NationStates Jolt Archive

You say that the only way for men to be sure that they don't have a child is to abstain from sex. Well guess what, the same goes for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me why you argue that the choice to have sex does not equal the acceptance of a child for a woman, but does so for a man.

And I know many, many people who have wished to god that they had had abortions. Most of the children in these homes wish their parents had as well.
You're correct. The ONLY way for a woman to be SURE she does not have a child is to abstain. Abortions are botched. Sometimes pregnancies are not noticed in time.

Meanwhile, BOTH parents agreed upon deciding to have sex to care for a child if a child results. With the abortion, no child results. Your paper abortion does something that has never been a right, ever. It gives a parent the ability to ignore the rights of the child and single-handedly absolve themselves of responsibility to the child. An abortion does nothing like this.

You say that the only way for men to be sure that they don't have a child is to abstain from sex. Well guess what, the same goes for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me why you argue that the choice to have sex does not equal the acceptance of a child for a woman, but does so for a man.

And I know many, many people who have wished to god that they had had abortions. Most of the children in these homes wish their parents had as well.
well no, a woman can avoid having a child by having an abortion (if her health and moral compass alows it)

if she wants to for sure avoid getting PREGNANT, she needs to avoid sex. at least that kind of sex that leads to pregnancy.

there is no free ride for pregnant women, all choices are difficult, all choices can end up ruining her life, health, reputation. they can in fact end up costing her her life.

not so for a man eh? poor thing might have to forgo his daily venti latte at starbucks so he can pay the $300 a month he might end up having to pay in child support.

now pay close attention

if there is a baby at the end of the story BOTH PARENTS have legal rights and responsibilites TO THE CHILD. not to each other. they cannot waive their rights to the child without some kind of legal process. they cannot unilaterally decide ANYTHING about the baby. the mother cannot hand over the baby to the unwilling father to raise all on his own. the father cannot hand over the baby to the unwilling mother to raise all on her own. the CHILD'S rights must be considered and the child's rights are what keep both of them paying child support no matter how unwilling they might be to do so. there are not 2 people in this story there are 3.

To begin with, I am against abortion. Snuffing out an innocent life because he or she was merely inconvinient is, in my opinion, tantamount to murder. I am of course, a conservative with a mildly liberal tinge.

As long as abortion is legal, however, I don't think a man can force a woman to have one. Whether to murder the foetus or not is entirely her decision to make, since, at the time, the child is indeed a part of her body. If the man does not want to raise the child, he can waive his responsibilities to it. Both decisions cause varying degrees of harm to the other side, theoretically more to the woman - but practically all law works this way, and it cannot be helped.

Frankly though, both are stupid situations to discuss. If the woman did not want the kid, why did she not use birth control? If the man did not want the kid, why wasn't he careful enough? Speaking for myself, I beleive that love, sex and family all come in one package - you have sex with a woman only if you love her, and are willing to start a family with her.

But then, old school traditions went out of vogue a long time ago.

To begin with, I am against abortion. Snuffing out an innocent life because he or she was merely inconvinient is, in my opinion, tantamount to murder. I am of course, a conservative with a mildly liberal tinge.

As long as abortion is legal, however, I don't think a man can force a woman to have one. Whether to murder the foetus or not is entirely her decision to make, since, at the time, the child is indeed a part of her body. If the man does not want to raise the child, he can waive his responsibilities to it. Both decisions cause varying degrees of harm to the other side, theoretically more to the woman - but practically all law works this way, and it cannot be helped.

Frankly though, both are stupid situations to discuss. If the woman did not want the kid, why did she not use birth control? If the man did not want the kid, why wasn't he careful enough? Speaking for myself, I beleive that love, sex and family all come in one package - you have sex with a woman only if you love her, and are willing to start a family with her.

But then, old school traditions went out of vogue a long time ago.
Few problems with this. One, birth control does not absolutely prevent pregnancy. Two, you make no stipulations for the child in your 'all law works this way' rant. Child support is not paid to the woman, it is paid to the child.

To begin with, I am against abortion. Snuffing out an innocent life because he or she was merely inconvinient is, in my opinion, tantamount to murder. I am of course, a conservative with a mildly liberal tinge.

As long as abortion is legal, however, I don't think a man can force a woman to have one. Whether to murder the foetus or not is entirely her decision to make, since, at the time, the child is indeed a part of her body. If the man does not want to raise the child, he can waive his responsibilities to it. Both decisions cause varying degrees of harm to the other side, theoretically more to the woman - but practically all law works this way, and it cannot be helped.

Frankly though, both are stupid situations to discuss. If the woman did not want the kid, why did she not use birth control? If the man did not want the kid, why wasn't he careful enough? Speaking for myself, I beleive that love, sex and family all come in one package - you have sex with a woman only if you love her, and are willing to start a family with her.

But then, old school traditions went out of vogue a long time ago.

About 60% of women that have abortions were using some form of birth control. (Unfortunately, many used unreliable methods or used the birth control method incorrectly.)

And many women who have abortions are married and over half of all women that have abortions have a child already.

So much for your stereotypes.

You say that the only way for men to be sure that they don't have a child is to abstain from sex. Well guess what, the same goes for a woman.

You have yet to explain to me why you argue that the choice to have sex does not equal the acceptance of a child for a woman, but does so for a man.

And I know many, many people who have wished to god that they had had abortions. Most of the children in these homes wish their parents had as well.
lets do a different scenario (courtesy of jocabia)

suppose a nice (but obviously misguided) catholic couple find themselves unmarried but expecting a child. for some reason, they are not going to get married. in fact they now despise each other (big fight over missing church on the feast of the assumption). they despise each other so much that the father of this baby-to-be wants nothing to do with it. if he werent a (kinda) good catholic he would suggest she get an abortion but since he IS a (kinda) good catholic he demands that she give birth but give the baby up for adoption.

she says NO, she is going to have the baby and KEEP IT! should he be allowed to do a "paper abortion" (obviously cant be called THAT) and walk away leaving her to raise the baby without any child support from him? after all she is FORCING him to be a father by willfully not putting the baby up for adoption.

Anyone notice that anti-abortion people are supporting a law that would coerce women into having abortions. How does one advocate such a thing when you claim that abortion is murder?

"It's murder! But hey, since people sometimes murder anyway, might as well encourage them to kill a few more and punish the one's who won't murder with raising a child alone."

Makes you wonder if the argument about abortion is really about 'murder' or more about enslaving women. Can't enslave them one way, let's enslave them another way (or as much as we can get away with).

yes, it has always seemed to me that it stems from being mad at women for exercising sexual freedom. the baby is the punishment she deserves for "spreading her legs"

consider how often the antiabortion poster is fixated on the notion that a woman having an abortion MUST be a slut out fucking a different man every night of the week. she is never a 15 year old girl who got pregnant the first time she had sex with her 16 year old boyfriend. she is never the mother of 3 children whose health and finances cant stand one more child in the family.

lets do a different scenario (courtesy of jocabia)

suppose a nice (but obviously misguided) catholic couple find themselves unmarried but expecting a child. for some reason, they are not going to get married. in fact they now despise each other (big fight over missing church on the feast of the assumption). they despise each other so much that the father of this baby-to-be wants nothing to do with it. if he werent a (kinda) good catholic he would suggest she get an abortion but since he IS a (kinda) good catholic he demands that she give birth but give the baby up for adoption.

she says NO, she is going to have the baby and KEEP IT! should he be allowed to do a "paper abortion" (obviously cant be called THAT) and walk away leaving her to raise the baby without any child support from him? after all she is FORCING him to be a father by willfully not putting the baby up for adoption.

Well that all depends. If he knew before they broke up and was willing to support the child then, then no he shouldn't. Because he has already entered into an agreement that he will, in fact, support this child. However, if he finds out after the couple has broken up, then yes, he should be permitted to get a paper abortion.

From the LA Times (http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-daum10dec10,0,5842196.column?coll=la-news-comment-opinions):

If men participate in the conception of a fetus, and they're later held responsible for it, shouldn't they have a say in it as well?

I agree; fathers should have a say in abortion or no-abortion as well.

I find it so interesting that the people who are unsupportive of these "paper abortions" instantly blame the father for any misfortunes the child may have. It is the mother's choice to have the child against the wishes of the father. Therefore, any misfortune that happens to that child is the fault of the mother. Not the father. He made his views clear. It is the mother, NOT the father who is not considering the child. No man should be beholden to another human being (even a child) because some woman has a fetish for motherhood. No child should be forced to live a life of misery because their mother made a choice AGAINST the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child never entered her head when she chose to have that baby. Her religion, or her personal distaste for abortion, or her sudden predilection to motherhood was what was going on in her head. Because if that 15 year old girl, or that mother of three or that woman who found out a month after her boyfriend broke up with her was really thinking about the best interests of the child, she'd either have a fucking abortion before there was a child to think about or give it to the state.

Don't give me crap about a woman's piety with regard to abortion, unless you're giving the same consideration to a man. And don't tell me that these women are in it for the best interests of their child, because they're not. They're in it for themselves. For whatever reason.

Well that all depends. If he knew before they broke up and was willing to support the child then, then no he shouldn't. Because he has already entered into an agreement that he will, in fact, support this child. However, if he finds out after the couple has broken up, then yes, he should be permitted to get a paper abortion.

He entered into the agreement, when he had sex. It is inherent to the act. You agree to care for a child should one result. Both people do.

A man is aware that he does not have a womb and therefore cannot get pregnant when he has sex. This awareness includes an understanding that he cannot control the pregnancy. You cannot claim otherwise.

I find it so interesting that the people who are unsupportive of these "paper abortions" instantly blame the father for any misfortunes the child may have. It is the mother's choice to have the child against the wishes of the father. Therefore, any misfortune that happens to that child is the fault of the mother. Not the father. He made his views clear. It is the mother, NOT the father who is not considering the child. No man should be beholden to another human being (even a child) because some woman has a fetish for motherhood. No child should be forced to live a life of misery because their mother made a choice AGAINST the best interests of the child. The best interests of the child never entered her head when she chose to have that baby. Her religion, or her personal distaste for abortion, or her sudden predilection to motherhood was what was going on in her head. Because if that 15 year old girl, or that mother of three or that woman who found out a month after her boyfriend broke up with her was really thinking about the best interests of the child, she'd either have a fucking abortion before there was a child to think about or give it to the state.

Instantly blame the father? Is requiring both people to care for the child blaming the father? Expecting the exact same thing from both parents is blaming the father? How so?

That abortion you seem to think she should have to get can kill the woman or cause her to be sterile among a plethora of other complications. Your inability to consider this does not change the fact that a man AND a woman agree to care for a child if one should result in the event a child should come to exist. You fail to see that you are placing FAR MORE responsibility on the woman simply because she has a womb.

Don't give me crap about a woman's piety with regard to abortion, unless you're giving the same consideration to a man. And don't tell me that these women are in it for the best interests of their child, because they're not. They're in it for themselves. For whatever reason.
No one is saying abortion is pious. I personally don't agree with abortion. My personal feelings about abortion aside, I'm an interested in protecting the interests of the child, you know that little creature you want to pretend doesn't matter. That child has rights and you can rail all you want, but those rights are protected and one of them is the right to care from BOTH parents. When you can give me a sane reason why the child's rights can be abridged simply because a new procedure that has nothing to do with the child was invented, then I'll consider the position? Right now, you just seem pissed that a woman has the ability to lift the responsibilities from the male and may not choose to do so (which of course is no different than denying an adoption was before abortion was available).

Well that all depends. If he knew before they broke up and was willing to support the child then, then no he shouldn't. Because he has already entered into an agreement that he will, in fact, support this child. However, if he finds out after the couple has broken up, then yes, he should be permitted to get a paper abortion.
thanks for the response.

so you feel that when voluntary sex results in pregnancy only the woman has no choice but to deal with it. (no way around that one eh?) in your mind the man really should be free to walk away as long as he declares it as soon as he finds out that the woman is pregnant. his only responsibility is to decide if he chooses to have responsibility.

you feel that a mans right to be irresponsible for the results of his freely chosen actions is more important than the rights of a child to the support of both parents.


ok.

Instantly blame the father? Is requiring both people to care for the child blaming the father? Expecting the exact same thing from both parents is blaming the father? How so?

That abortion you seem to think she should have to get can kill the woman or cause her to be sterile among a plethora of other complications. Your inability to consider this does not change the fact that a man AND a woman agree to care for a child if one should result in the event a child should come to exist. You fail to see that you are placing FAR MORE responsibility on the woman simply because she has a womb.


No one is saying abortion is pious. I personally don't agree with abortion. My personal feelings about abortion aside, I'm an interested in protecting the interests of the child, you know that little creature you want to pretend doesn't matter. That child has rights and you can rail all you want, but those rights are protected and one of them is the right to care from BOTH parents. When you can give me a sane reason why the child's rights can be abridged simply because a new procedure that has nothing to do with the child was invented, then I'll consider the position? Right now, you just seem pissed that a woman has the ability to lift the responsibilities from the male and may not choose to do so (which of course is no different than denying an adoption was before abortion was available).

Well for all that you crap on about it, obviously the man doesn't agree to care for a child if one results, since he in these situations states quite clearly that he wants nothing to do with it.

I am sick and tired of you acting like I am the one not caring for the best interests of the child. That would be the woman who chose to have it, knowing full well that she couldn't care for it adequately without assistance. As far as I am concerned, abortion is available, it is legal. It shows great selflessness to ignore your maternal instinct because you know that at the present time you are incapable of caring for a child without creating a burden for anyone else, and choosing to act in the best interests of the child and ensure that it is not born. It is not in the best interest of the child to be born into a world where a person who is supposed to love them, considers them a burden, considers them to have ruined their life. Women who make the difficult choice to put aside their maternal instinct and do what is in actual fact best for everyone INCLUDING the child, are to be applauded. They are making a difficult decision, one which I have taken steps to ensure I never have to make.

And why oh why, is it that a woman should not be "punished" for choosing to have sex, by being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but a man should by having his life ruined. I don't know many women who would go out with a man who is paying child support to a child that he has nothing to do with, that was born out of a drunken roll in the hay, or a month long relationship or a first sexual encounter when he was 16. Why should a 15 year old boy be punished for a choice that the girl made because she thought being a mother would be cute? Why should a man be punished because a woman suddenly discovers her religious side when she falls pregnant, but not when she's engaging in fornication with him after a night on the town? Child support can ruin a man's life, as much as pregnancy or abortion can ruin a woman's.

And to be really honest, you all are acting like every single man on this earth would be rushing out to sign up for one of these. I don't actually know a single man who would.

And why oh why, is it that a woman should not be "punished" for choosing to have sex, by being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but a man should by having his life ruined. I don't know many women who would go out with a man who is paying child support to a child that he has nothing to do with, that was born out of a drunken roll in the hay, or a month long relationship or a first sexual encounter when he was 16. Why should a 15 year old boy be punished for a choice that the girl made because she thought being a mother would be cute? Why should a man be punished because a woman suddenly discovers her religious side when she falls pregnant, but not when she's engaging in fornication with him after a night on the town? Child support can ruin a man's life, as much as pregnancy or abortion can ruin a woman's.

first of all, no woman gets off easy when she gets pregnant. abortion isnt easy, it isnt completely safe, it has the potential for disaster. so does carrying a child to term. she has to deal with it the rest of her life.

life has all sorts of unintended and unfair consequences for decisions we make without thinking it all the way through. things that affect our lives forever. a 16 year old boy might get his girlfriend pregnant. he might go to a party and get drunk, drive home and kill someone. he might try a bit of marajuana behind the highschool and end up with a drug conviction. he might steal muffins from the cafeteria and end up with a theft conviction. he might go target shooting with his best friend and end up shooting him.

shit happens. its not wrong to have to deal with the consequences of the choices you make even when you were young and stupid when you made the decision. it may not be "fair" but its the way life is.

he has no right to demand that someone else fix his mistake. its the result of his decision and he has to deal with whatever the outcome of that decision turns out to be. there is just no way around it.

If the man doesn't want to accidentally get a woman pregnant, he has several options prior to having sex.

1. Get a vasectomy.
2. Use contraception (iffy, but better than nothing).
3. Don't have sex with women - have sex with men.
4. Don't have sex with women - use your right hand.

Almost all of those could be said for a women not wanting to get pregnant and thus not getting an abortion. (their female counterparts)

His proposition does not create a new right for men so much as protects the already existing right to property.
That is untrue. It creates a new right.
Specifically, it grants the man protection against taking his money for 18 years to pay for a child he didn't want and would have aborted had he been able.
Which is an entirely new right. There is no existing right to property that includes a right to refuse to meet legal obligations and/or liabilities that arise as a result of one's conduct/actions/omissions/what-have-you.

Seeing as the man consented to sex but did not consent to having a child in the first place but that an unfortunate accident happened, I find it hard to put a damper on his right to property based on a decision that is ultimately not his.
A damper is not being put on his right to property. His property rights are uneffected.

His right are being infringed upon, no question about that.
I am yet to see an example of even one such right....so clearly there is some question...

The question is whether the government has a significant public interest in limiting their right.
No one's rights are being limited.

Be careful how you answer this as your argument can be used to force women to carry pregnancy to term.
Might it, I fail to see the connection....

he has no right to demand that someone else fix his mistake. its the result of his decision and he has to deal with whatever the outcome of that decision turns out to be. there is just no way around it.

Same could be said for her.

And yes, but to me, the paper abortion is a way of dealing with his mistakes. I honestly can't think of a single one of my guy friends who would actually consider this option. I just think it should be there for them. Since some guys are really incapable of being responsible for a child, even on the level of child support payments, and other guys would really screw their lives up. And please don't give me the line "they should have thought about that before they had sex." because as far as I'm concerned it goes for the woman too. She shouldn't have more rights because she is the one who has to make the decision about her body. She should have thought about what could happen (I could get pregnant and have to make a really horrible choice) before she had sex too. I was by no means trying to imply that women get off easy in this situation. As I said before, I've taken steps to avoid ever being in that position, because I don't want to make that choice.

Same could be said for her.

And yes, but to me, the paper abortion is a way of dealing with his mistakes. I honestly can't think of a single one of my guy friends who would actually consider this option. I just think it should be there for them. Since some guys are really incapable of being responsible for a child, even on the level of child support payments, and other guys would really screw their lives up. And please don't give me the line "they should have thought about that before they had sex." because as far as I'm concerned it goes for the woman too. She shouldn't have more rights because she is the one who has to make the decision about her body. She should have thought about what could happen (I could get pregnant and have to make a really horrible choice) before she had sex too. I was by no means trying to imply that women get off easy in this situation. As I said before, I've taken steps to avoid ever being in that position, because I don't want to make that choice.

and i dont see why her having the choice to decide to not continue being pregnant should void all responsibility on his part (unless he willingly takes it on as if he were a stranger off the street)

his responsibility is to the child (should one be born) not to anyone or anything else and it is the direct result of his own actions.

of course few men would use such a document. a child is a benefit not a detriment. most men want the children they have no matter how they got them and no matter how they feel about the woman who bore them.

the thing is, you dont know how you feel about a baby until it is born. before that day its an abstract thing even when its stomping so hard on your bladder that it aches. when that baby is born, things change. you see that it looks like you, or the baby picture of your sister. it looks into your eyes and smiles (even if it is just gas) and your heart melts. maybe THEN there are men so cold that they would walk away. mabye THEN it would be reasonable to come to some decision on supporting his own child and having it in his life. before then, he can only imagine how he will feel and his imagination is probably wrong.

If a person is unnecessarily relying on an unreliable source for money to take care of their children, no reasonable person can argue that they are doing everything they can for that child.
Right, and if a person who necessarily must rely on an unreliable source or simply not properly meet their child's needs, refuses to rely on that source, they are not doing everything they can for the their child.
I dont believe that every parent who is doing everything they know how, the best they know how, yet cannot balance their outgoing costs with their earning capacity is necessarily an irresponsible parent.

You don't have to believe it for it to be there.
It doesnt have to be there for you to believe it.

And it is only necessary if the custodial parent's financial status is such that they cannot take care of the child. To suggest that child support has any effect at all, no matter what the custodial parent's financial status is, is ludicrous.
I have not made such a suggestion though.

Haven't worked with the government much, have you? Try it some time. Look at the amount of BS you have to go through just to do something simple - like register a car and keep it registered. Look at how many people are involved and what happens if, God forbid, there is anything that isn't exactly and completely by whatever book they hand the people lowest on the totem pole.
None of this is by necessity. It is not necessary to make lone parents jump through hoops in order to do what the law essentially wants and expects them to do. It doesnt have to be so hard and given the state's interest in the wellbeing of effected children, it shouldnt be this way.

Sometimes that is a struggle. The fact that we have government processes, even if they are a bit inefficient at times, to help people get there is a good thing. We're never going to have a situation where everyone starts out with plenty and no one has to struggle. Sorry.
I did not state that everyone should begin with plenty. I dont see that the government and it's processes are helping much at all. There is no need to have children dragged into nightclasses (or similar). If there is only one parent in a household, doesnt it stand to reason that child-care might be a particular issue for such households? Unless few lone parents are in need of or could benefit themselves (and their children) through further education, it shouldnt take a genius in logistics to work out that support with child care would be helpful to some lone parents furthering their education, and essential to others. I find it impossible to believe that no parent has either been prevented from pursuing education goals, or delayed in achieving them as a direct result of child-care issues.

Support with child care is the least the state can help with and in fact it s

You think the government is currently monitoring the finances of every parent in such detail that they know every month whether or not a child support check has been written, received, cashed, and properly used?

Shall I get you a tinfoil hat?
No I dont, why would you think I think that? I'm not suggesting anything that would require the state to know these things (although arguably knowing that cheques have been cashed is sufficient information to verify that the cheques have been written and recieved.....)
It seems you are overcomplicating what has been suggested. The government already keeps track of declared income. It already has an interest is ascertaining parental income and making determinations about child support accordingly. When such orders are not abided by the state already is the authority that parents must apply to for assistance in getting the order complied with.
The difference I am suggesting would simply mean that if child support payment is an issue, the burden of forcing compliance is accorded to the most appropriate party - the State.
The actual logistics are not at all complicated. If either parent wishes to do so, they simply authorise the state to act as a transacting agent. In this role the state need only concern itself with parents who's support payments they are handling. Whether or not the liable parent has made payment is a simple matter of data matching, and the State is responsible for chasing up the liable parent for late or unpaid child support.
Since the state is paying the support to the custodial parent, it shouldnt be too hard to figure that part out. The state has no more business checking up how a lone parent handles the household finances, than it has checking up on anyone else.
So the state knows who's payments it is responsible for transacting, and then need only know which of these payments have been recieved and which have not.

Only if you ignore the way the government actually works.
The fact that the government apparently doesnt work (as per the current system) hardly seems like a good justification for not changing the way it does things.

I'm sure that almost every point I could have added to this debate have long since been stated, debated, & restated many times over, so I shall just put down my opinion & why I believe this.

While I think that it would be great for male consent, as an equaliser, it is the woman who has to go through the labour if the baby is kept.
If there was a way of transferring the feotus to the male, instead of abortion, I'm sure many would jump for it.
But at the time there isn't.
Look, labour is painful. It is stressful & messy. It requires a hospital, maternity leave, time off work before & after the birth.
Some cannot afford to do this.
& then there is the whole body distortion, & hormone thing.
So; to rehash: It is the womans body that contains the fetus (sorry, cliche), & the woman who has to go through the actual birth.
I think that the woman in question should probably tell the father, get their opinion, & try talk it out beforehand, so both parties feel better about whatever outcome results, but in the end, it should be the person who is carrying the fetuses (who usually happens to be a woman) choice what happens.

What they cannot rely upon the government for is that the government will be able to monitor and automagically know when someone else is not paying child support and quickly rectify that.

See the difference? In one case, the government is making out the checks. In the other, Zagat expects the government to somehow monitor the finances of every parent (custodial and noncustodial) in order to ensure that every payment that is supposed to be made is made, and to act quickly to rectify it otherwise. According to Zagat, no custodial parent should ever have to fill out any paperwork if they aren't receiving money, the government should just know and fix it.
That is incorrect.
First problem is that you seem not to understand that my suggestion requires that in every instance where the government/state administers child support, it is indeed the government who is 'writing the cheque'.
Second problem, I do not expect, have never suggested I expect, nor see any reason why anything I have suggested would imply the government would somehow monitor the finances of every parent (custodial and noncustodial). Whyever would that be necessary or desirable?

Whatever information is currently sufficient to allow the courts to make child support determinations, would remain sufficient. Where no effected parent of a child authorises the state/government to administer/transact child support payments, the state/government need know not a single thing more than they would currently need to know.
Parents whose child support is being adminstered by the state would be the only parents the state needed any additional info about at all. In the case of the custodial parent, the state needs to know how to pay them, in the case of the liable parent the state needs only know who didnt pay when they should have. This is very easily done. The state simply data matches payments recieved with payments due.

Now, how exactly would a government do this? Could it could completely invade the privacy of these citizens and watch every single transaction they make? Not really, unless it followed them around, since we have this thing called cash. And there's also the Constitution to worry about.
Where on earth are you getting these bizaare ideas? Nothing I have said requires that the government watch every single transaction made by anyone. I cannot for the life of me imagine what purpose such knowledge would serve in regards to what I suggest.
I'm finding it difficult to believe that you are being entirely earnest at this point. I simply cannot conceive any possible reason for such knowledge being useful, much less necessary, in the context of administering child support payments.

Could it automatically start garnishing wages the minute child support was ordered? Sure, so long as the noncustodial parent was getting paid regularly. You couldn't do it with a contractor or someone who does odd jobs without steady employment - they only report wages once a year.
The current system must take such situations into account. The system I am suggesting would not result in any effect (better or worse) in such cases. The system I am proposing makes no difference whatsoever to how the courts determine the amount of child support a liable parent should pay.

You couldn't do it with anyone getting paid under the table - they don't generally report income at all.
As with the above example, this is a red herring. The system I am proposing is not a system for determining how much child support should be paid by who. Under the system I am proposing, non-declaration of income would be the same as it is now. These 2 examples are not of problems with what I am proposing because they are not either the target or a result of what I suggest.

Not to mention that such a system punishes the innocent much more than the guilty. What if the person paying child support needs a month or so to get finances in order? A custodial parent might grant that - but the paperwork to get it approved would be silly and, in some cases, might even be impossible to push through in time. What then? There isn't enough money in the account and someone gets sent to jail?
Goodness me, what drama!
If someone is in arrears with payments of some kind or other, surely it is not usual to immediately throw them in prison? Your suggestions are becoming increasingly silly. Are you suggesting that under the current system a person is likely to locked up in prison for being one month late on their child support, despite this not being habitual or aggravated by intentional refusals to abide by court orders?
Should a liable parent be late or remiss in their payments, they would be treated as an unpaid debtor. It is usual in the case of unpaid debtors for statements noting the overdue amount to be sent, in most cases a creditor will even send a letter seperate to statements indicating the overdue amount, prior to taking any actual action to enforce the debt. I see no reason why prison would be the first option rather than the last in the context of the system I suggest.
As for the account not having enough money.....the state/government is responsible for paying the child support to the custodial parent. The only difference between what I suggest and what is currently being done is that in such cases the burden of carrying the debt is on the state (who is in a better position to carry the burden than is the custodial parent), as is the burden of chasing up the liable parent for any arrears.
Under the current system the custodial parent is left short (on money) and has to chase up the government to get the government to chase up the liable parent. Under the system I propose the custodial parent need not concern themselves with chasing after child support once they have authorised the state to administer the payments for them.

My point is that the government is a beurocratic system and it doesn't (and shouldn't) have the kind of control over people's finances that Zagat is proposing.
Zagat is not proposing the kind of control you have described, in fact Zagat is very curious to know how you came to believe that such control was necessary for the system described.

Your false dichotomy is just that - a false dichotomy. I have never said that the government cannot be relied upon for support. I said it cannot be relied upon to guarrantee support from someone else.
No one is saying the government should be relied on to make a person pay another. What is being suggested is that the government ensure that the child support that was ordered be paid to the custodial parent in any event whilst also maximising the rate of compliance and minimising the rate of bad-debtors.

Almost all of those could be said for a women not wanting to get pregnant and thus not getting an abortion. (their female counterparts)

Yep, except in an abortion there is no child so there is no one else's rights to consider. In anything a man can do after a pregnancy begins there is another's rights to consder. When you can show that an abortion is inconsiderate of an existing child or a child that will exist (clearly if an abortion occurs there will be no existing child) you will be able to apply these same arguments to an abortion. Until then... who's rights are not being considered when an abortion is allowed?

Well for all that you crap on about it, obviously the man doesn't agree to care for a child if one results, since he in these situations states quite clearly that he wants nothing to do with it.

Who cares if he agrees? He chose to take actions that resulted in a child, a reasonable result of said actions. The child has rights and those rights are protected. Those require both people who took actions that resulted in a child, again a reasonable result of said actions, to take on exactly the same level or responsibility.

I am sick and tired of you acting like I am the one not caring for the best interests of the child. That would be the woman who chose to have it, knowing full well that she couldn't care for it adequately without assistance. As far as I am concerned, abortion is available, it is legal. It shows great selflessness to ignore your maternal instinct because you know that at the present time you are incapable of caring for a child without creating a burden for anyone else, and choosing to act in the best interests of the child and ensure that it is not born. It is not in the best interest of the child to be born into a world where a person who is supposed to love them, considers them a burden, considers them to have ruined their life. Women who make the difficult choice to put aside their maternal instinct and do what is in actual fact best for everyone INCLUDING the child, are to be applauded. They are making a difficult decision, one which I have taken steps to ensure I never have to make.

Doesn't matter if her decision is selfish or unselfish, it is her body and her decision. Her decision DOES NOT mean the child should be denied its rights. You want to take rights away from the child. When you can show that the mother's choice to not get a surgery is the fault of the child then your 'fault' argument might make a little sense. Your response to what you consider an irresponsible decision is to allow the other parent to be equally irresponsible.

You are denying rights to the child. That is why we are acting like... *gasp*, you are denying rights to the child.

And why oh why, is it that a woman should not be "punished" for choosing to have sex, by being forced to carry the pregnancy to term, but a man should by having his life ruined. I don't know many women who would go out with a man who is paying child support to a child that he has nothing to do with, that was born out of a drunken roll in the hay, or a month long relationship or a first sexual encounter when he was 16. Why should a 15 year old boy be punished for a choice that the girl made because she thought being a mother would be cute? Why should a man be punished because a woman suddenly discovers her religious side when she falls pregnant, but not when she's engaging in fornication with him after a night on the town? Child support can ruin a man's life, as much as pregnancy or abortion can ruin a woman's.

Because the woman has an option that does not infringe on the rights of any other person, no child, no father of a child, no one else who is effected by an abortion. In fact the only time anyone is affected is in the absense of an abortion. Hardly, an argument for outlawing them.

In the 'paper abortion', two other legal persons are effected. The arguments that apply when other people are involved do not apply when other people are not involved. Amazing how that works, huh?

Why should an innocent child be punished for a decision that was made by two people who were adult enough to have sex, when both of those people know there was a possibility that a child might result? Certainly you're not arguing that a child is more at fault than the father. Because its the child's rights you are taking away, not the mother's. You are not punishing the woman. The woman is already held responsible for her role in the process.

And to be really honest, you all are acting like every single man on this earth would be rushing out to sign up for one of these. I don't actually know a single man who would.
No one is acting like that. We are acting like any child left without enough support is a bad thing. And we are arguing that we will do whatever possible to prevent such and event.

If no one will use this then why are you arguing it should be avialable?

Same could be said for her.

And yes, but to me, the paper abortion is a way of dealing with his mistakes. I honestly can't think of a single one of my guy friends who would actually consider this option. I just think it should be there for them. Since some guys are really incapable of being responsible for a child, even on the level of child support payments, and other guys would really screw their lives up. And please don't give me the line "they should have thought about that before they had sex." because as far as I'm concerned it goes for the woman too. She shouldn't have more rights because she is the one who has to make the decision about her body. She should have thought about what could happen (I could get pregnant and have to make a really horrible choice) before she had sex too. I was by no means trying to imply that women get off easy in this situation. As I said before, I've taken steps to avoid ever being in that position, because I don't want to make that choice.

How is denying the support a child has a right to "fixing his mistake"? The woman's abortion results in there being no child. There is no child's rights to consider. You want to forego the child's rights and claim that this somehow is the father taking responsibility for his actions. When a woman gets pregnant by nature she must either undergo surgery or let nature take its course. There is no way for her to fully avoid responsibility for her actions.

The man, however, only has to take any responsibility if a child happens to be born, and only after the child is born. Now you wish to allow to fully avoid any responsibility for the pregnancy and at the expense of the rights of the child.

Now the child must take responsibility for having taken no actions and having no responsibility for the process of its birth, according to you. And you call this the man 'fixing his mistakes'. It seems to me that's simply allowing the man to make another one.

Ok, I'm not even going to risk trying to reply to all these well-thought-out opinions and instead I'm just gonna try to state my views.

While I am not really pro-choice, or even strictly pro-life, I believe that for the continuity of this thread I should put that aside for the moment and brave the flames. Supposing that a young woman who gets pregnant off some guy who claims to love her. And yet when she decides she doesn't want to get an abortion, he tells her he's gonna break up with her and try to get out of paying for the child, because he thinks that that is his right, as the man. The young woman needs at least a little bit of his money to keep the child alibe or else she has to give her child away to some unknown people. I mean, obviously, if you're going to look at it all cold and rational like, if she didn't, or couldn't get an abortion, she should get an adoption if she couldn't pay to bring up the child, and the father wasn't willing to help. But still, I think that the mother has a right to keep her own child, who she screwed herself up for to bring into the world alive. No? Anyway, saying that the man didn't ask for the child and shouldn't have to ruin his life for it, well, why didn't he make precautions and agreements before hand so he wouldn't have to? I mean, you say that not letting the man have his rights is like putting all the blame and pain on him when it should be on them equally, but if he has 'his rights' then the burden all falls on the mother, which isn't really that fair, is it? Even if she made an unwise choice considering her financial state, she still has some right to her child and help from the man who's child it is also, no? *sigh* Oh, and don't even START on the she should have aborted or given it up for adoption. Sometimes, those things just aren't an option. I'm not saying it should be like that all the time. But when it's at a point where the decision's made and there's no going back... it just seems unfair. But yes, the couple SHOULD discuss it as soon as they know, so they can come to their own preferred and 'fair' decision.

*runs away from mob and hides*
No need for any flames, I'm gone. :headbang: