If it is all about women's choice, why do they come after men for child support?

Question

They freely gave up the booty, they get to decided (despite what the man might want) to either have or murder the unborn child. IMHO, if that is the way it is, men should not be liable for child support unless they actually married the girl. I am sick of the catch 22.

I have 12 kids. The ones with the wife I support. The feminazi can go take a long walk off a short pier before they ever see a cent from me.

Answer 1

feminist has to have it both ways...

Answer 2

The man gave it up just as much as the woman did, so he should have to help support the child he just made. If you think child support is bad, try carrying a baby inside your stomach for 9 months and then being responsible not just for the monetary support of the child but also other support. The mother (or whoever has custody) has to care for a crying baby, change diapers, care for the baby 24 hours a day. And when the child gets older, she has to fix meals, get them off to school in the morning and provide love and caring. If you think a few bucks out of your paycheck is bad, try raising a child all by yourself, without the father in the home. It is no walk in the park. But, I will tell you, I do not request nor get child support from my son's father. It matters more to me that he is involved in his life and helps take care of him when I need him to. Men need to consider themselves lucky if all they have to do is pay some money each month and quit whining.
Addition: If you have 12 kids you need to learn the definition of the words "birth control" or keep it in your pants.

Answer 3

Women have been taught that it is ok to go out and have sex and make babies. It is a LIVING to them. 95% of women who have children are NOT ABLE to support them, but that doesn't STOP them from having them. All decisions belong to the woman, and SHE is the ONE who should be held responsible. A man should not have to pay because a woman wants a child and his money. I also think that if a man has child while married to mother, and have a say in the decisions concerning the child, then yes, he should have to HELP support the child. But unwed mothers, should have to provide 100% of the care and cost and maybe then we could get the welfare costs to the taxpayer's down, the number of abusied and unwanted children down, and the number of unwed mother's down. If they can't get 'paid' they will stop getting pregnant.

Man are being used as women are using having children as a means for money. The laws need to be changed. They need to be harsher towards the mothers, who can't provide for their child. I am feed up with having to support these children, and it is NOT the father's fault as he as ZERO input or rights.

Answer 4

Why do people put a price tag on a child and feel they have a right to take that life away from someone who they created before that life has had a chance to live? ABORTION is not about ANYONES RIGHTS except the innocent child's RIGHTS inside waiting to be born.

AND YOU just said it... YOU have 12 kids.. and that means all 12 of them, not just the ones you chose to be the lucky ones with your wife now... Those other kids don't have a choice of whether or not you like their mother... They only have YOU to be able to call their real father!!! Why take your hate out on the results of YOUR OWN mistakes?

Answer 5

I agree with you to a point...

As I said in response to a previous question: Men do get the short end of the stick. Before someone comments by saying that non-custodial mothers also have to pay child support- Yes, I am aware of this. However, our system here in the U.S. favors the mother and exhausts every effort in an attempt to ensure that the biological mother retains custody.

That being said, my opinion is that men should be given the same "get out of jail free" card that women are given (abortion, safe-haven laws, etc...) and that it should last for the same time period. In other words, a woman has x-amount of time to have an abortion. Depending upon the state, a woman has x-amount of time (from the moment of birth up to the limit allowed by law) to basically abandon her child at a designated location (such as a hospital or fire station). Well, a man should have x-amount of time to forfeit all rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES connected to the care of his child.

Not many people agree with me when I express my opinions regarding this issue. People have said, "But the woman has to carry the child." Sorry, but I don't see how that has anything to do with, well, ANYTHING. So women carry children- What's the point? Men should have to be obligated simply because they don't carry children? I don't think so. I'm not trying to sound harsh- Yes, I know the children need care. But why should women be permitted to shirk caring for their children any more than men?

And, just for the record, abortion isn't just about one's own body. Most women have abortions because they don't want children. For the most part, it usually isn't a matter of the pregnancy itself. To suggest otherwise is to claim that women are having abortions simply because they don't want to endure the pregnancy- That's it- No concerns about motherhood. HOW RIDICULOUS! There are exceptions, I know (i.e. when a woman's/baby's life is at stake). Abortion usually involves nothing more than women wanting a quick way to eradicate responsibilities that they don't want.

Furthermore, abortion isn't the end all be all of choice. As mentioned above, there are safe-haven laws which allow women to abandon their babies. Additionally, a woman can easily give her baby up for adoption without paternal consent. She need only claim to have no knowledge of who the father might be. Sure, it'll make her look like a wh*re, but she can definitely do as such. Women's choices extend far beyond abortion. To an extent, the law welcomes women avoiding parental responsibility. In my opinion, our justice system should either focus more upon the children than the parents or grant men the same opportunity as women to shirk responsibility. As childish as this may sound, fair is fair.

And, NO, I am NOT saying that abortion should be outlawed altogether. I believe that abortion should only be permitted in the following circumstances:
1) health/life of the woman/baby is at risk,
2) rape
3) with the consent of the father.

Sorry, but those of you who speak of women being forced to have abortions are missing the point. How does a woman being forced to have an abortion have anything to do with the fact that most abortions are the result of a woman's choice to avoid motherhood? And what does this have to do with the fact that men have no choices at all? Frankly, there isn't a woman in the United States who is forced into abortion (unless, perhaps, you consider life and death situations). But, regardless, as I said, women have choices whereas men DON'T.

Oh, I'm sorry... I forgot- Men have the choice to "keep it in their pants." And this means exactly WHAT? Women have the choice to keep their "goods" in their pants as well. And, to be blunt, women are the most irresponsible- knowing that they will be burdened with almost a year of pregnancy and yet still willing to lay down with men.

To shorten my answer, I'll leave you with this- According to current laws here in the U.S., women ultimately have the choice as to whether or not to have children. So, therefore, in my opinion, women should be held entirely responsible for their children.

Answer 6

Good point, I agree.
If the guy is does not get to be part of the solution, then he should not be held liable for the outcome.
Also agreed this applies only to single men and women, not married.

The "assumed father because legally married" clause has to go. If you are married and she has someone Else's kid, why should the non-father be held responsible simply because he was married to the unfaithful woman? To many times a guy gets stuck with child support for someone Else's kid because he "assumes" fatherhood. Why not, it's his wife right?

Answer 7

Well I agree with you about having no choice in the woman's decision to have an abortion. His parents might want the child, or he himself. However, if the child is born, it took his sperm to create it. If the woman is brave enough to keep the child and let it be born, which I applaud, then he should take his share of responsibility for the act of creating it.

Answer 8

You're right it is f'ed...but in my opinion it's messed up because I can't MAKE a woman carry my baby to term. Where are my rights on my 50% of the DNA?

As for men not being liable for support...that's BS. You made that baby. My beef is with me having no ability to affect her decision to keep it. If she wants to keep it and I don't...too bad for me. Time to pay.

Answer 9

Consider it this way. If they made having an abortion ILLEGAL, then even MORE men would have to pony up and pay child support. At least this way the choice exists to NOT have the baby and that saves the man from having to actually be financially responsible. If you don't want to have to support your offspring, then you should be fighting FOR the right to choose, not against it, genius.

Answer 10

I believe its both parents choice, but ultimately the choice falls to the mother because the baby is living inside her body...and child support is not fun but if you want your child to live a healthy happy life, you should help out the mother of your child...

Answer 11

The man is responsible because he is expected by society to act as a man.....anyone that believes their own father didnt make sacrifices to raise them is living in a dream world