Poll of the Day > Arv doesn't agree with her body her choice

(+) Yeah! (+)

Because the same people would cry foul if a man didnt pay child support is that when it takes 2 to have a baby

---

I think abortions should be readily available AND that if a man makes it abundantly clear (before or early on in pregnancy) to the woman that he doesn't want to have children he shouldn't be liable if one is conceived and the mother chooses to not abort

---

Clench281 posted...

I think abortions should be readily available AND that if a man makes it abundantly clear (before or early on in pregnancy) to the woman that he doesn't want to have children he shouldn't be liable if one is conceived and the mother chooses to not abort

Lol then more guys would be having sex without condoms or without repercussions well he doesnt want it so he doesnt have to pay

---

A man can't make a one-party decision to not wear a condom if the other party refuses sex without one, hope that helps

---

Anyone with a brain can see that the system is rigged against men in this case, and even in divorce cases.

Men would be hitting the streets and protesting it, too, if it werent because:

1. Men are just supposed to take it.
2. Theyre too busy working to pay for Beckys alimony.

---

Jesus christ.

Clench281 posted...

I think abortions should be readily available AND that if a man makes it abundantly clear (before or early on in pregnancy) to the woman that he doesn't want to have children he shouldn't be liable if one is conceived and the mother chooses to not abort

This, though I think declaring it on a per-pregnancy basis would be better than blanket statements (to account for the sentiment of "I want kids, just not one right now"). There should be a reasonable deadline to make such a call to ensure the woman has ample time to make an informed decision to pursue an abortion (and, in turn, any age limits on abortion should provide time for both the man and the woman to make their respective decisions), but ultimately, men should have a "this pregnancy was a mistake and I want to prevent further life-changing consequences" option that mirrors abortion. That option should not exist unless abortion is readily available for the woman, but given that caveat, that's really the only way to make it fair.

Of course, these are generally discussions one should be having with one's partner before there's any chance of pregnancy, and sex shouldn't happen if they aren't on the same page about how to handle mistakes, but these options should still exist for cases where couples somehow fail to establish that (whether carelessly or deliberately).

---

Arv no one cares what you think

---

I always figured it be nice if the guy could opt out. But they could have no further contact with the child ever At all
---

LinkPizza posted...

I always figured it be nice if the guy could opt out. But they could have no further contact with the child ever At all

Suppose up until the kid is a adult this would work.

---

wwinterj25 posted...

Suppose up until the kid is a adult this would work.

Id keep it illegal even then
---

LinkPizza posted...

I always figured it be nice if the guy could opt out. But they could have no further contact with the child ever At all

That'd mostly boil down to what the mother wanted. Completely barring him from having any contact with the child would be largely infeasible without going full restraining order (and that's a little much), but giving the mother exclusive custody would be a given.

---

Arv should stick to being a dumb gimmick account and leave his shitty politics out of things

---

adjl posted...

That'd mostly boil down to what the mother wanted. Completely barring him from having any contact with the child would be largely infeasible without going full restraining order (and that's a little much), but giving the mother exclusive custody would be a given.

Its a little much. But I think thats needed. I think if you are giving up full rights so you dont have to pay child support and stuff like that, you give up full rights to the child. Its not something that should be taken lightly. Thats how I see it, at least. Kind of like an abortion for men, in a sense
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its a little much. But I think thats needed. I think if you are giving up full rights so you dont have to pay child support and stuff like that, you give up full rights to the child. Its not something that should be taken lightly. Thats how I see it, at least. Kind of like an abortion for men, in a sense

If the kid wants to find their biological dad after they turn 18 that should be up to them, not the mom

---

Muscles posted...

If the kid wants to find their biological dad after they turn 18 that should be up to them, not the mom

But it's not the mom who decided. Why bring her into this conversation? I'm talking about if the dad wants to give up all all parental rights, he should be allowed to. But this will come with certain costs. Like while he won't have to pay any child support, he's also not allowed to see the child at all, nor entitled to photos or time spent with the child. He's basically becomes a stranger to the child. And neither of them should be allowed to meet up after or whatever. Or else, it's like the father can have a kid without any of the consequences. I think those terms of never seeing the child should last forever. That way, it's a much harder decision that you have to take time to think about...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Its a little much. But I think thats needed. I think if you are giving up full rights so you dont have to pay child support and stuff like that, you give up full rights to the child. Its not something that should be taken lightly. Thats how I see it, at least. Kind of like an abortion for men, in a sense

That would be necessary if we're looking to create a perfect copy of an abortion from the guy's perspective, but I don't think that's really something that's necessary to create at all. As long as the mother retains the ability to dictate how involved he is in the child's life and he has no ability to claim custody (at least, not without paying whatever child support he would have paid if he'd had similar custody since birth), I think that's all that actually needs to happen.

LinkPizza posted...

Like while he won't have to pay any child support, he's also not allowed to see the child at all, nor entitled to photos or time spent with the child. He's basically becomes a stranger to the child.

Being a stranger doesn't mean having a restraining order, though. You're certainly limited in how much you can interact with them, based on the parent(s)'s wishes, but you can still meet and spend time with the child, eventually according to the child's wishes without the need for parental consent. The "be a stranger" condition makes sense (presumably, if the guy's eschewing any involvement with the child he fathered, the relationship's going to be over, and it's pretty normal for kids to never have any interactions with their parents' exes), but ramping that up to a full-on restraining order is just silly and impractical.

---

LinkPizza posted...

Id keep it illegal even then

I wouldn't. Some kids might want to find their parent when a adult.

LinkPizza posted...

And neither of them should be allowed to meet up after or whatever. Or else, it's like the father can have a kid without any of the consequences.

The consequences of not seeing the child until a adult or even longer depending on the adults choice would be enough. Not exactly the same but my mum rightfully has no contact with me or my siblings however I'd hate if some legal thing prevented me as a adult from trying to track her down for information at least.

---

adjl posted...

That would be necessary if we're looking to create a perfect copy of an abortion from the guy's perspective, but I don't think that's really something that's necessary to create at all. As long as the mother retains the ability to dictate how involved he is in the child's life and he has no ability to claim custody (at least, not without paying whatever child support he would have paid if he'd had similar custody since birth), I think that's all that actually needs to happen.

Thats where we disagree. I think if hes involved and get to visit the kid and stuff, he should have to pay child support. Because hes involved But if he doesnt want to pay child support, I think he shouldnt have any contact. But thats just how I feel about it Plus, what you said in the beginning is what I was doing. Basically, a male version of an abortion

adjl posted...

Being a stranger doesn't mean having a restraining order, though. You're certainly limited in how much you can interact with them, based on the parent(s)'s wishes, but you can still meet and spend time with the child, eventually according to the child's wishes without the need for parental consent. The "be a stranger" condition makes sense (presumably, if the guy's eschewing any involvement with the child he fathered, the relationship's going to be over, and it's pretty normal for kids to never have any interactions with their parents' exes), but ramping that up to a full-on restraining order is just silly and impractical.

Being a stranger was just how I describe it. Basically, I just meant no contact at all, and basically had no connection to them But again, thats how I see it. I think non child support, but absolutely no contact with the child, either And I dont think its silly. Big choices like this should come with bit consequences. Being able to still interact with the child is like giving them an out. To me, they either are the father and pay child support, or pay nothing, but also have no contact
---

wwinterj25 posted...

I wouldn't. Some kids might want to find their parent when a adult.

The consequences of not seeing the child until a adult or even longer depending on the adults choice would be enough. Not exactly the same but my mum rightfully has no contact with me or my siblings however I'd hate if some legal thing prevented me as a adult from trying to track her down for information at least.

I will say there is one reason to track them down. Medical history and possible donor status or whatever would be the only reason I think should be allowed. Again, thats just how I see it Having a child has consequences. But if you want to give up all rights, I think they should be given up forever Ever
---

LinkPizza posted...

I will say there is one reason to track them down. Medical history and possible donor status or whatever would be the only reason I think should be allowed. Again, thats just how I see it Having a child has consequences. But if you want to give up all rights, I think they should be given up forever Ever

As I said. The farther giving up rights forever won't stop the kid from wanting to track down the farther. This could even be to track down any half siblings they have like in my case(only mum not dad). Doesn't make any sense preventing a adult from doing that.

---

Regarding situations where one party wants the abortion and the other party does not, how are those typically handled? Assuming of course consensual sex.

Given the physical, legal, financial, and even emotional aspects involved with birthing and raising a child. What if the woman wants to go through with the birth and the man does not? What if the man wants the child but the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy?

---

wwinterj25 posted...

As I said. The farther giving up rights forever won't stop the kid from wanting to track down the farther. This could even be to track down any half siblings they have like in my case(only mum not dad). Doesn't make any sense preventing a adult from doing that.

Yes. If they know who it is, they could easier track them. And may do so. But Im not making the rules. Im just saying what I think they should be. I dont think anybinformation should be given to either party. If the mother wants to tell the child, I guess she could If the father lets her. Id personally never let them meet, though. He gave up his rights as father for a reason, so he should be able to remain hidden if he wants to. Just like I dont think he should be in the childs life at all. I just think both choices like this need big consequences. If not, its just giving the father an out for child support, while still being able to be a father later. And thats kind of a shitty thing to do
---

InfestedAdam posted...

Regarding situations where one party wants the abortion and the other party does not, how are those typically handled? Assuming of course consensual sex.

Given the physical, legal, financial, and even emotional aspects involved with birthing and raising a child. What if the woman wants to go through with the birth and the man does not? What if the man wants the child but the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy?

AFAIK, the women gets to choose. The man has no choice. Which is why I think a make version of abortion would be good (as in giving up all rights to the child) On the case of the man wanting the child, but not the women, she can give it up. I guess he could move to a state with illegal abortions or something
---

LinkPizza posted...

Id personally never let them meet, though.

Can't do anything about what a adult does regardless of if you're the adults parent. That's how it should stay but I do agree with the no contact when they are kids.

If not, its just giving the father an out for child support, while still being able to be a father later. And thats kind of a shitty thing to do

I mean my mum didn't contribute to me or my siblings upbringing. The kids she had after me and my siblings were put into the system. However in theory as me and my siblings are all now adults she could be a "mum" if we wanted that. I'm much more interested in finding my half siblings than a relationship with my mum but she would be a route for information. I wouldn't want more obstacles in my way like a law saying I can't have contact as a adult with my mum or track down the half siblings I have just because she didn't want us(in this case).


---

wwinterj25 posted...

Can't do anything about what a adult does regardless of if you're the adults parent. That's how it should stay but I do agree with the no contact when they are kids.

Technically, they couldnt. But if its a law, that could discourage some people as adults

wwinterj25 posted...

I mean my mum didn't contribute to me or my siblings upbringing. The kids she had after me and my siblings were put into the system. However in theory as me and my siblings are all now adults she could be a "mum" if we wanted that. I'm much more interested in finding my half siblings than a relationship with my mum but she would be a route for information. I wouldn't want more obstacles in my way like a law saying I can't have contact as a adult with my mum or track down the half siblings I have just because she didn't want us(in this case).

They could be a parent. I just think its unfair to the other parent. If you give up your rights to your kids so you dont have to pay child support, then become worlds best dad afterwards, its just seems like a shitty person who didnt want to pay for their child, but still wants to play dad. I think thats kind of wrong and unfair. And sure, the works isnt fair. That doesnt mean we should help people to weasel of out paying for something (child support in this case) And if they dont want to give up all rights, they dont have to. But they may have to pay child support if the mother wants that And I think there should be obstacles is some cases. For example, if they father really doesnt want to be known or found, then it should stay that way. No need to give out information he never wanted given out
---

LinkPizza posted...

Thats where we disagree. I think if hes involved and get to visit the kid and stuff, he should have to pay child support. Because hes involved

Does any other person that's involved in the kid's life have to pay child support in exchange for that involvement?

LinkPizza posted...

And I dont think its silly. Big choices like this should come with bit consequences.

That's completely arbitrary, though, and not altogether practical to enforce. You're literally suggesting a restraining order that the subject of the order (the child) doesn't agree to and can never override, for the sake of arbitrarily attaching major consequences to what's functionally nothing more than a custody decision. The infrastructure already exists to grant one parent sole custody without resorting to restraining orders (outside of extreme cases where the other parent really doesn't cope well with that decision, but that's in response to actual criminal harassment). There's no reason this system couldn't just follow that.

---

adjl posted...

Does any other person that's involved in the kid's life have to pay child support in exchange for that involvement?

Nope. But he does. And I think it would be unfair to give up your rights so you dont have to pay child support, only to get those rights back later when you dont have to pay anymore. Seems kind of wrong

adjl posted...

That's completely arbitrary, though, and not altogether practical to enforce. You're literally suggesting a restraining order that the subject of the order (the child) doesn't agree to and can never override, for the sake of arbitrarily attaching major consequences to what's functionally nothing more than a custody decision. The infrastructure already exists to grant one parent sole custody without resorting to restraining orders (outside of extreme cases where the other parent really doesn't cope well with that decision, but that's in response to actual criminal harassment). There's no reason this system couldn't just follow that.

I dont see it as arbitrary. It could possibly be hard to enforce. Though, maybe not. Really depends on the people that do decide to use it. Depending on the consequences of breaking those rules, it could dissuade people from breaking them Also, I see it as more than a custody situation. Because its different than a custody situation. This is a form of breaking off contact and a relationship with someone altogether. If it was just custody, you wouldnt need to basically perform a male abortion. You just dont take custody. This is different, though
---