The whole custody and child support thing is a total fiasco. Both parents should share (equally) custody and support of the children. Each parent should be allowed to have equal time to that of the other parent and provide support during the time the child was with them. That way, no money changes hands and the child is supported.

In response to those who think children cost so much as to offset the current child support calculations, the economy of scale provides that an additional person sharing the same or similar environment does not cost an equal share. Heat for example, cost no more to heat for an additional person other than the extra cost for an additional room, which is minimal.
Water, very little added usage, phone: no additional costs; etc. (The USDA has costs per person down to a science and it is nowhere near current child support guideline amounts for any state) "Child support" is simply a transfer of wealth from men to women because virtually all custodial parents are women.
Follow the money. The rest falls into place.

Answer 2

labsci may or may not have had an interesting idea with this
(the idea is interesting but I'm not sure if it is yours or mine)

"how do you determine whether he agreed to have the child or not? Unless it is in writing, it would be hard to prove one way or the other. And there would be a lot of men claiming they did not want the child, just to avoid making child support payments."

why don't we have a system were the father has to sign a form of contract to have any rights and responsibilities regarding the child give it a more restrictive time table then for abortion this dad has all the reproductive rights he needs without infringing on those of the mother

i don't know if this is feasible or not. what effects it would have on families and gender equality, so i present it for debate

Answer 3

Equal rights for both genders is a difficult issue here, because the woman has to carry the baby for 9 months. And not just that, the changes in her body are immense. Internal as well as external. Guys will never truly understand what its like to have a human being growing inside of you.

Personally, I believe that child is an extension of the woman's body until the cord is cut. But I know alot of people think otherwise (dont care). So there is a connection, so to speak, that a woman has with the child that the man cannot have. Not that a man cant have a deep connection with his child. Its just different, naturally.

Anyway, to answer your question- no, i dont think a man should be legally bound to support a child he created. But I believe its largely circumstantial, as well. I mean, if a man convinces a woman to have a child with him, but at the last minute changes his mind, thats not fair to the woman. Even if she wants the child, the intent was to raise it together. And so in a situation like that, a man should be forced to support the child. But it shouldnt be like a general rule that men have to support a child period- a judge should decide that in specific cases.

Answer 4

I believe that both the male and female should be obligated to support the child.

However, from an entirely legal viewpoint in the United States, this is my viewpoint:
After conception has occured, the mother still has rights to opt out of being a mother by having an abortion or to keep the child and be a mother.
I believe the father, for purposes of equality, should be given equal rights. While he has no say over the mother having an abortion, I believe he should be allowed to opt out of being a father just like the mother can.

An arguement saying as such was prepared for court last year:
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/03/09/activists_seek_to_let_fathers_opt_out_of_child_support/
I do not know if the case is ongoing or not or what the outcome was.

Answer 5

The reproductive rights you refer to in your question are access to safe and affordable birth control.

Men have reproductive rights. They can use condoms, get a vasectomy or engage in sexual behavior that does not result in pregnancy (there are sex acts other than vaginal intercourse, didn’t you know?).

The reason it appears women have more reproductive rights is because there are more birth control options for women to choose. All those options support only one reproductive right…the right to not get pregnant.

Child support is a different category. Child support is a responsibility that results only after a child is born.
I am actually in favor a legal document that enables a man to relinquish all rights and responsibility to his biological child. He would need to understand and agree to an absolute NO CONTACT rule for a minimum of 18 years.
This document should be signed prior to the birth of the child, so the mother would have time to arrange other means of financial support.

EDIT @Bill: Your argument about expenses is absurd – here’s why:

Rent - a woman with kids need an extra bedroom or two
Electric – kids turn on lights, TV, play electronic games
Heat – see Rent – bigger home, bigger heating bill
Water – you do want your kids to bathe and wear clean clothes, don’t you?
Sewer – Um, kids don’t use the toilet?

Answer 6

Yes I think child support should be obligatory if sex was consensual. Even if the father does not want the child. The mother, even with child support, will always be worse off, financially, due to not being able to work full time etc, especially early on in the child's life.
The father, on the other hand, can get on with his life and career, and just hand over the money to support his biological offspring.
The father will generally be better off. I don't know of anybody who separated, where the mother was better off, even with child support.
Also, how do you determine whether he agreed to have the child or not? Unless it is in writing, it would be hard to prove one way or the other. And there would be a lot of men claiming they did not want the child, just to avoid making child support payments.
I see your point, in that, if a man was somehow tricked into having sex with a woman, just so she could get pregnant - should he then be responsible? But how to prove it, especially afterwards.

Answer 7

I'm confused by what you are saying. Women were "given reproductive rights" by whom? By the law? Should we be extremely greatful for that? Should we just let the men have the babies and carry them to term too? According to the article below, this is probably technically possible. Personally I feel this is nonsense, but I just wanted to show you how far out this argument can get. Father mothers baby, then sues mom for child support. Why not? Then men would indeed have true reproductive rights.
To be real about it all, sex and conception are not necessarily under control of responsible people at all times, so some laws to provide for the welfare of each child are necessary.

I think the custodial parent should get some financial help from the non-custodial parent if needed and possible, and that parent should have access to the child (visitation rights) unless it can be proven that they are unfit. Parents who use children as hostages to torture each other, extort money or degrade the other parent in the eyes of their children, should be punished in some very significant way.

Answer 8

Yeah, he forgot a few extra expenses as well:

-Child care: Decent day care for infants can run in excess of $1,000 a month. She needs to work full-time if she's going to be paying for all of those "expenses she'd have anyway."

-Medical treatment: Scheduled doctor's office visits every few months, plus the 8-10 illnesses an infant has in its first year of life. Oops, that illness just struck at night, and baby has a fever of 104 degrees and is dehydrated. NOW you're talking a visit to the emergency room: add $4,000 of expenses in less than 3 hours.

-My rent almost doubled after my baby was born. I couldn't keep her in an unsafe building with no laundry facilities.

-Speaking of laundry facilities: Better add an extra $100 a month for hot water or for laundromat fees. This is doubled if she's using cloth diapers.

-Baby equipment/crap. Crib, mattress, mattress cover, sheets, bumper pads, bassinet, toddler bed, play pen, stroller, breast pump (or bottle equipment), high chair, toys, etc., etc., etc...

-Speaking of bottle equipment: Your "food" estimate is way too low if she's formula feeding. A small can of formula costs about $14 and will last only a few days.

Oh, and to answer the question: child support is NOT under the category of reproductive rights. Yes, he should be legally obligated.

Answer 9

As the old saying goes: "No glove no love." A man is just as much in control of reproduction as a woman. I even know of men who want no kids at all ... ever. So, they had vasectomies. For that reason, I think that both the mother and the father have a legal obligation to support the child.

Answer 10

In this case, at least in the state of Ohio, you can go and sign away your rights. Then you are no longer obligated, however, you are no longer considered the legal parent. And you have no legal rights to the child. The man has reproductive rights, he can use birth control to prevent the pregnancy. God bless****